Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'

joebucks

Thanks to Demonspawn for posting this in CT:

Is the U.S. military intentionally trying to destroy Iraqi lives for generations to come by using tons of DU ammunition or are they just using their theaters of war for toxic waste dumping grounds?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHfYtvYRgdk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR4z9ohRxEc

This is the article Chomsky is referring to:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

Manic Moran

Already discussed in depth.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055997272

NTM

demonspawn

Please ignore the bit about sodium fluorosilicate, that's clearly CT territory. The rest probably is not though.

DU is a byproduct of the nuclear energy industry and the U.S. has hundreds of thousands of tons of the stuff just sitting around in concrete bunkers. What better way to get rid of it than by using it as a weapon against your enemies?

joebucks

Manic Moran wrote: »

Already discussed in depth.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055997272

NTM

Thanks for link.

joebucks

demonspawn wrote: »

Please ignore the bit about sodium fluorosilicate, that's clearly CT territory. The rest probably is not though.

I just edited that out there.

Overheal

DU has some pretty specific properties. It's not as if we filled the shells with incompostable landfill trash just to get rid of it; DU as one person quotes in the thread NTM referenced to you, 'It cuts through metal like butter' and what better property to provide to ammunition designated for eliminating armored targets? There were 4500 tanks commanded by Saddam in the Gulf War; with the number of tanks in the Iraq War escaping me.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

There were 4500 tanks commanded by Saddam in the Gulf War; with the number of tanks in the Iraq War escaping me.

The thing is, though, that there were as far as I know, no enemy tanks in Fallujah, so the US wouldn't have been shooting DU rounds to begin with.

NTM

Overheal

And they were tank shells? I just pulled up the wiki page and DU seems to be used in a wide range of ammunition; everything from being the aircraft munition of choice (Harriers;Cobras;Thunderbolts) to Bradley M242s. Tanks have also been getting DU armor plating since the late 90s because of its high density.

I'd imagine in the midst of mobilizing for Fallujah that there wasn't the time to necessarily change out thousands of tons of ordnance, it being better to be overprepared than to waste time and money swapping out DU munitions for 'standard' munitions that may or may not have been in the military's disposal at the time of deployment.

But im not the military expert here so stop me when im wrong

demonspawn

Overheal wrote: »

There were 4500 tanks commanded by Saddam in the Gulf War; with the number of tanks in the Iraq War escaping me.

I'd say the number of tanks used by Iraqi insurgents is close to 0, but I could be completely mistaken.

Oh, and many of the tanks commanded by Saddam in the Persian Gulf War were carpet bombed by U.S. bombers as they were retreating from Kuwait. No DU needed there. It was more of a cold-blooded massacre than a war to be fair.

demonspawn

Overheal wrote: »

And they were tank shells? I just pulled up the wiki page and DU seems to be used in a wide range of ammunition; everything from being the aircraft munition of choice (Harriers;Cobras;Thunderbolts) to Bradley M242s. Tanks have also been getting DU armor plating since the late 90s.

I'd imagine in the midst of mobilizing for Fallujah that there wasn't the time to necessarily change out thousands of tons of ordnance, it being better to be overprepared than to waste time and money swapping out DU munitions for 'standard' munitions that may or may not have been in the military's disposal at the time of deployment.

Nope, the vast majority of high caliber rounds are tipped with DU now, whether they are needed or not. DU was used extensively during Clinton's bombing runs of Serbia. Two Italian soldiers that were stationed in Serbia later on were even paid compensation by the Italian government from severe illnesses caused from acute radiation poisoning. Unfortunately one of them died before he had a chance to spend the cash.

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/154.html

The total compensation package is worth EUR170m and has been funded by a specific law that was passed recently.

A further EUR10m has been set aside to fund a group of experts who will study the DU issue further.

And you're making an argument based on the cost of having to change munitions to ones that don't give the soldiers using them cancer?

joebucks

demonspawn wrote: »

It was more of a cold-blooded massacre than a war to be fair.

