SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

Discuss

That seems most possible to me by using uranium or a related substance in the bombs…

Poor people :(

Don't worry though, the US will be "leaving" Iraq "soon", just in time to hand the wrecked, bomb-ridden country back to the scared citizens.

God bless America.

Link doesn't work for me.


But doesn't surprise me that USA is shitting up places.

correlation is not causation.

As a sort of perspective, the infant mortality rate in Mail is 159 per 1,000, and not all that long ago, China's was in the toilet too, as im sure many other are. I don't expect that the quality of living in Fallujah is at all good as well as the case for hospitals when the people decide/are able to use them. Not that that explains the increase in infant deformations. While I could very well see a sort of bias on their survey, I'm not sure that it would explain such a large increase. If that's the case, then I don't have an explanation, but as I said before, correlation is not causation.

From: Dan Cardin
Not that that explains the increase in infant deformations. While I could very well see a sort of bias on their survey, I'm not sure that it would explain such a large increase. If that's the case, then I don't have an explanation, but as I said before, correlation is not causation.

I'm going to highly doubt that there was some person in a place called "Fallujah" counting the number of deformed babies before any crisis started. The "before" number would be an estimate or random # and would ruin the entire survey. Without logical before data, it is impossible to say that a certain event changed anything.

Perhaps they are on a local deposit of radioactivish material, and a wartime conflict kicked it up = messed up babies. Wayyy too many variables for a legit "study"

From: 3Garrett3
I'm going to highly doubt that there was some person in a place called "Fallujah" counting the number of deformed babies before any crisis started. The "before" number would be an estimate or random # and would ruin the entire survey. Without logical before data, it is impossible to say that a certain event changed anything.

Perhaps they are on a local deposit of radioactivish material, and a wartime conflict kicked it up = messed up babies. Wayyy too many variables for a legit "study"

I agree with you… With Saddam Hussein they probably didn't count it before, so the study is messed up.

suuuuuuuurrrrreeeee, when the deformations are bad, it's all our fault. But you just wait, when a super human strong person, or someone that can fly is born, the US won't get any credit at all :(

From: 3Garrett3
I'm going to highly doubt that there was some person in a place called "Fallujah" counting the number of deformed babies before any crisis started. The "before" number would be an estimate or random # and would ruin the entire survey. Without logical before data, it is impossible to say that a certain event changed anything.

Perhaps they are on a local deposit of radioactivish material, and a wartime conflict kicked it up = messed up babies. Wayyy too many variables for a legit "study"

Lol, of course the deformations were counted, as soon as it was born in the hospital. It's not like everyone was living in gutters and mud huts and stuff with Saddam Hussein, they still had hospitals and the proper record taking etc..you don't see the picture of the kids playing happily in the park, you see it a minute after its been bombed and theres bodies everywhere. Likewise you're not shown pictures of a fully functioning city with happy although restricted people living their lives, you're shown what its like after its bombed.

The US didnt invade because they werent a functioning country, they invaded on the premise of looking for (nonexistant) weapons of mass destruction, destroyed the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people, killed thousands, and now theres evidence they might of done something even more nasty

Well, I'm personally not an expert on any middle eastern countries, but I am 99% sure that Iraq, Afghanistan, etc are not First World (Most Developed, however you would like to say it) countries, and as such would not have perfect record keeping. The rates of deformities could be exaggerated either way, because of corruption ("Look, we have really low deformation #'s, we're such a good country", etc) or whatever other reasons could come up (wanting to make it look like the US is more terrible).

The basic point is that there are probably international standards for this "study" to determine the deformities, whereas before, it would be a citizen of the country, making ticks on a page if there was a baby who was deformed.

From: The Claw

The US didnt invade because they werent a functioning country, they invaded on the premise of looking for (nonexistant) weapons of mass destruction, destroyed the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people, killed thousands, and now theres evidence they might of done something even more nasty

And taking control of the oil production in Iraq…
US is never actually retreating of Iraq since I sure they built their bases in there.
This was obviously planned even before invading Iraq…

Let's keep this in context. By 2004, the US was on what was essentially a peace-keeping mission. Saddam was gone, the new Iraqi government was in place, etc.

Most Blackwater contractors are used to provide protection to important politicians and civilians, both US and Iraqi. When 4 Americans that are there primarily to act as bodyguards in a peacekeeping operation are slaughtered, burned, and hung from a bridge for all to see, they should expect a strong response.

You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

Let's also remember that it wasn't until the US INCREASED their military presence in the country through the "surge" that it became more stable and peaceful. If anything, the US was not forceful enough early on, such as back in 2004 when this all occurred.

