Bush Regime Claims Capture of Old Friend
15 Dec 2003 21:25 GMTWhile Bush, Blair and Howard trumpeted loudly that Saddam Hussein had finally been found, opposition to the presence of foreign forces is likely to increase, the nightmare is about to begin. Satirical commentaries abound, including:
Sadam-Rummy handshake
- Jessica Lynch Captures Saddam - Ex-dicatator Demands Back Pay From Baker by Greg Palast
- International communities are the losers: Smith
Some observers may be wondering whether Saddam, a former U.S. operative, will end up sharing a cell with Manuel Noriega, another former U.S. operative. It is likely Saddam will be subjected to a kangaroo show trial: 3 days before his alleged capture, the Bush appointed Interim governmant in Iraq set up a special war crimes tribunal that will be closed to the world except for "outside experts".
[ IMC Beirut | MER Iraq Magazine | Guerilla News Network | Iraq Body Count ]
Many opposing the invasion and colonisation of Iraq may not ever make it to a jail cell given that Special Forces assassination squads, similar to the U.S. Phoenix Program used in Vietnam are in the works. Interestingly, connections between the Bush dynasty and former U.S. operatives-turned-"enemies" run deep. Bush, the Elder had a questionable financial relationship with Saddam prior to the Gulf War, and controversy continues to swirl around the Bush/bin Laden connection.
The suppression of Iraq civil society will continue to generate hostility. In a recent announcement by the Iraq Ministry of Health, the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority censored a count of civilian casualties of the Iraq war that was apparently being conducted by Iraqi public health officials. International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) condemned this censorship of the cost of war in human life. It is estimated that just the use of cluster bombs killed more than a 1000 civilians. Similarly, US Troops raided the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions recently, destroying resources and detaining officials.
[ Larry Everest, Iraq occupation as enhancing "energy security" | Bush regime rewards corporado friends with exclusive contracts | U.S. media hysteria | some resistance voices | capture another weapon of mass distraction | capture is fiction? (1 | 2)
says it all...
William 16.Dec.2003 04:28
This article, perhaps more than any other (although it is tough to call), demonstrates the profound irrelevance of indymedia.org. Keep up the good work.
William
Sickening.
R.J. 16.Dec.2003 04:48
I used to enjoy reading Indymedia. I thought it was a fascinating and unique take on world events, and that I'd get stories that wouldn't be covered elsewhere.
That changed on 9/11 when Indymedia was deluged with shit about "chickens coming home to roost" and "blowback", etc...
Blaming America for everything.
You're the people that make the left look bad.
Why can't you, for once, fucking REJOICE that an evil dictator - one who committed a horrendous number of human rights violations - has been captured?
Why do you have to bring up old and tenuous connections and make everything into a goddamn conspiracy theory?
You people are the Pat Buchanans and the Jerry Falwells of the left and it makes me sick.
wtf
anonymous 16.Dec.2003 07:51
Give me a fucking break.
<sigh>
bilbo 16.Dec.2003 09:25
I hate to say it but you guys truly have found a way to sink to a new low. One of most brutal dictators in the world today is captured alive and will be held accountable for his actions and here you are trying to use it as one more opportunity to smear the US you hate so much. There are many legit complaints that can be voiced about Bush, Cheney, and yes, even Halliburton but these are run of the mill hand in the cookie jar kinda things. Saddam is a real life mass murdered who has the blood of MILLIONS on his hands. Even when the US has unquestionably done something right in capturing a truly evil man and we are spending Billions of US dollars rebuilding a country few of us will ever see you seek only to attack America and its people. You run stories about water rights, unions, and every other liberal cause but when we capture an actual dictator and warmonger who denied Millions of people the most basic human rights you can't admit that we did something right. Saddam is everything you Wish Bush was but you are unwilling to admit it. Bush stepped in and for whatever reasons, right or wrong, did the correct thing in stopping Saddam and did it at a lower cost than almost anyone would have predicted. I know you won’t change, you have built this site into an alternate reality where Bush is the most evil man in the world today and he is the one filling mass graves but out in the real world few have these two people reversed in their minds. Grow up
get real
Bob 16.Dec.2003 18:32
I read indymedia for a left view, which I sometimes find quite amusing. This article, however, sinks to new lows. It seems as though indymedia is a division of the North Korean Press. Sadaam killed tens of thousands and started two wars which killed hundreds of thousands. Is it bad that he is gone or is it bad that he was taken out by the Bush administration? It sounds like you guys are depressed that your buddy, not Bush's buddy, is out of power forever.
You little kids may not remember the fall of Iran. The Iranians wanted to kill us. Thus, during the Iran/Iraq war, we all sided with Saddam as the lesser of two evils. So what. Are you saying that we can never take him out because we wanted him to kick Khomanis ass? Should we have left him in power? Could the mighty armies of France and Germany done the job? Do you think we could have convinced France, Germany, and Russia to quit selling arms to Iraq? Should we have gone for more years of "diplomacy" while he killed his citizens.
What about you envirowackos. Do you remember that he caused a huge oil spill, which the U.S. cleaned? Do you recall all the burning oil wells? What about all the swamps he drained in the south of Iraq?