I worked with a Scottish fella over in Canada a few years ago who served in Iraq and he used to tell me how the army would burn the civilian bodies instead of burying them. So you could almost call it a holocaust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(sacrifice)

demonspawn

joebucks wrote: »

I worked with a Scottish fella over in Canada a few years ago who served in Iraq and he used to tell me how the army would burn the civilian bodies instead of burying them. So you could almost call it a holocaust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(sacrifice)

Yeah, I've heard stories that the U.S. dug massive trenches in the southern part of Iraq and just bulldozed all the dead troops and vehicles into those trenches and covered them up. I'm sure if someone went digging they could confirm these stories pretty quickly.

joebucks

demonspawn wrote: »

Yeah, I've heard stories that the U.S. dug massive trenches in the southern part of Iraq and just bulldozed all the dead troops and vehicles into those trenches and covered them up. I'm sure if someone went digging they could confirm these stories pretty quickly.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9058519743431142534#

Overheal

And you're making an argument based on the cost of having to change munitions to ones that don't give the soldiers using them cancer?

For that you can read any number of books like Plan of Attack that detail extensively how the Iraq War was planned out. The cost in Time alone to have swapped out munitions was not to have been an option, given the decided upon deployment method of shock and awe.

The cost of health concerns are tied into a completely other side issue and thats the debate about the harmful effects of DU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium_shells#Health_considerations

demonspawn wrote: »

I'd say the number of tanks used by Iraqi insurgents is close to 0, but I could be completely mistaken.

Oh, and many of the tanks commanded by Saddam in the Persian Gulf War were carpet bombed by U.S. bombers as they were retreating from Kuwait. No DU needed there. It was more of a cold-blooded massacre than a war to be fair.

Does that matter? I know when I eliminate a hornet nest from my garden I dont let them take a couple jabs at me to make it fair: I take no prisoners and in whatever way causes me the least threat, which in that case is to wait for dusk and hit them all with one spray.

demonspawn

Overheal wrote: »

Does that matter? I know when I eliminate a hornet nest from my garden I dont let them take a couple jabs at me to make it fair: I take no prisoners and in whatever way causes me the least threat, which in that case is to wait for dusk and hit them all with one spray.

What about hornet's nests in your neighbor's yard? Do you take it upon yourself to eliminate all the hornet's nests in your entire neighborhood? What happens when you are the reason those nests are there in the first place?

The U.S. should never have been in Iraq in the first place. Any argument you make to justify those massacres will fail. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives were taken for absolutely nothing. For money. For greed.

Overheal

demonspawn wrote: »

What about hornet's nests in your neighbor's yard? Do you take it upon yourself to eliminate all the hornet's nests in your entire neighborhood?

Sometimes! Hornets are terrorists that don't abide by property lines.

The U.S. should never have been in Iraq in the first place. Any argument you make to justify those massacres will fail. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives were taken for absolutely nothing. For money. For greed.

your original point was that it was a massacre because US Forces used an Airstrike to take out ground-to-ground targets. Quit moving the goalpost.

demonspawn

Overheal wrote: »

For that you can read any number of books like Plan of Attack that detail extensively how the Iraq War was planned out. The cost in Time alone to have swapped out munitions was not to have been an option, given the decided upon deployment method of shock and awe.

Do you remember watching the towers fall? Do you remember how you felt on that day? I was devastated. I'm trying not to cry just thinking about it right now. Only 5 days now until the 9th anniversary. Do you think "shock and awe" is an acceptable method for any military to use?

OhNoYouDidn't

Overheal wrote: »

I'd imagine in the midst of mobilizing for Fallujah that there wasn't the time to necessarily change out thousands of tons of ordnance, it being better to be overprepared than to waste time and money swapping out DU munitions for 'standard' munitions that may or may not have been in the military's disposal at the time of deployment.

But im not the military expert here so stop me when im wrong

So a deliberate choice was made to use ammunition inappropriate for the theatre that has had these horrific effects?

Overheal

demonspawn wrote: »

Do you remember watching the towers fall? Do you remember how you felt on that day? I was devastated. I'm trying not to cry just thinking about it right now. Only 5 days now until the 9th anniversary. Do you think "shock and awe" is an acceptable method for the military to use?

Most of that was completely irrelevant.

Im not Military. Shock and Awe is not an illegal war action. Do you think we should go back to colonial style warfare where we lined up our rifelmen and took turns?

So a deliberate choice was made to use ammunition inappropriate for the theatre that has had these horrific effects?

Thats not what im saying at all. If you still require a Harrier to provide you close air support in a theatre are you going to wait to send that harrier until it doesnt have ammunition in it that is 'too effective' for the encountered force? Do patrols decide how much armor to put on their tanks before they roll out in the morning depending on how many enemy forces they expect to encounter? No, they don't. They go prepared to face anything. I only offered the replacement scenario to satisfy curiosity about the possibility.

demonspawn

Overheal wrote: »

Sometimes! Hornets are terrorists that don't abide by property lines.

