The use of depleted uranium munitions has been fiercely debated, with opponents like the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons saying there are dangerous health risks from ingesting or inhaling depleted uranium dust, including cancers and birth defects.
I did answer your question in detail, and it's safe to dismiss anybody who uses whataboutism as a form of argument. That's just a logical fallacy that imbeciles use to try and create a double standard.
You didn't, and I didn't use What-aboutism. I pointed out that you did. You said "what about...." What's wrong with you?
I did, and you crying about whataboutism is what I'm referring to. Anybody who calls out whataboutism as a form of argument is engaging in intellectual dishonesty. The question you set up is fundamentally wrong, and you're fishing for an answer for that setup. This is like me asking you if you've stopped beating your wife.
I love that, in your opinion, calling out What-aboutism is "intellectual dishonesty" but using it is totally OK.
I also love that you say you both answered the question, and also that you didn't because it was wrong to ask.
That's be easy to answer for anyone being honest. It's either "I never did", "yes", or "no". Someone who want to hide something may not answer the question though, and likely they'll do something to throw people off, like attacking them for something they did instead (aka, "what about..."). It's avoiding the question.
Calling whataboutism simply serves to set up a double standard for yourself and others. That's what makes it intellectually dishonest. Meanwhile, there is nothing intellectually dishonest about pointing out hypocrisy and double standards.
I answered your question by explaining to you in detail why the question is nonsensical. US is currently supporting fascists in Ukraine, trying to compare that to US supporting allies fighting against fascists in WW2 is backwards. The fact that you can't comprehend that says volumes.
Once again you missed the whole point there which is setting up a false premise and then trying to get the other person to work within that premise. This is precisely what you did with your question. Pointing that out isn't avoiding the question it's calling out your bullshit.
You libs always want to demand every single historical event be perceived and analyzed in a vacuum. This is why you get mocked so often.