Make a difference
Kelly 16.Dec.2003 19:04
Instead of just complaining about what you think others in power are doing run for office yourself. Complaining about the actions of others is easy. do something like run for school board, local city council, or state legislature.
what u people talking about?
TED 17.Dec.2003 10:49
Seemed pretty justified what the article is saying, Saddemm was an evil dictator yet it is only in degrees that he is different from Bush/Blair. (IE Violence exists everywhere in the west, in the work place, in the doll office, when i protest ect ect.)
But the answer is not running for power yourself, thats bollox. The individual (you) has to question the legitimacy of power, create it, and destroy it. This is it. THe question of power is the most important in all spheres.
VIVA LA ANARCHY!
indymedia stupidity
evan 17.Dec.2003 12:34
indymedia, if it ever was an alternative media source, has morphed into an alternative reality where the delusional and embittered on the far left can seek comfort from the real world. a place which is especially frightening to lefties now that republicans control the white house, senate, and house; a majority of americans like the job george w bush is doing and support the war on terror rather than half baked marxist theories and gushy 3rd worldism; and dont spend their days talking about "paradigms of opression" (whatever the hell that kind of jargon means).
the fact that the usa supported iraq and rumsfeld shook hussein's hand 20 yrs ago when iraq fought a war against an ayatollah who believed america to be "the great satan," held 50 americans hostage, and was hardly a humanitarian does not make saddam any less vile a human being or the us bringing him to justice now any less legit. saddam's excesses were criticized quite a bit at the time by the usa but were unfortunately tolerated as the lesser of two evils.
is the usa horibly hypocritical for working with stalin in ww2 when he was the lesser of two evils? is it not unfortunate that he too was not brought to justice?
isnt all the talk of the "embarrasment" saddam will be when he "reveals" his ties to the usa in the 80s somewhat conradicted by the fact that it is already public knowledge, since our supposed "police state" makes these kind of documents public? why would he have been taken alive if he was such a liability when he could have simply been ordered shot on sight.
indymedia actually hurts the reasonable grievances of the left by making the left look so stupid. it seems like a satire of the left- perhaps it was set up by "evil republican corporations" to make the left look bad. let that marinate with the rest of your ridiculous conspiracy theories.
oh yeah and
evan 17.Dec.2003 12:52
while saddam may have been rummy's friend in 1983 when he was the lesser of two evils, in 2003- when saddam is of no value other than as a thorn in the side of the usa- he has become indymedia's friend.
why is the right rejoicing at the capture and humiliation of their supposed friend while the left complains bitterly and only takes solace in the fact that he might embarrass Bush and the USA or that the situation might be made worse in Iraq?
cahnge the heading to "Bush catures Indymedia's friend"
We do rejoice
Hermes 17.Dec.2003 15:20
We do rejoice. But Saddams capture is irrelevant to the suffering of the Iraqi people right here and now. The country is in chaos. Civil war is a constant shadow hanging over the people. Thousands are suffering from Leukemia, women are bringing still-born, deformed children into the world as a consequence of depleted Uranium, an environmental disaster far far greater than Saddams draining of the swamps or burning of the oil fields.
Saddam will rightfully face justice, but at the hands of people who have abused the middle-east in a far greater way, with machinations from afar.
You say the Saddam was the lesser of two evils in the war against Iran?!?!? Justify that comment. The Shah of Iran was a tyrant, who abused his people even more than the current Islamist regime. But he was our ally in the middle-east, so we supported what he did. The British and the US had even conspired to bring him into power, overthrowing the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leader of Iran.
I repeat DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED
But this man was threatening to nationalise the oil. So we put a tyrant in his place, to look after our interests. It is sad that the revolution in Iran brought into power a regime not much better than the Shah. However, even that regime has never committed crimes the scale of which Saddam carried out.
So what is all this business of the 'lesser of two evils'. We sided with the most brutal tyrant, because he would sell us oil. And consistently, this has been western policy in the middle-east. Why are we putting sanctions on Syria, while remaining fast friends with the Saudi royal family, a far more brutal regime?!? Syria is slowly emerging from the tyrannical rule of Assad the older, and is ever so slightly more liberal under his son. Give it time, and it may open up on its own. But this policy of sanctions will not help the natural evolution of Syria at all.
Syria supports terrorists?!?! But most of the September 11th hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Not one was Syrian. Why is Syria being singled out for special treatment?!? Because they are nationalists, and they are against Western domination of the region. For all their flaws, the represent the independence of the Arab people, as Iran represents the independence of the Shias. And this runs against Western interests in the region.
The whole of US foreign policy in the region is ridiculous, full of greed and hypocrisy, and it has been from the beginning. And that is why the Indymedia article is very good. Because let us not forget, that although Saddam has gone, thank God, the biggest problem for the middle-east remains. The Arab people must assert their rights for self-determination against the West, and against all the corrupt and evil regimes we finance and prop up. And this will happen more. Now Saddam has gone, the resistance is going to increase. He can no longer return.
