Iraq Invasion - America's Shame... 10 years on

[Guest Derek L]

certainly... but you answered my question that your concerns were not broader - that they were based on the article. That's also why I provided the study link/quote highlighting the birth defect problem is real - while the ultimate cause remains under study.

Nor did I suggest there weren’t an inordinate number of birth defects and health concerns amongst the Iraqi population. As you said yourself, said findings are still under study, as such one could speculate that said health issues could also be attributed to malnutrition of the parents, a condition fostered by the previous sanctions.

[WWWTT]

To me,the evidence clearly shows that something has changed to cause such an increase in birth defects in 2003.

And since the US led the invasion at the same time,then it is very safe to conclude that Saddam can not be held responsible in any way.

The evidence also shows that the birth defects continue,and since Iraq has not yet recovered from the US mass disruption of the infrastructure in place where the defects are occurring,then it is also safe to conclude that the US bears at least some responsibility.

Once again,some may feel it is easier to just attack the messenger,instead of bearing any responsibility from the message!

WWWTT

Edited March 29, 2013 by WWWTT

[DogOnPorch]

Nor did I suggest there weren’t an inordinate number of birth defects and health concerns amongst the Iraqi population. As you said yourself, said findings are still under study, as such one could speculate that said health issues could also be attributed to malnutrition of the parents, a condition fostered by the previous sanctions.

Indeed. DU is very heavy and not prone to be turned to dust and made airborne. It's also as it's name suggests...depleted...which few people seem to understand with any great depth. They seem to think the US is flinging enriched Uranium around. DU is safe enough that it is used as ballast. Every time you board an aircraft, hold your breath for the duration if DU is a concern.

Ultimately, it is about as safe as lead. No you don't want to eat lead.

[DogOnPorch]

To me,the evidence clearly shows that something has changed to cause such an increase in birth defects in 2003.

And since the US led the invasion at the same time,then it is very safe to conclude that Saddam can not be held responsible in any way.

The evidence also shows that the birth defects continue,and since Iraq has not yet recovered from the US mass disruption of the infrastructure in place where the defects are occurring,then it is also safe to conclude that the US bears at least some responsibility.

Once again,some may feel it is easier to just attack the messenger,instead of bearing any responsibility from the message!

WWWTT

There would need to be studies to confirm that pregnant women are somehow ingesting DU. Or does your version of science skip that step?

[Guest Derek L]

Indeed. DU is very heavy and not prone to be turned to dust and made airborne. It's also as it's name suggests...depleted...which few people seem to understand with any great depth. They seem to think the US is flinging enriched Uranium around. DU is safe enough that it is used as ballast. Every time you board an aircraft, hold your breath for the duration if DU is a concern.

Ultimately, it is about as safe as lead. No you don't want to eat lead.

Exactly, and due to it’s intended usages, after the regular Iraqi army was subdued, such usage would have been curtailed in favour of HE rounds well fighting the insurgency in built-up areas…..

[DogOnPorch]

Exactly, and due to it’s intended usages, after the regular Iraqi army was subdued, such usage would have been curtailed in favour of HE rounds well fighting the insurgency in built-up areas…..

The chemicals in a HE round are far more toxic than DU.

[WWWTT]

There would need to be studies to confirm that pregnant women are somehow ingesting DU. Or does your version of science skip that step?

Yes of course.

However,just by the timeline of events,and the massive derailment of infrastructure caused by the US military implicates them into bearing at least some responsibility.

WWWTT

[DogOnPorch]

Yes of course.

However,just by the timeline of events,and the massive derailment of infrastructure caused by the US military implicates them into bearing at least some responsibility.

WWWTT

Perhaps it's from the release of Saddam's chemical weapons into the environment. If they're not buried and not in Syria...then they were probably dumped or burned. Far more dangerous than DU will EVER be.

[Guest American Woman]

Perhaps it's from the release of Saddam's chemical weapons into the environment. If they're not buried and not in Syria...then they were probably dumped or burned. Far more dangerous than DU will EVER be.

But...but....I hear tell that "it is very safe to conclude that Saddam can not be held responsible in any way." Evidently, Saddam's the good guy in all of this.

[DogOnPorch]

But...but....I hear tell that "it is very safe to conclude that Saddam can not be held responsible in any way." Evidently, Saddam's the good guy in all of this.

Burp...pardon...I was chewing on my DU sandwich.

[DogOnPorch]

[waldo]

Nor did I suggest there weren’t an inordinate number of birth defects and health concerns amongst the Iraqi population. As you said yourself, said findings are still under study, as such one could speculate that said health issues could also be attributed to malnutrition of the parents, a condition fostered by the previous sanctions.

oh my! ... outright categorizing (all) birth defects as a 'health issue' (possibly) attributed to malnutrition (possibly) fostered by the previous sanctions. And yet, the study I presented reflects upon birth defect rates across multiple stages... within the sanctions period (94-95), the beginning of the war (2003) and a decade after (2011) - showing a 17 fold increase in birth defect between 2003 and 2011.

[Guest Derek L]

The chemicals in a HE round are far more toxic than DU.

That’s yet to be proven, fore in both RDX and HMX based explosives, the base material is essentially salt and organic compounds and has yet been proven to be carcinogenetic……….Now TNT usage is a different story, and one must beg the question if the insurgents used it in their IEDs as opposed to complex explosives produced in western munitions factories………It could very well be that the Iraqi “freedom fighters” reliance on older Soviet munitions as a base for their roadside surprises poisoned their own people.

