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

[Guest Derek L]

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...."

And it goes back to my conversation with Waldo relating to the reporting of the story……..Technical merits often get in the way of a good rant.

[Guest American Woman]

And it goes back to my conversation with Waldo relating to the reporting of the story……..Technical merits often get in the way of a good rant.

Can't argue that! I just can't begin to understand the 'reasoning' behind the rant ...

Edited March 29, 2013 by American Woman

[waldo]

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.

don't know - since you brought it up, are there? Aside from your distraction, are there any geographical distinctions or population dynamics or sanction factors or, or, or... is Afghanistan just a handy reach, for you?

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.

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

did not know that there were... good kinds... of mercury/lead being attributed to US/UK ammo

[DogOnPorch]

don't know - since you brought it up, are there? Aside from your distraction, are there any geographical distinctions or population dynamics or sanction factors or, or, or... is Afghanistan just a handy reach, for you?

did not know that there were... good kinds... of mercury/lead being attributed to US/UK ammo

Yes...the Taliban and Iraqi baddies don't use ammo...

[waldo]

Where was said blanket statement offered?

I said 'study continues' and didn't directly attribute... you said, "one could speculate that said health issues could also be attributed to malnutrition of the parents, a condition fostered by the previous sanctions".

I included your speculation caveat; however, your statement is a blanket wholesale attribution --- an either or, no consideration towards multiple contributions. You can clear this up quite easily by stating you're open to considering the war could have contributed to the 'epidemic birth defect rate'... and by extension, the U.S./UK. could have contributed to that end. I'm covered... cause I'm still open - I've said it's still being studied.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes...the Taliban and Iraqi baddies don't use ammo...

Evidently we should all strive to be more like them. No shame there.

[waldo]

Yes...the Taliban and Iraqi baddies don't use ammo...

apparently, there's a lotta ammo out there across the world... why stop with Afghanistan when looking reaching for a comparative birth defect rate measuring stick?

[Guest Derek L]

Yes...the Taliban and Iraqi baddies don't use ammo...

Especially highly corrosive ammo……….

[Guest Derek L]

I said 'study continues' and didn't directly attribute... you said, "one could speculate that said health issues could also be attributed to malnutrition of the parents, a condition fostered by the previous sanctions".

I included your speculation caveat; however, your statement is a blanket wholesale attribution --- an either or, no consideration towards multiple contributions. You can clear this up quite easily by stating you're open to considering the war could have contributed to the 'epidemic birth defect rate'... and by extension, the U.S./UK. could have contributed to that end. I'm covered... cause I'm still open - I've said it's still being studied.

As I did here:

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]

apparently, there's a lotta ammo out there across the world... why stop with Afghanistan when looking reaching for a comparative birth defect rate measuring stick?

Why look to DU? Convenient? Or is it the "U" word?

[Guest Derek L]

apparently, there's a lotta ammo out there across the world... why stop with Afghanistan when looking reaching for a comparative birth defect rate measuring stick?

And a much higher lead content in Soviet, Eastern Bloc and Chinese ammunition……..Not to mention, the Commies lacquered their ammo….

[DogOnPorch]

Especially highly corrosive ammo……….

They'd never ever ever set off a huge bomb in, say, a marketplace where pregnant women might be. Never ever...well...hardly ever.

(Apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan)

[waldo]

Why look to DU? Convenient? Or is it the "U" word?

I didn't look... to DU? I made reference to mercury/lead in relation to the study comments.

[WWWTT]

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.

Ya actually Saddam can not be held responsible because the US invaded and expediated his death.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

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.

But if it was from insurgents,why weren't the insurgents around before 2003???

What happened to Iraq in 2003 that allowed the insurgents to come around???

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

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

Yes of course the US was the greatest contributor to the destabilization of Iraq and the Iraqi infrastructure therefore by default some blame will be on the shoulders of the US.

WWWTT

[DogOnPorch]

Yes of course the US was the greatest contributor to the destabilization of Iraq and the Iraqi infrastructure therefore by default some blame will be on the shoulders of the US.

WWWTT

So the US is also responsible for WW2's fallout? Fascinating. This new history amazes me. Explain again how sheep's bladders can be used to predict earthquakes.

[Guest Derek L]

But if it was from insurgents,why weren't the insurgents around before 2003???

What happened to Iraq in 2003 that allowed the insurgents to come around???