Let us celebrate his capture, like all the Iraqi's I know. And let us struggle harder to get the US out of Iraq, which is the true ambition they hold. He was put there by the US, and he has been taken away by the US. So no big deal. Focus on the root of the problems in the middle-east. Do not be distracted by the capture of this pitiful man. Independence for all the Arab people. Independence from brutal regimes, and from colonial manipulation.
here we go again
bilbo 17.Dec.2003 19:38
yes yes yes, the US is the world's greatest evil. Nothing the US has done has ever been right and nothing we do will ever be right blah blah blah.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/du/mr1018.7.sum.html is where I am reading from.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20031217/ap_on_re_eu/france_head_scarves
First off, that Depleted Uranium bullshit is really getting worn thin. Here is what you guys hate to see, a little actual research and not just some horrible pictures of birth defects(which happen in every country) and a claim "Uranium did this!".
First, let me start with the basics. Depleted Uranium is chemically identical to natural Uranium. The only difference is that it is slightly less dense and less radioactive.(because of the removal of the U238 Isotopes) There have been Extensive studies on the health effects of long term uranium exposure and they have been conclusive. The following reports are taken from the Federation of American Scientists, a group promoting arms control in case you aren't familiar with them. www.fas.org is the main site,
==================================================================================================
Negative effects from the exposure to the ionizing radiation from depleted or natural uranium have not been observed in humans. Some epidemiological studies show evidence of lung cancer in miners, but this is associated with the exposure to airborne short-lived decay products of radon and cigarette smoking. Some animal studies have examined pulmonary damage from exposure to uranium oxides. Exposures over three years to 5.1 mg UO2/m3 in air did not result in lung damage but did cause minimal fibrosis, suggesting radiation injury, in the lymph nodes of dogs and monkeys and the lungs of monkeys.
Cancer rates in almost 19,000 highly exposed uranium industry workers who worked at Oak Ridge between 1943 and 1947 have been examined, and no excess cancers were observed through 1974. Other epidemiological studies of lung cancer in uranium mill and metal processing plant workers (environments without radon) have either found no excess cancers or attributed them to known carcinogens other than uranium, such as radon.
Human studies have examined bone cancers, and no associations between them and internal or external radiation exposure from natural uranium were reported. A variety of cancers developed when rats were exposed to enriched uranium; however, because DU is orders of magnitude less radioactive than enriched uranium, these data have little relevance to the possible health effects of DU. High exposures may also be nephrotoxic; however, there is no evidence that either natural or depleted uranium can induce this effect. Gastrointestinal effects produced from inhalation of high levels of radioactive material have been reported in both human and animal studies. There is no conclusive evidence of reproductive effects.
In sum, cancer is the only radiation-associated disease that has been shown to be related to inhalation of radioactive particulates in humans, but there is no evidence documented in the literature of cancer or any other adverse health effect related to the radiation received from exposure even to natural uranium, which is more radioactive than DU.
=================================================================================================
Let me repeat: "there is no evidence documented in the literature of cancer or any other adverse health effect related to the radiation received from exposure even to natural uranium, which is more radioactive than DU."
The FAS is a very reputable group that campaigns against many aspects of the global arms trade, but even they don't pretend that there are serious health affects linked to depleted uranium. Probably because they are reputable...
While I am at it here is another serious group that has done actual research into this topic, the Rand Corporation.
This report's summary is available here:
====================================================================================================
RAND REVIEW INDICATES NO EVIDENCE OF HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS FROM DEPLETED URANIUM...
The report states that there are no peer reviewed published reports of detectable increases of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium at levels far exceeding those likely in the Gulf. This is mainly because the body is very effective at eliminating ingested and inhaled uranium and because the low radioactivity of natural or depleted uranium means that the mass of uranium needed for significant internal exposure is virtually impossible to obtain. Large variations in exposure to radioactivity from natural uranium in the normal environment have not been associated with negative health effects.
====================================================================================================
Go ahead and quote a bunch of fringe idiots who will happily believe anything if it is evidence of the US being evil though. This whole depleted uranium causing 10,000 different kinds of illnesses bullshit got old 10 minutes after someone looked up the facts, years ago.
I hate to make this into some kind of epically long-winded post but as for the rest of your comment...
There have been many failures of US policy. No one will deny that. What you have to realize though is that these sorts of mistakes are made every day all over the world, by every country. Look at the French in Algeria, the British in N.Ireland, the failure of the UN to act in the Balkans until NATO(USA) had already driven the Serbs out of Kosovo. Look at Rwanda. Everyone asks why the US did nothing for Rwanda. I want to know why NO ONE did anything for Rwanda. Not the Germans, not the Russians, and not the French. You people need to wake up and realize that there is no enlighten "world community". The "world community" is a bunch of self interested states full of people that are just as ignorant as anywhere. They are All looking out for their own interests and that is all. Don't pretend the US is the only state that does so.
As for Syria supporting terrorists, of course they do, they don't even deny it seriously. They weren’t' involved in Sept 11. We know that, but that doesn't mean they aren't active in terrorism. The Saudis are also active in terrorism, and they Were involved in Sept 11 but they are actually taking steps to fight it. A little reading of the international news would clue you in to that fact. There have been two al qaeda attacks on SA in the last year and a dozen or more shootouts as Saudi security forces have broken up terrorist cells. They are doing everything they can and that is why we don't push them hard. Al Qaeda wants to destroy the house of Saud as well as the US so it isn't like we have a hard time seeing eye to eye with them.
You guys are a bunch of liberals right? Why no article on this?:
Some excerpts:
=====================================================================================================
"French President Jacques Chirac asked parliament on Wednesday for a law banning Islamic head scarves and other religious insignia in public schools, a move that aims at shoring up the nation's secular tradition, despite cries that it will stigmatize France's 5 million Muslims."
