american citizens guilty for crimes against humanity in Fallujah

reply to post by SirMike


Okay, so we have established that there is academic evidence to support both sides of the argument. Remember, scientists were able to prove that cigarettes didn't cause cancer for many years. I say that because it can be used on either side of our argument--manipulation is present in academia to serve interests. With that said, let's move on.

The issue here is the potential health risks of using depleted uranium (DU from here) rounds. Now the scope of severity when dealing with DU is that the results or health concerns will not manifest themselves immediately. This process alters reproduction, and since it is not instantaneous, results will not be as widespread immediately.

There are, however, ample cases where birth defects have originated in areas with particularly high concentrations of DU ammunition. Let's first examine it's impact on American service members. As an aside, the VA would not be serving its best interests to confirm DU as a cause of all of these cancers. It is funded directly by a government in a military-industrial complex.

"Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War.

Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated: “The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military.”

Bernklau continued:
“This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed.”

He added:
“Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of ‘Disabled Vets’ means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems!”

That is 56% of the service members from the Gulf War developing some sort of health issue in the two decades since. Now that is a substantial figure, even larger than post World War II numbers. With the plethora of studies supporting both sides, one must assume that a) one side lying, or b) an incredible amount of honest scientists are getting their data wrong.

Let's then move to the civilian issue. In 2005, "doctors in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, have reported a significant increase in deformities among newborn babies." Now, what could have led to a rise that substantial? The one variable here is the occupation of U.S. troops. It could have been from the Gulf War, or the more recent invasion in 2003. Other than that, Iraq did not have any substantial variables other than war to which these deformities can be attributed to.

During Britain's campaign, "Experts are calling for the water and milk being used by locals in Basra to be monitored after analysis of biological and soil samples from battle zones found 'the highest number, highest levels and highest concentrations of radioactive source points' in the Basra suburb of Abu Khasib — the centre of the fiercest battles between UK forces and Saddam loyalists." Now that seems to me like an obvious correlation between the potential fighting and the levels of radioactivity.

Now as I said before, you have academic support on your side, and I have it on mine as well. So, ultimately, you have to look at the evidence and form your own conclusions since academia cannot come to a consensus. Legally, using the information provided, you can easily say that science supports you and not look any further into the evidence to the contrary.

Can you really, in all honesty, look at depleted uranium, and it's use prior to weaponization, and say there are no health risks associated with its status as a munition? Can you look at the "coincidences" of concentrated areas of violence and birth deformities and chalk it up to pure chance?

Amazingly, stated by a scientist at the University of Southern Maine who conducted much of the research I've cited on health effects: "Funding for DU studies is very sparse and so defining the disadvantages is hard." What a shocker.

reply to post by MGriff


star for you and your approach
i would have lost it trying to explain the facts to mike
im a bit emotional at the moment and feel he is being ignorant to the facts
and this is like rubbing salt into my already heated temper

no sain person can deny the effects of D.U.

D.U. kills children

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Thats the thing I don't get about this war. Personally I believe its to help israel achieve the "greater israel" concept. But why would they want land thats radioactive? unless they have a way to get rid of it. I've read that Israeli jews are already buying up the land in Northern Iraq.

I wouldn't want to live there. lol

Hmmm, more anti-American tripe. Big Surprise, NOT. What country hasn't commited war crimes, I know the US is the only one that alot of you feel should be held acountable for absolutely everything, but give me a break. Exactly which citizens are guilty here? You're a part of the system too, that makes you just as culpable. Personally, war is hell, not my problem, I've really given up on caring about the rest of the world, they are there simply to use the US and for no other reason................it may sound cynical, but we have enough problems here brought about by the bleeding hearts on left, that frankly, I just don't care........................however, feel free to bash away at America all you want, at least here you have that right and freedom payed for by the very people you insult. Enjoy your star and flag fest.

reply to post by MGriff


Lets cut some of the falsehoods out of your post to begin with.
On GW1 veterans:

Results of veterans' assessment programmes in the UK and the USA indicate neither an abnormal pattern of disease which might be expected to result in worsening health with time nor the presence of any unique Gulf-related condition1,2,14,15,16. Veterans do not have an excess of hospital admissions17,18 or have children with excess birth defects19,20. While there was a small statistically significant increase in deaths among American Gulf veterans21,22,23, this was due to accidents not disease; moreover, a recent study by Kang's group24 does not show any significant difference in mortality rates. A UK study showed fewer deaths from disease but more accidental deaths among Gulf veterans than in controls; these results did not reach statistical significance25. There were no excess deaths from cancers. Our clinically derived series from 3000 veterans supports the view of Unwin et al.5 that veterans' physical and social disability was generally not severe.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

No excess mortality from disease, all excess mortality from accidents. No excess birth defects. The majority of service related disabilities are from orthopedic issues (knees being the most common). So that one doesn’t hold much water. Even soldiers with DU fragments still lodged in their bodies have not shown the ill effects that have been plastered all over the media.