WWWTT

Oh there was an insurgency fought in both Northern and Southern Iraq by the Kurds and Shi’s Muslims for a great long while……plus the environmental catastrophe released by Saddam’s forces in Kuwait in ’91.…..The bombing of Iraq during the Gulf war (plus the various bombings enforcing the No-Fly-Zone by Clinton)……..The Iraq-Iran war which saw all sorts of munitions used by both sides, up to and including chemical weapons used by Saddam’s forces on his own population and the Iranian forces………..Malnutrition and disease fostered by years of sanctions……..

I’d be surprised if the Iraqis were a healthy people at all.

I’ve no idea why Iraqis have an increased risk of cancer and birth defects after over 30 years of warfare fought within their borders…………

Edited March 29, 2013 by Derek L

[DogOnPorch]

Oh there was an insurgency fought in both Northern and Southern Iraq by the Kurds and Shi’s Muslims for a great long while……plus the environmental catastrophe released by Saddam’s forces in Kuwait in ’91.…..The bombing of Iraq during the Gulf war (plus the various bombings enforcing the No-Fly-Zone by Clinton)……..The Iraq-Iran war which saw all sorts of munitions used by both sides, up to and including chemical weapons used by Saddam’s forces on his own population and the Iranian forces………..Malnutrition and disease fostered by years of sanctions……..

I’d be surprised if the Iraqis were a healthy people at all.

I’ve no idea why Iraqis have an increased risk of cancer and birth defects after over 30 years of warfare fought within their borders…………

If no Americans were/are involved it does not count. No matter the liberal use of non-existent chemical weapons.

Edited March 29, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[waldo]

Oh there was an insurgency fought in both Northern and Southern Iraq by the Kurds and Shi’s Muslims for a great long while……plus the environmental catastrophe released by Saddam’s forces in Kuwait in ’91.…..The bombing of Iraq during the Gulf war (plus the various bombings enforcing the No-Fly-Zone by Clinton)……..The Iraq-Iran war which saw all sorts of munitions used by both sides, up to and including chemical weapons used by Saddam’s forces on his own population and the Iranian forces………..Malnutrition and disease fostered by years of sanctions……..

I’d be surprised if the Iraqis were a healthy people at all.

I’ve no idea why Iraqis have an increased risk of cancer and birth defects after over 30 years of warfare fought within their borders…………

there seems to be something absent in your collective recall... you're not purposely downplaying negating contributions of the illegal US invasion/Iraq war, are you?

.

... 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.[/indent]

the same downplaying negating you project in your answer below, hey?

.

I said 'study continues' and didn't directly attribute... you said, "one could speculate that said health issues could also be attributed to malnutrition of the parents, a condition fostered by the previous sanctions".

I included your speculation caveat; however, your statement is a blanket wholesale attribution --- an either or, no consideration towards multiple contributions. You can clear this up quite easily by stating you're open to considering the war could have contributed to the 'epidemic birth defect rate'... and by extension, the U.S./UK. could have contributed to that end. I'm covered... cause I'm still open - I've said it's still being studied.

As I did here:

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.

so you've gone through hoops to purposely negate any possible contributions of the U.S./UK in the illegal 2003 invasion/war in Iraq to the epidemic birth defect rate... good to know where you stand!

Edited March 30, 2013 by waldo

[eyeball]

But here is the nice thing now, since the war is 'over' whatever happens to Iraq now is up to them. Almost absolving the USA of any guilt or responsibility that might be felt by the administration or the public.

Vindication is the real goal though and no doubt it'll come one day, likely via some terrorist's bomb that's Loomised into the Heartland. If it's sent by some pissed off Iraqi based out of Egypt with connections to Chavez expect the silly putzes to retaliate against Iran.

[Guest Derek L]

there seems to be something absent in your collective recall... you're not purposely downplaying negating contributions of the illegal US invasion/Iraq war, are you?

.

the same downplaying negating you project in your answer below, hey?

.

so you've gone through hoops to purposely negate any possible contributions of the U.S./UK in the illegal 2003 invasion/war in Iraq to the epidemic birth defect rate... good to know where you stand!