"Chirac said he would push for a law to be enacted in time for the school year that begins next autumn. Islamic head scarves, Jewish skullcaps and large crucifixes would fall under the ban."
"Chirac's proposal also covers the workplace. His labor minister may, if necessary, submit measures to parliament to allow business leaders "to regulate the wearing of religious signs" for reasons of safety or customer relations, Chirac said."
"He also called for a law to stop patients in public hospitals from being able to refuse treatment because of the gender of the treating physician or medical personnel. A presidential panel on the issue included reports of Muslim men refusing to let male doctors treat their wives. "
"France's Muslim community — 8 percent of the country's population — is the largest in Western Europe. France's Jewish community, about 1 percent of the population, is also Western Europe's largest."
=====================================================================================================
They pretend that this law applies to everyone equally but everyone knows what it is. They know that it is something that is deeply offensive to the Muslim and orthodox Jewish population in France and they want to send them a message. You guys call John Ashcroft a Nazi, what does that make Chirac? I seriously doubt Indymedia will even mention this story. It is just legalized, state sponsored discrimination after all. There is probably a forest somewhere that the US is indirectly responsible for being cut down. Let's cover that story and let everyone know how Americans are evil.
The last time I was in one of my classes(I am now graduated) I remember seeing a whole row of Muslim women in headscarves taking notes. My school was a rather prestigious private school with tough admissions standards. They will however let in anyone who can meet their standards. You know what that makes my university? Better than France...
Show trial images
Flick Harrison 17.Dec.2003 23:12
Showtrial
It's gonna be a show trial!
Uranium
Hermes 18.Dec.2003 00:49
Please check out
http://www.umrc.net/index.asp
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993627
I'm sorry, but you can't just dismiss the effects of depleted Uranium just like that. The research you gave me was based on studies they had done on Uranium Industry workers, and not on any Iraqis, or on any of the soldiers who had come back from Iraq.
It is possible the effects of Depleted Uranium could be distinctly different to those of natural Uranium
It remains the case that many of the soldiers who went out to fight have become ill for reasons not totally determined, and that in areas where depleted Uranium has been used, incidents of cancer and birth defects have risen dramatically. The reports you gave me are unscientific, seeing as they do no research into this dramatic statistic at all. What the hell do the cancer rates of Uranium industry workers, who most likely wear protective masks and equipment, have to do with anything?
The problem is not the Uranium itself, but the fact it burns and oxidises upon impact, leaving depleted Uranium aerosols flying around the area for years, around civilians not warned or equipped to deal with this hazard. When Uranium is outside the body, it is basically harmless, since alpha particles cannot penetrate the skin. They are the least penetrating, but most ionising form of radiation, and when an alpha source is inhaled, it causes big medical problems.
Let us see these scientists go to Iraq now, and find out the truth of all of this, like the Uranium Medical Research Centre I have directed you to have done. Rather than conjecturing in Washington, and using irrelevant statistics, they must do some proper science, and gather some data and evidence in those countries the US has saturated with depleted Uranium. There is often a big difference between theory and fact. Look at the facts in Iraq.
And now, on the issue of foreign policy, I will agree with you. These mistakes are committed by ALL nations in the world. Before the US empire there was the British empire, every bit as divisive, who invented the concentration camp. The Turkish empire in the middle-east was not exactly progressive. Americans are not special in their evil, just as they are not special in their 'democracy and civilisation'. We are all humans, capable of the same beautiful creative potential, and the same destructive greed and ugliness.
It so happens that at this moment in time, the US occupy a position of unprecedented power over the affairs of the world. But this could change. China is getting stronger every day, it economy looks set to overtake the states. But certainly, the way the Chinese government acts, and has the potential to act in the future, is every bit as grave and worrying as the US.
I am tired of seeing these 'empires', the domination of the world by one race from one part of the world. I had thought the idea of the UN was to have a different sort of way in which the nations of the world relate to each other. Democratically, and with mutual respect. But these days, I see how the UN was set up in an inherently undemocratic way. And the other world bodies, the IMF and WTO, are set up inherently in favour of the West. The way the US unilaterally uses its power, and refuses to treat the rest of the world as anything more than 'lesser nations', destroys any notion of international democracy and international law. It encourages the militarisation of the world, as strength in arms becomes the only way to earn respect, keep security and keep independence from foreign domination.
In this regard things are no different from 100 years ago, and before, where this attitude has always been the norm. But we live in an age where our destructive power is so great, we have the potential to wipe out human civilisation. And where also, we have the potential to understand each other in a far deeper way than ever before. This attitude of 'national self-interest' is antiquated, as we should be considering the interests of all the peoples of this world. If we refuse to give it up, we have yet more war, more terrorism, and more death ahead of us.
I take your point about France and Britain and any other country you care to mention. Chirac is a crook. He didn't oppose the war on moral grounds, but because of France's strategic interests in Iraq, same as Russia. And they would act no better in the place of the US than anyone else. But the US needs to act responsibly with the power that it has, by coming together with the other nations of the world, and creating a truly democratic partnership with them all. Instead, we see it dominating the other nations of the world by militiary force. It is sickening and childish.