[DogOnPorch]

That’s yet to be proven, fore in both RDX and HMX based explosives, the base material is essentially salt and organic compounds and has yet been proven to be carcinogenetic……….Now TNT usage is a different story, and one must beg the question if the insurgents used it in their IEDs as opposed to complex explosives produced in western munitions factories………It could very well be that the Iraqi “freedom fighters” reliance on older Soviet munitions as a base for their roadside surprises poisoned their own people.

Yes...ask an old blaster how his heart is doing.

[Guest Derek L]

oh my! ... outright categorizing (all) birth defects as a 'health issue' (possibly) attributed to malnutrition (possibly) fostered by the previous sanctions. And yet, the study I presented reflects upon birth defect rates across multiple stages... within the sanctions period (94-95), the beginning of the war (2003) and a decade after (2011) - showing a 17 fold increase in birth defect between 2003 and 2011.

You suggest that the overall health of the parents could not foster later birth defects? What was the level of maternal health pre invasion? What about infant mortality rates?

[waldo]

You suggest that the overall health of the parents could not foster later birth defects? What was the level of maternal health pre invasion? What about infant mortality rates?

you were the one offering speculation towards a blanket wholesale attribution to health/malnutrition... I said study was continuing. Your speculation seemed to purposely overstate an attribute (even in speculation) - I guess you didn't mean that as a dismissive hand wave to the war itself acting as a (possible) causal attribute, hey?

[Guest American Woman]

You suggest that the overall health of the parents could not foster later birth defects? What was the level of maternal health pre invasion? What about infant mortality rates?

The birth defects could also very well be a result of the ammunition used by the insurgents.

[bush_cheney2004]

The birth defects could also very well be a result of the ammunition used by the insurgents.

Moreover, the U.S. (and allies) expended munitions of all types in Iraq since 1991...not just 2003. Those pointing at DU are reminded of where it ultimately comes from, eh ?

[waldo]

But...but....I hear tell that "it is very safe to conclude that Saddam can not be held responsible in any way." Evidently, Saddam's the good guy in all of this.

sanctions were imposed - the Iraqi people suffered;

OFFP - the Iraqi people were helped to varying degrees;

the illegal war - the Iraqi people suffered

[DogOnPorch]

The birth defects could also very well be a result of the ammunition used by the insurgents.

Yes. the older Russian stuff laying around uses TNT which has numerous health issues. Many IEDs exploded in Iraq were old artillery shells. Lately, the baddies have got access to better types of explosives.

[waldo]

The birth defects could also very well be a result of the ammunition used by the insurgents.

more of you... owning it, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

The birth defects could also very well be a result of the ammunition used by the insurgents.

Exactly…….also the hypocenter of the given explosions attributed to the usage of said munitions. For example coalition forces would namely use artillery and bombs with an air burst fuse to maximise damage on insurgents on the ground, this effect will kill and maim namely from the shock wave of the explosion, but will do little physical damage to buildings and the natural environment, such damage it does do is namely surface.

On the inverse, the use by insurgents of IEDs exploded either on the surface or buried below the surface will contaminant soil to a greater degree during the physical explosion, in part due to the trace compounds of the explosive intermingling with the soil, then being dispersed.

[Guest Derek L]

you were the one offering speculation towards a blanket wholesale attribution to health/malnutrition... I said study was continuing. Your speculation seemed to purposely overstate an attribute (even in speculation) - I guess you didn't mean that as a dismissive hand wave to the war itself acting as a (possible) causal attribute, hey?

Where was said blanket statement offered?

[Guest American Woman]

Moreover, the U.S. (and allies) expended munitions of all types in Iraq since 1991...not just 2003. Those pointing at DU are reminded of where it ultimately comes from, eh ?

And of course war has been going on in Afghanistan. Seems as if there should be increased birth defects all over if it's our ammunition. There is no proof that it is, but that's the direction the accusations automatically head in. Seems odd to me, given that the U.S. and U.K. weapons falls within international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention. Can the same be said for the ammunition used by the insurgents? - and I doubt whether most here pointing the finger at the U.S. consider the origin of DU.

Yes. the older Russian stuff laying around uses TNT which has numerous health issues. Many IEDs exploded in Iraq were old artillery shells. Lately, the baddies have got access to better types of explosives.

Exactly. Yet the blame, without evidence, automatically goes to the U.S./U.K. I have to wonder how that helps the situation.

[Guest American Woman]

Exactly…….also the hypocenter of the given explosions attributed to the usage of said munitions. For example coalition forces would namely use artillery and bombs with an air burst fuse to maximise damage on insurgents on the ground, this effect will kill and maim namely from the shock wave of the explosion, but will do little physical damage to buildings and the natural environment, such damage it does do is namely surface.

On the inverse, the use by insurgents of IEDs exploded either on the surface or buried below the surface will contaminant soil to a greater degree during the physical explosion, in part due to the trace compounds of the explosive intermingling with the soil, then being dispersed.

Yet the blame automatically goes to the U.S./U.K, without any proof; and apparently, I'm supposed to "own it" without any proof whatsoever. I don't understand that mindset at all. It's as if the insurgents are 'good guys' and not causing any hurt/harm. I always say "be careful what you wish for...."