Suppose a Drone killed 3000 civilians with the intention of killing civilians (like Dresden or Tokyo bombings of WWII) then I'd say yeah, they're siblings but: Nah, civilians are collateral damage for drones, the goal was not to kill as many of them as possible and terrorize them. It was to eliminate particular individuals, so no it's not en masse.
If we take your 100 women and children (heh, nice) and say they were without a doubt killed by a drone and were killed intentionally as a target by the drones I would say: You're still off by an order of cardinality in comparison. So that's a bad comparison too.
Falujah, where there was a battle and there were actual enemy combatants in a stronghold city and you're complaining about the depleted uranium after the fact? Sure you could remove context to everything and you'll get exactly what you're saying: Drivel.
A WHO report? So? That assertion alone is supposed to do what, reinforce how deplorable Falujah is on account of the weapons used?
Tell ya what when you're in charge of arming your soldiers of your nation and someone says: "you can use depleted uranium to penetrate the armor of your enemies but it'll have negative effect on the environment, or you can use just lead with negligible armor piercing and minimal comparative environmental effect." You can pick the environmental choice and tell the dead parents and the dying soldiers you're responsible for that you didn't want to pick armor piercing rounds because you were trying to protect the future flora and fauna of a foreign land you don't have sovereignty over. Or you could tell them that you did everything in your power to do your job and service to the nation and it's people in arming the soldiers under your command and that the integrity of the environment of a city in Iraq was secondary to your concern over American lives.
Are you kidding? First, depleted uranium is not just about the "fauna and flora", it's about children being born with horrible birth defects and other untold human damage.
Secondly, your entire argument attempting to justify what we did in Iraq omits the most salient point: the fact that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. So, nothing we've done there is justified, including the death and maiming of our own soldiers.
Thirdly, you conveniently omit the hundreds of thousands or more of the innocent Iraqi civilians who were killed. I would say that people of Iraq certainly died en masse.
Your ignorance might be forgivable if you weren't so arrogant about it, and not so cavalier about human suffering and death.