You refer to Leuren Moret as an “eminent scientist” but she holds a bachelors in geology and a masters in public relations. If that makes her an “expert” on radiation then I suppose I can claim to be an expert on archeology because I rehabbed a 200 year old farmhouse.

Citing news articles making claims of excess cancers in war torn regions means very little as it is completely anecdotal. For example, anecdotal reports of a spike in Leukemia from Italian peacekeepers in Kosovo turned out to be completely without merit after a proper epidemiological study was performed on the soldiers.

Although further investigation is needed, these preliminary results give no indication of an increased risk of cancer for Italian soldiers who were stationed in Bosnia and Kosovo. The cluster of Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2000 and of thyroid cancer in 2001 were sporadic events, they did not specifically affect deployed personnel and are unlikely to be related to environmental exposures in the Balkans.

found here

observable health effects are not expected and residual cancer risk estimates have to be based on theoretical considerations. They appear to be very minor for all post-conflict situations, i.e. a fraction of those expected from natural radiation

found here

There simply aren’t a “plethora” of studies on both sides of this issue. There are claims and there are real repeatable toxicology and epidemiology studies from professionals in their respective fields of study. As shown above with the Italian peacekeepers, the studies have, to date, refuted the anecdotal reports.

What about workers who had occupational exposure to depleted uranium, surely that’s the silver bullet linking this! Unfortunately, occupation exposure has also shown itself to be not significant.

Fifty years' study of occupational exposure provides little evidence of cancer

Depleted uranium, used in anti-tank weapons, provides a common thread that links concerns about leukaemia and other health effects in peacekeeping forces returned from the Balkans and worries about the environmental impact of debris from weapons in this war-weary segment of Europe. Unlike many agents that seem suddenly to prompt health concerns,[1] however, we know quite a lot about the health effects of depleted uranium.

You want to use this issue as some kind of indictment of American brutality be my guest, but in doing so you completely ignoring all data contrary to your feelings and substituting it with conjecture from any source that validates your preconceived notion of the truth.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Hmmm, more anti-American tripe. Big Surprise, NOT. What country hasn't commited war crimes, I know the US is the only one that alot of you feel should be held acountable for absolutely everything, but give me a break. Exactly which citizens are guilty here? You're a part of the system too, that makes you just as culpable. Personally, war is hell, not my problem, I've really given up on caring about the rest of the world, they are there simply to use the US and for no other reason................it may sound cynical, but we have enough problems here brought about by the bleeding hearts on left, that frankly, I just don't care........................however, feel free to bash away at America all you want, at least here you have that right and freedom payed for by the very people you insult. Enjoy your star and flag fest.

Invading another country, without just cause, exigent circumstances, or *shock* under false pretenses is by definition a 'war crime'.

See the Geneva Convention, I can post a link if you like...

I dont get the chip on your American shoulder...we have war criminals in power here too (transfer of POW's to torturous gaolers). Same for the British, the Aussies, and a host of other nations...

I find your 'everybody-does-it-so-it's-not-that-wrong' attitude disenheartening in extremis..wake up buddy, until all these people hang, regardless of nationality.....I find difficulty in referring to any of us as 'human beings'.

Originally posted by quietone77

Originally posted by adifferentbreed

Invading another country, without just cause, exigent circumstances, or *shock* under false pretenses is by definition a 'war crime'.

See the Geneva Convention, I can post a link if you like...

I dont get the chip on your American shoulder...we have war criminals in power here too (transfer of POW's to torturous gaolers). Same for the British, the Aussies, and a host of other nations...

I find your 'everybody-does-it-so-it's-not-that-wrong' attitude disenheartening in extremis..wake up buddy, until all these people hang, regardless of nationality.....I find difficulty in referring to any of us as 'human beings'.

Hmm, without just cause....

Well I refer you to the cease fire that Saddam Hussein agreed to in 1991. After you have read that, get back to us about not having just cause to invade Iraq.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Hmmm, more anti-American tripe. Big Surprise, NOT. What country hasn't commited war crimes, I know the US is the only one that alot of you feel should be held acountable for absolutely everything, but give me a break. Exactly which citizens are guilty here? You're a part of the system too, that makes you just as culpable. Personally, war is hell, not my problem, I've really given up on caring about the rest of the world, they are there simply to use the US and for no other reason................it may sound cynical, but we have enough problems here brought about by the bleeding hearts on left, that frankly, I just don't care........................however, feel free to bash away at America all you want, at least here you have that right and freedom payed for by the very people you insult. Enjoy your star and flag fest.

so if i robbed a bank a good excuse was others have done it?
does that make it right ? that others are criminal and have done criminal things?
do you try to excuse the death of childern by saying its ok if everyone does it?
are you a satanist?

pointing out culpability of crime is not bashing the us
it is an attempt to open the eyes of the good that the evil are killing woman and childeren in their name!!!!!!!

how can you defend murder of woman and childern?
are you evil ? if so keep up with your support for more and more death
till you are faced with it.

i am repullsed by your veiws

you are welcome to post your veiws on this thread
but i find you guilty of supporting murder of unborn babies
please explain why i am wrong
please

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


War is war, not a circle jerk. You expect us to go out there and spank them? Put them in timeout? Lol go spend a month in fallujah.