I watched a documentary about the Manhattan Project, and there was a scientist interviewed about it. He had calculated that based on the number of people killed, and the number of scientists that were involved in the research, he was personally responsible for about 130 deaths. That bothered him for decades. But eventually a historian pointed out to him that the number of deaths in wars worldwide had been sharply increasing for centuries up until those two bombs were dropped. After that, worldwide casualties in wars dropped significantly, and essentially flatlined. So, he now feels that he helped to PREVENT a lot of deaths that would otherwise have occurred.

From: tarajunky
Let's keep this in context. By 2004, the US was on what was essentially a peace-keeping mission. Saddam was gone, the new Iraqi government was in place, etc.

Most Blackwater contractors are used to provide protection to important politicians and civilians, both US and Iraqi. When 4 Americans that are there primarily to act as bodyguards in a peacekeeping operation are slaughtered, burned, and hung from a bridge for all to see, they should expect a strong response.

You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

Let's also remember that it wasn't until the US INCREASED their military presence in the country through the "surge" that it became more stable and peaceful. If anything, the US was not forceful enough early on, such as back in 2004 when this all occurred.

I watched a documentary about the Manhattan Project, and there was a scientist interviewed about it. He had calculated that based on the number of people killed, and the number of scientists that were involved in the research, he was personally responsible for about 130 deaths. That bothered him for decades. But eventually a historian pointed out to him that the number of deaths in wars worldwide had been sharply increasing for centuries up until those two bombs were dropped. After that, worldwide casualties in wars dropped significantly, and essentially flatlined. So, he now feels that he helped to PREVENT a lot of deaths that would otherwise have occurred.

Are you seriously implying that the death of 4 American soldiers -killed by maniacs deserve actions like this? I can assure you worse things happen on weekly basis in America, you just don't hear from it. What was America doing there in the first place? I think they were after Osama Bin Laden? Did they find him yet? (Is it normal to invade an entire country to catch one person?)

Yes, the mission got rid of Saddam. (Let's not forget it's not just Americans there. EU came later, mainly for peacekeeping operations iirc) Great, good job!

But was it worth it? Perhaps for America. They now have a huge supply of oil. What annoys me is that who gives anyone the right to take control over a country, use their resources and then claim it was the best thing to do? A lot of those people were happy with their lives as they were. They aren't used to Western standards and will not get used to it for a long time. If one stumbles on such much resistance, how can one be so sure one did something good? You cannot force yourself on an entire nation. I can assure you that 99,9% of the people who live(d) there had absolutely nothing to do with the airplanes that crushes into the Twin Towers. Rebuilding a country after one has destroyed it does not make the operating good over all. I really doubt Toxic weapons had to be used. I wonder how many deaths this was has cost and how much it would have prevented not to go to war. And I am not just talking about the deaths of American soldiers.

(I guess I'm not really disagreeing overall)

I really doubt Toxic weapons had to be used.

I really doubt that toxic weapons were used if you're talking in relation to the article. What use would uranium be in a non nuclear bomb?

From: Dan Cardin
What use would uranium be in a non nuclear bomb?

ever hear of depleted uranium munitions?
Pretty good stuff, very effective.

Depeleted Uranium is commonly used in heavy artillery. Why? Because it is significantly more dense than lead. So, if you want to penetrate through a bunker, or heavily armored vehicles, you need the most dense material (within reason) on the tip of your projectile, in order to put the most force on the smallest area.

It was very common for the US to blanket civilian areas with a written message to leave cities that were going to come under attack. Not everyone is able to flee, of course. Some innocent people were probably prevented from leaving by others in the city, which is no better than using innocents as human shields. But the US would make an honest effort to notify innocents and give them time to flee.

Fallujah was well known as a hotbed of Baathists, which were deeply involved in Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. That is why the resistance was so intense, and why the US was taking so many casualties there.

It seems that the question of whether or not the US should have gone to war is a completely different issue from whether or not the military tactics used there were appropriate.

Hmm. I hadn't known. Well it is less radioactive than regular uranium, and i see that it is used in defensive armor plating, so it doesn't appear to be too too dangerous. Though i also see that it says it can be dangerous if it aerates in munitions. Though I ALSO see that it was used in cities plural. So assuming that it was used in Fallujah, though it may not have been, but assuming that it was, then why is there not any talk of such things happening in the other citites that it was used in?

Kinda related:
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010 / http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/video/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-video-tutorial?intcmp=239