I love the way you are trying to defend the house of Saud. Do you know what they do to their own people? Do you know the torture and the rape that is inflicted upon suspected dissidents? But once again, we see 'eye to eye' with them because they fight 'terrorists'. Ack, its not even worth writing more on this topic than that. It is an obvious hypocrisy. I hated Saddam, and I hate the rest of the Arab regimes, but I love the Arab people, who are in no way justly represented by these crooks who reign over them. I hope what will start in Iraq is the Arab people asserting themselves against Western domination, and a taking back of control over their own destinies. I want to see the house of Saud shake, and collapse to rubble. And I want to see the States fleeing these lands with their tail between their legs.
And later, I want to see these nations come together as partners, rather than as master and slave.
European Racism
Hermes 18.Dec.2003 01:00
I totally agree with you on the point about France, and the banning of the hijab in schools. The same is happening in Germany.
I think it is terrible. They have taken the meaning of 'secular' and twisted it. Secular surely means lots of different cultures and religions living side by side, without hurting or detracting from the other. But in many European countries, it is being taken to mean that everyone has to be the same...without religion, without culture. It is strange and sad. There is a big difference between integration and assimilation. Britain and the US are actually quite good at integrating other cultures, for all their other faults. And perhaps this is why their respective empires were and are so large and succesful, to an extent. But there is still an innate 'white superiority' complex, that is their undoing. A tolerance of other cultures, for sure, but not a respect.
DU pretend science
bilbo 18.Dec.2003 09:08
Ok, first and foremost. It is NOT possible that depleted uranium's effects are distinctly different from "natural" uranium. There is a difference atomically but chemically they are identical. As far as the atomic differences all that is changed is the material is less radioactive meaning there is both less radiation and less of the byproducts of uranium decay. Basically what I am saying is that chemically they are the same but radiation wise depleted is far safer.(though both are safe)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/nucbuy.html#c2
That first site is complete crap, a great example of a nobody pretending to be a big huge organization. You can find a crackpot somewhere that will claim anything.
The second one is little better, here are a few quotes from your link:
"DU is both radioactive and toxic." this is the first dead giveaway that this is a bullshit story. As per the links I listed above depleted uranium is at best Mildly toxic and Very mildly radioactive. Less toxic than lead and less radioactive than coal ash.(if you really want a comparison)
"Past studies of DU in the environment have concluded that neither of these effects poses a significant risk." ok, so far they are agreeing with me...
"Nobody has taken a hard look at the combined effect of both, says Alexandra Miller, a radiobiologist with the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland."
"The idea that chemical and radiological damage are reinforcing each other is very plausible and gaining momentum"
Ok people, time for a quick heads up. DU is chemically IDENTICAL to and LESS radioactive than normal uranium. That means that any combination of effects would be the same on the chemical side and worse on the radiation side.
blah blah blah etc etc. This is a wholly speculative article based on a couple out of context quotes and a couple crackpots. It is nothing but a stupid scare story.
Heavy metals are toxic, Heavy metals cause genetic damage, Heavy metals in large doses can result in various extreme symptoms.
They basically take those known facts and say "BUT WITH RADIATION IT MIGHT BE WORSE!!!!" failing to realize that all the previous studies Also used radioactive uranium(a joke, it all is of course) and that the levels of radiation are tiny.
Let me summarize:
"studies of DU in the environment have concluded that neither of these effects poses a significant risk."[wow, actual studies?]
"Iraq did not allow the World Health Organization to carry out an independent assessment. Given its low radioactivity and our current understanding of radiobiology, DU cannot trigger such health effects, the British and American governments maintain."[no data from Iraq? surely not]
It is possible that exposure to significant amounts of DU could cause excess chromosome aberrations, but this study has technical flaws," says Clark. "There are no proper controls to compare results with soldiers who were not exposed to DU. And some of the reported excess aberrations are well known to be linked to chemicals rather than radiation." [speaks for itself]
"many of the scientific investigations into DU have only just begun, and their results will be long coming."[sounds conclusive to me, even when writing a scare story they admit they have no real evidence]
Maybe you ought to consider the above quote at the least before spewing out stuff like you did in the first post on this:
"Thousands are suffering from Leukemia, women are bringing still-born, deformed children into the world as a consequence of depleted Uranium, an environmental disaster far far greater than Saddams draining of the swamps or burning of the oil fields."
Really I don't mean to be rude but this DU stuff is the worst sort of pseudo-scientific bullshit I have seen in a long time. I can find you a few idiots(with PHDs) that will tell you that cigarettes are healthy but the world health community has looked at them and are pretty sure they aren't. (oh yeah, and they looked at uranium and found out it isn't that bad)
Here is a little trivia for you:
Burnt orange Fiestaware plates. These things get their color from Uranium Oxide in the glaze.(uranium oxide is orange) If uranium oxide were even a Fraction as deadly as you people would have us believe these plates would have been a massive disaster. You guys are worried about micrograms contaminating water supplies and getting into food grown on fields near the stuff. People have been eating off plates PAINTED IN IT for 50 years. Oh yeah, and there were millions of those plates sold, a very popular line.
face it, the numbers don't add up.