Yes, we have committed crimes against humanity.

As long as we remain the book writers, we have NO concern over being held accountable.

Why do you think WE have been getting other countries to sign the:

""The Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage""

This limits the United States to a laughable amount for ANY nuclear accident, or if our depleted uranium rounds ends up killing the population of a country long after the war is over.

We may be committing crimes against humanity....but we've also embarked on legal actions to limit our liability.

You ain't dealing with stupid here.

Im going to have to disagree with this entire post for the most part. Im going to assume that the majority posting have never been to Iraq or Afghanistan purely because you put all the blame on DU. Yes depleted uranium is deadly and will cause a multitude of health issues. But you arent taking into account the country by its self without the invasion or the current occupation. Iraq alone has a whole slew of health hazards that are not being taken into account. First the country almost entirely has a whole lacks both proper sewage removal and treatment. The sewage is drained down the side of the road and has been for many years. But sewage isnt the only thing that makes its way into the trenches dead animals, oil, battery acid, hazardous waste(from mild to extremely hazardous)

Shoes are a luxury in this country majority being without especially kids who also run jump and play in these trenches. Poverty plays a big roll in the majority of the population the majority are malnourished adults and children. Safety is non existent majority of the farmers that spread pesticides do it by hand, oil workers, ive even seen them take apart car batteries without gloves and a mask. Not to mention they burn there trash regularly not just household trash everything you can think of gets burned and most notably tires.
Prior to our invasion Saddam regularly attacked the Kurdish people using mustard gas and other chemicals. Ive personally seen a mass burial uncovered determined it to be Kurdish killed by Saddam. Think all these deadly chemicals are gone? i doubt it especially considering there still using old iraq army artillery round as IED's. There likely buried somewhere draining into someones drinking water.
If at the very least i know two groups of people in Iraq that were happy to see Saddam taken out of power. The Kurdish and Christians.
American citizens wouldnt stand for war crimes if it knew it was happening. The same goes for US soldiers we have the right to deny a lawful order if we deem it illegal.
Dont forget though prior to the invasion Iraq also had DU rounds. DU although it has downfalls its primary purpose in ammunition is its density and ability to penetrate armor. Its also used as a armor see Chobham armour.
Until theres actual evidence that birth defects in iraq were lower before the two wars than they are now id rather not see this come up. Theres too little evidence to support either side
heres some referances
kurdish massacres and chemical weapons used on them
en.wikipedia.org... aqi_Kurdish_People_by_PMOI
[url=http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/JCCC/Still/2007/Army/070323-A-4520N-315.JPG]http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/JCCC/Still/2007/Army/070323-A-4520N-315.JPG[/ url]

Jeffmarble, your reply was the most informed. That country is a hazard in itself. Before USA got there, their water systems were out of order, run down, and non existent. I think it was the Army engineers who repaired their water ways and systems, and got them to an operable state, and water was running through the system for the first time in years. People in parts of the country had running water for the first time in years.

However, because of sewage problems, trash problems, toxic waste problems like oil, and battery acid, and other poisonous chemicals, and because their water systems were in such bad shape, a lot of their water was dirty and harmful to consume. If there is any increase in birth defects and cancer, I am willing to bet it is because of their toxic water systems. Unless their own government does something about their water systems and sewage and waste (upgrade), I think it might contiune.

D.U. is not used because because of its minuscule radiation like many people are led to beleive. It is used because it is a more dense metal, it is harder. If it makes the OP feel any better, DU is used as armor by the troops because it has better stopping power. I would say the troops are exposed to it more than anyone else.

Also, OP, how can you blame all Americans? A majority of them oppose the war, and nobody could stop the war without creating one to stop it. If anything, it is all of humanity that is to blame for allowing such childish wars. This childish nonsense about money, power, land, religion, etc. is going to destroy the world, and if humans don't start living life peacefully, and putting love above material objects, and putting aside their different beliefs in orded to coexist, you might as well just destroy the entire planet now and get it over with because it will just be prolonged and you all will suffer if you don't.

"The US military uses depleted uranium, also known as spent nuclear fuel, in armor-piercing shells and bullets because it is twice as dense as lead. Once these shells hit their target, however, as much as 40 percent of the uranium is released in the form of tiny particles in the area of the explosion". -From Link


DU is used in applications as an anti armor (tanks, APCs ect) however there wasnt any armor used in Fallujah by the locals. Could you kindly give any figures on what and who/weapons systems were used in Fallujah that employed the DU? Got any figures?

Originally posted by Pervius

We may be committing crimes against humanity....but we've also embarked on legal actions to limit our liability.

You ain't dealing with stupid here.

The OP read hasnt really showed anything. Need figures. Not just photos of what could be natural birth defects.