And where did I state that? I did say:

I’ve no idea why Iraqis have an increased risk of cancer and birth defects after over 30 years of warfare fought within their borders

As to the inclusion of Coalition munitions in said possible calculation? Certainly if it were deemed munitions were the culprit, but not at the preclusion of other factors including the usage of munitions, in many cases over the 30+ years of conflict on their own population, by Iraqis themselves.

Wouldn’t you agree that the usage of copious amounts of explosives by the insurgents & Iraqi military themselves would also factor in to such hypothesis, to say nothing of chemical weapons used on children in the 80s or the release of vast amounts of carcinogens by Iraqi forces in ’91.……As such many of the survivors of which were children of various ages over these periods, then grew up through a decade+ of malnourishment and little in the terms of medicines, would then go onto bare children in the 2000s inflicted with physical and mental defects………..Surely you don’t suggest that this wouldn’t factor into said hypotheses as to the cause of such birth defects?

[waldo]

And where did I state that? I did say:

I’ve no idea why Iraqis have an increased risk of cancer and birth defects after over 30 years of warfare fought within their borders

uhhh... nice selective dropping out of your applied rolleyes emoticon! Your actual quote, as follows - job well done!

I’ve no idea why Iraqis have an increased risk of cancer and birth defects after over 30 years of warfare fought within their borders…………

.

As to the inclusion of Coalition munitions in said possible calculation? Certainly if it were deemed munitions were the culprit, but not at the preclusion of other factors including the usage of munitions, in many cases over the 30+ years of conflict on their own population, by Iraqis themselves.

Wouldn’t you agree that the usage of copious amounts of explosives by the insurgents & Iraqi military themselves would also factor in to such hypothesis, to say nothing of chemical weapons used on children in the 80s or the release of vast amounts of carcinogens by Iraqi forces in ’91.……As such many of the survivors of which were children of various ages over these periods, then grew up through a decade+ of malnourishment and little in the terms of medicines, would then go onto bare children in the 2000s inflicted with physical and mental defects………..Surely you don’t suggest that this wouldn’t factor into said hypotheses as to the cause of such birth defects?

good on ya - you've finally acknowledged the U.S./UK could have causal ties to the Iraq epidemic birth defect rate. Again, I haven't agreed or disagreed with any causal linkages... remember, I'm the guy repeatedly emphasizing it's still under study. It's you and others doing the hoop jumping to try and avoid any considerations of a possible U.S./UK contributory influence. Didn't you know - war is hell (for civilian populations). I will note, once again, you've been reaching way back, even further now into the 80s, to rationalize the spike seen, (per the study provided), in the last decade. Perhaps you'll need to readjust your malnutrition go-to to also include congenital and environmental influences... that way it'll be much, much easier to dismiss any possible contributions over the last decade, right?

[Guest Derek L]

uhhh... nice selective dropping out of your applied rolleyes emoticon! Your actual quote, as follows - job well done!

.

good on ya - you've finally acknowledged the U.S./UK could have causal ties to the Iraq epidemic birth defect rate. Again, I haven't agreed or disagreed with any causal linkages... remember, I'm the guy repeatedly emphasizing it's still under study. It's you and others doing the hoop jumping to try and avoid any considerations of a possible U.S./UK contributory influence. Didn't you know - war is hell (for civilian populations). I will note, once again, you've been reaching way back, even further now into the 80s, to rationalize the spike seen, (per the study provided), in the last decade. Perhaps you'll need to readjust your malnutrition go-to to also include congenital and environmental influences... that way it'll be much, much easier to dismiss any possible contributions over the last decade, right?

I thought I already did do that?

the usage of copious amounts of explosives by the insurgents & Iraqi military themselves would also factor in to such hypothesis, to say nothing of chemical weapons used on children in the 80s or the release of vast amounts of carcinogens by Iraqi forces in ’91.……As such many of the survivors of which were children of various ages over these periods, then grew up through a decade+ of malnourishment and little in the terms of medicines, would then go onto bare children in the 2000s inflicted with physical and mental defects………..

[Guest American Woman]

... remember, I'm the guy repeatedly emphasizing it's still under study. It's you and others doing the hoop jumping to try and avoid any considerations of a possible U.S./UK contributory influence.

Really? Pointing out other possibilities as it's been pinned on the U.S./U.K. is trying to avoid any consideration of a possible U.S./UK contributory influence?

Tell me again how I'm supposed to "own" something that is, as you (and a whole bunch of us) pointed out, is "still under study." But yeah, you're "the guy."