No
Hermes 18.Dec.2003 14:33
No. Read the words I am writing. The problem is not the solid Uranium matter, but the Uranium oxide aerosols, that are spread far and wide, and easily inhaled. And you dismiss the reference I give you, but these people have actually gone to Afghanistan and Iraq, and collected their data and urine samples from the people there. And they have noted the presence of depleted Uranium in the urine samples.
One of the members, Dr.Durakovic, did research into the urine samples of soldiers while he was in the employ of the army. And they fired him for his work.
The thing about the plates. For one thing, the plates weren't in constant use. There were concerns about eating acidic foods on these plates, as these foods could absorb some of the glaze. But the Uranium Oxides were not being constantly inhaled, as is the case of the Depleted Uranium Aerosols that still linger around the battle-fields. And in fact, the plates are no longer produced, because although they were 'safe', they just had to be sure...
We can argue about depleted Uranium backwards and forwards. I am actually a scientist. Therefore, I am aware of how things can be blown up into a scare story, such as NMR, but also, how the negative effects of technologies are often covered up, glossed over, like with GM crops, and with things such as the BSE crisis. But rather than argue over depleted uranium any more, I will just repeat; scientists and doctors can go to Iraq and see for themselves the cancers and the birth defects, and they can make their tests on the Iraqi people. And maybe they will find it was not Depleted Uranium after all. Maybe it was Saddam hiding all his tons of weapons of mass destruction in the river or something. But science is about collecting data and establishing a reason for the trends that are seen. The trend in Iraq is growing cancer and birth defects. The trend in the armed forces is an unknown disease, Gulf War Syndrome, that has stricken many of the soldiers. Are they all pretending? There are very many Iraqi doctors and scientists who believe it is due to Depleted Uranium Aerosols. You do not believe them, because they are Iraqi, probably in the pay of Saddam or something. But where is Saddam now? In prison, awaiting his fate. And what are the Iraqi doctors saying still? That the Depleted Uranium munitions are responsible for the growing rates of sickness. Let us send the doctors to Iraq to find out the truth, like scientists should.
yes
bilbo 18.Dec.2003 15:40
Uranium oxide is the same material used in the glaze on those plates. The exposure to that material from eating off those plates for years continuously(there are still some of those plates in use) is far greater that what it would take to developed profound symptoms if what you were saying were true in the slightest. These plates have been handled, washed, and eaten off of for 50 years, including by children and pregnant mothers. They have been chipped, broken, and shattered.
Uranium oxide dust does not travel nearly as well as you seem to think it does. It is damn near insoluble in water and is very heavy. The idea that this stuff is magically traveling all over Iraq causing all kinds of unrelated symptoms shows a lack of knowledge about how the real world works.
The production of the plates wasn't stopped because they weren't safe. It was stopped because the US government regulated uranium because of nuclear concerns. It was only years later that they started to question the radioactivity.(and somehow still haven't gotten around to wondering about Uranium induced sicknesses and cancer which there should be 10s if not 100s of thousands of cases of)
You listed two sites. One is the homepage of a fired scientist who claims a conspiracy is after him and the other is a pop-science page that freely admits that there are no real numbers whatsoever to base claims on.
If you are in fact a "scientist" then you should know damn well just how ridiculous to say things like:
"scientists and doctors can go to Iraq and see for themselves the cancers and the birth defects, and they can make their tests on the Iraqi people"
Of Course there are cancers and birth defects, they are everywhere in the world, it has yet to be established if they occur at greater rates in Iraq than comparable countries and even if they did(which is possible) then that is a LONG way from a link to DU.
I mean "make their tests" you have to be kidding me. There isn't a test that can determine what single cause produced something like a cancer. Even if they did detect uranium in their bodies that wouldn't mean a damn thing. You would also detect HUNDREDS of other known carcinogens. pesticides, other heavy metals, chemicals. One cigarette has a dozen things in it that are known carcinogens...
You might be a scientist, but if you are you are the most god awful one I have ever heard of. There hasn't been a single decent study and you are here picking a single material and saying a wide range of symptoms is being caused by it. Every single study to date has indicated that there is no risk on the scale of what you suggest and yet you sit here and pretend that things like "seeing" cancer in Iraq means DU caused it. That is not science, that is bullshit.
There have been studies using Uranium in virtually any related form and exposure route and NONE of them indicate symptoms on the scale of what you want to say it does. The patterns of people supposedly showing symptoms don't match what would be expected either. (based on where the metal was distributed)
NOTHING here adds up. This isn't something that hasn't been studied before. There have been hundreds of studies using Uranium and there are people working with it every day.
Think for a second about the people that worked in the URANIUM OXIDE GLAZE FACTORY for those plates in the 30's and 40's. If that stuff were a 1/10th as nasty as you claim they would have been wiped out by the symptoms and it would have been Very obvious. Those workers would have received tens of thousands if not millions of times the exposure that might have happened on the battlefield. Grinding Uranium Oxide in large mixing machines or baking it in ovens, in the days before workplace safety took off. No respirators, no gloves, no special clothes. Dust everywhere, in their hair, on their skin. They would have carried it home into their houses and gotten it on their food. It would have been EVERYWHERE for DECADES of DAILY exposure. What scientific theory do you have for the same material causing Massive symptoms all across a country within 12 years of first exposure when that same material doesn't cause any symptoms at all after decades of exposure?
There are many carcinogens that take a long long time to create effects but if one is powerful enough to do a tenth of what you are saying. (massive cancers within a decade of first exposure) Then the people getting exposed every day would be dying left and right.
Saddam Hussein arrested: Good news !
AmigaPhil 18.Dec.2003 16:30
War on Terrorism: True Patriot flag
If only he was stopped earlier... (Saddam Hussein did not became a dictator since September 11th, 2001...)
But sometimes, terrorists are "freedom fighters" when we need them.
There was a time Saddam Hussein could do whatever he wanted, and we didn't mind, as he was still a 'friend', a business partner.
The massacre of the Kurds in Hallabja with the chemical weapons we sold to Iraq and Iran was not THAT much important at the time. Just like the massive killing by Turkey of its own Kurd population does not bother us; Turkey is an ally who receive a huge military and economical support from us since many years.
Now, we really don't need to demonize Saddam Hussein, just to try to justify the attacks we conducted on Iraq.
YES, Saddam Hussein has committed crimes which should have brought him to the International Criminal Court since long (too bad neither Iraq nor USA have ratified the ICC).
Now, if you check the Iraq history, you will find that it was under the Saddam's regime that the Iraq oil was nationalized. This contributed to make Iraq one of the most richest, educated, healthy (medical care used to be free for every inhabitant in Bagdad) country in the Arab world.
Iraq then started to regress due to :
- The Iran-Iraq 8 years war we were supporting (We did supply weapons to BOTH countries ! Remember how radical Saddam Hussein can be in regard of treason, even assassinating members of his own familly)
- The Gulf war in 1991 after the invasion of Kuweit by Iraq with a near invitation from the USA (Remember how Glaspie -and others- said: "This is none of our business", "We have no protection contract with Kuweit", ... Some said Saddam fall in a trap. Anyhow, the invasion of Kuweit was the ideal pretext to engage in war.)
- A totally scandalous 12 years of (inefficient) embargo which was just, as we learned very soon, strenghtening the dictatorship (any UN attempt to re-think the embargo with a new resolution was refused/vetoed by the USA) while causing the death of at least half a million children. Unprecedently, it was also the first time a country under heavy economical sanctions have to PAY for humanitarian help (a racket program called "Oil for Food")
- Finally the 'politically' chosen predisent G.W. Bush gave a go to the "Program for a New American Century" and finished to crush Iraq, to grab its oil and get a stronger control in the Middle East.
So yes, the Saddam Hussein's arrest is a good news. Especially for Dubbya for who this mediatic operation will probably give a needed higher popularity (remember how a photograph of him holding a plastic turkey made his popular rating climb from 52% to 60 % ?) But not that much for the Iraqi people who have not only suffered from dictatorship, but also from our way to spread democracy (sic) and justice (sic) to unaware civilizations.
Now, I invite you to re-read the Indymedia article, then think, DOUBT, ask questions, search, learn, ... and prepare for some surprises.
War on Terrorism: Depicting a source of the highest threats to the world
Saddam Hussein arrested: Good news ! (continued)
AmigaPhil 18.Dec.2003 16:38
War on TerrorismWar on Terrorism: Depicting a source of the highest threats to the world
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/usa.html
Uranium
Hermes 18.Dec.2003 19:16
The reference you gave me in your first post was a scientific report who have basically modelled what they think the effects of depleted Uranium would be by comparing them with the effects upon Uranium mine workers. Or like your comparison, saying that thousands of people eating off plates didn't get cancer, so neither should the people exposed to depleted Uranium shells.
But this is not a scientific way of doing things at all. You cannot study the effects of Uranium-235, and say it is the same as Uranium-238, for example. A small change can have dramatic differences.
Most reports acknowledge this fact, even those that aren't neccesarily trumpeting about the dangers of DU, such as this rather neutral one below
which basically says that although we know the effects of natural and enriched Uranium, we know very little about the effects of depleted Uranium. And that was the purpose of the New Scientist link I gave to you in the first post, to show there is the possibility Depleted Uranium can act in a way that other forms of Uranium cannot. There is a Royal Society report, which was trumpetted about by the MoD, who said it showed that Depleted Uranium was safe. They were furious at this. No, they said, thats not what we meant. There are a lot of unknowns about DU, and it is potentially risky. It should be cleared up after use in battle.
Now we have some eyewitness reports;
Robert Fisk
'During the Kosovo war, I travelled from Belgrade to Brussels to
ask about Nato's use of depleted uranium. Luftwaffe General
Jerz informed me that it was "harmless" and was found in trees,
earth and mountains. It was a lie.
Only uranium - not the depleted variety that comes from nuclear
waste - is found in the earth. James Shea, Nato's spokesman,
quoted a Rand Corporation report that supposedly proved DU
was not harmful, knowing full well - since Mr Shea is a careful
reader and not a stupid man - that the Rand report deals with
dust in uranium mines, not the irradiated spray from DU
weapons.'
Also
'A Government document, published almost six months ago but virtually ignored, reveals that test-firing of DU shells in Britain is carried out into an open-sided concrete building called the "tunnel" and that radioactive residues are washed off, sealed in cement and transported to Cumbria for disposal.
Iraqi doctors have long suspected that the children suffering from a four-fold increase in cancer in the south of the country - revealed in The Independent on 4 March - contracted their sickness from the Allied use of depleted uranium shells in the 1991 war. Tens of thousands of these projectiles were fired at the Iraqis in February 1991 in the fields south of the city of Basra, the fertile lands from which millions of Iraqis acquire their food. Many of the children dying of leukemia and lymphoma cancer were not even born when the war took place.
There has been no attempt by the US or Britain to find out the cause of the cancer outbreaks in Iraq, though US veterans' groups suspect DU shells, made of hard alloys which are tougher than tungsten and which ignite inside armoured vehicles, are responsible for thousands of cases of "Gulf War Syndrome" (including lymphoma cancers) among American soldiers who fought in the war. The US National Gulf Resource Centre says 40,000 US servicemen may have been exposed to depleted uranium dust on the battlefields. Tony Flint, acting chairman of the British Gulf War Veterans' and Families' Association says the same shells could be responsible for the death of 30 British veterans. '
And here is a report from a veterans group
Now, there is obviously a problem, in Iraq, and with the gulf war veterans. And something is causing that problem. Like I have said, let some proper research be done, in Iraq, on the gulf war veterans, to determine this cause. From the symptons many of the victims are suffering, 'including lymphoma cancers', it could well be induced by radiation exposure. You also have to acknowledge that fact that these people have also got depleted uranium in their urine samples.
So we have a strange statistical anomaly affecting the soldiers who have fought, and affecting the local population in these battle zones. And you have this relatively new, radioactive material being used, depleted Uranium, in the areas where this anomaly has appeared. And the symptoms are like those you would expect from radiation sickness.
Now, I acknowledge the possibility that something else could be causing this problem. But there is a fairly obvious possibility, a fairly blatant culprit, staring us in the face, called Depleted Uranium. A lot of research into the medical affects of depleted uranium has been hindered, and information suppressed.
You have to go to the source, and study the effects depleted Uranium has had upon the local population. You have provided no evidence that the use of Depleted Uranium is safe. You have cited reports that say 'Uranium workers don't have any problems, so it must be safe'. Or 'Radioactive plates are safe, so Depleted Uranium shells must be safe'.
Rubbish.
People are suffering from a strange condition, Gulf War Syndrome. There must be a reason. And very many reputable scientists have a theory that Depleted Uranium is the culprit. There are other theories as well. However, until this theory has been proved or disproved, we shouldn't be using it. I mean, we shouldn't even be there in the first place, exerting our muscle and bullying the world into submission. And then to use huge amounts of radioactive, burning shells. And very soon, we may see the introduction of 'mini-nukes', very low yield nuclear weapons for a specific purpose. And I'm sure we'll get the same sort of bullshit about it being safe, or an 'acceptable risk'. It is completely ridiculous.
You attack me as being a terrible scientist. At least I am not comparing two unlike things and saying one does not do that, so the other must not as well, like most of the whitewash I read. Now, this discussion has been very valuable, as it has forced me to look into the topic much more deeply than I originally knew about. I had made my first statement based on what people who I trust and respect have said. But I have had to research the matter a good deal more. And I have found that while the risks of Depleted Uranium are not a certainty, they are a distinct possibility. This is completely different to what you have said, about the risks of depleted uranium having been completely rubbished. There is still a controversy within a fairly mainstream, but extremely reputable publication like 'New Scientist'. And there are a large number of scientists, doctors and journalists who are concerned about this. Certainly, I see it discussed a fair bit on the BBC. So it isn't simply some crazy 'fringe idea'. That is what they said about BSE. That is what many people still say about Global Warming.
um...no....actually
Scova 15.Feb.2004 17:36
ok..to start..I love America. We represent to the world a freedom that is rare. I am so annoyed by all these pathetic conservative nitwits coming on here and bashing and labeling us "leftist liberals" for our "anti-American" viewpoints. Simply because we assert our opinions that the greatest nation (both technologically and economically) is being led down an unneccesary path toward destruction, by a historically greed driven CEO, does not make us un-American! This is called being concerned for our countries well being. When any leader makes mistakes of this magnitude, they will be scrutinized heavily. I recently taught an in-service to 30 small town America police officers. Politics and terrorism came into the discussion. Anyone care to take a guess how many of the 30 suburbanite police support Bush? Three! Shocked me too. Their reason...is even more enlightening. The general consensus was that Bush cultivates more fear in our communities than security. Disallusionment, manipulation, corruption, propaganda, war profiteering...if using these words makes me a "conspiracy theorist", then so be it. This doesn't change the fact that our children are hearing these words and phrases over the airwaves...and they are associating them with our leadership (the ones us "adults" elected). The words are not coming from the mouths of uneducated, ignorant, leftist, radical, or even liberal people...they are coming from the mouths of concerned Americans. Without concerned Americans, where would we be...? What would the Bush administration prefer...apathetic Americans? Now you tell me...what is more anti-American...apathy or concern?
PNAC: USA Force presence in the Gulf transcends the regime of Saddam Hussein
AmigaPhil 29.Mar.2004 18:46
From PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Sept. 2000, page 26) :
http://www.brusselstribunal.org/
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/cgi-bin/show.cgi?nowar28
"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent
role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict
with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a
substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the
issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
More on:
The BRussells Tribunal
WE, THE PEOPLE, want justice and democracy