Terrorists are freedom fighters, depending on what side of the fence you're on. The revolutionaries that liberated the U.S. could be seen as terrorists today. They didn't fight using conventional methods. They used guerrilla warfare and they won.

OhNoYouDidn't

Overheal wrote: »

For that you can read any number of books like Plan of Attack that detail extensively how the Iraq War was planned out. The cost in Time alone to have swapped out munitions was not to have been an option, given the decided upon deployment method of shock and awe.
.

... in a densely populated urban environment....

What you are saying is someone made a concious decision to use weapons that would kill tens of thousands of civilians over time. That's a textbook warcrime

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

And they were tank shells? I just pulled up the wiki page and DU seems to be used in a wide range of ammunition; everything from being the aircraft munition of choice (Harriers;Cobras;Thunderbolts) to Bradley M242s..

Correct, but just because every weapon system has had DU munitions made available to it does not mean that it has to use it in all circumstances. For example, the Bradley's DU ammo is designed for dealing with medium amour like BMPs. For dealing with troops or soft targets, High Explosive Incendiary ammunition is the ammo of choice. Tanks would shoot OR, MPAT or HEAT vice DU. Thunderbolts can also load with HEI.

Tanks have also been getting DU armor plating since the late 90s because of its high density

Yes, my platoon had a couple.

I'd imagine in the midst of mobilizing for Fallujah that there wasn't the time to necessarily change out thousands of tons of ordnance, it being better to be overprepared than to waste time and money swapping out DU munitions for 'standard' munitions that may or may not have been in the military's disposal at the time of deployment.

For the record, I was in Iraq during that timeframe, my tank carried zero DU munitions, we purely had multi-purpose rounds (Actually, I don't think there was one DU round in the entire company). Even if I did have some sabots in the rack, why would I use them? The effect on target is just to make a 2" hole if you get a direct hit. Why not use a multipurpose round and have a better effect?

NTM

demonspawn

Overheal wrote: »

Most of that was completely irrelevant.

Im not Military. Shock and Awe is not an illegal war action. Do you think we should go back to colonial style warfare where we lined up our rifelmen and took turns?

hehe I guess I already answered that in post I just made.

Anyway, how is 9/11 irrelevant? It was a "shock and awe" campaign, but we call Al Qaeda terrorists? Using that logic the U.S. military are also terrorists, no?

Overheal

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

... in a densely populated urban environment....

What you are saying is someone made a concious decision to use weapons that would kill tens of thousands of civilians over time. That's a textbook warcrime

your answer supplied,

Manic Moran wrote: »

For the record, I was in Iraq during that timeframe, my tank carried zero DU munitions, we purely had multi-purpose rounds (Actually, I don't think there was one DU round in the entire company). Even if I did have some sabots in the rack, why would I use them? The effect on target is just to make a 2" hole if you get a direct hit. Why not use a multipurpose round and have a better effect?

NTM

demonspawn wrote: »

Terrorists are freedom fighters, depending on what side of the fence you're on. The revolutionaries that liberated the U.S. could be seen as terrorists today. They didn't fight using conventional methods. They used guerrilla warfare and they won.

Im not even sure what point you're trying to drive anymore. I thought you wanted to discuss Depleted Uranium in a theatre of war. Or do you simply which to platform back towards broader anti-US sentiment?

Anyway, how is 9/11 irrelevant? It was a "shock and awe" campaign, but we call Al Qaeda terrorists? Using that logic the U.S. military are also terrorists, no?

Yes, only if the primary purpose of shock and awe was to inflict civilian casualties and provoke mass hysteria. In fact I believe the intended purpose was to disable Saddam's ability to fight an entrenched war, by targeting military objectives. The purpose of 9/11 was to disrupt the american economy by striking a key civilian target. The purpose of striking the pentagon could have been viewed as a military strike though a very perverse one; and not very effective unless the goal was to follow up with more attacks, or invasion.

demonspawn

Manic Moran wrote: »

For the record, I was in Iraq during that timeframe, my tank carried zero DU munitions, we purely had multi-purpose rounds (Actually, I don't think there was one DU round in the entire company). Even if I did have some sabots in the rack, why would I use them? The effect on target is just to make a 2" hole if you get a direct hit. Why not use a multipurpose round and have a better effect?

NTM

My sister was also in Iraq. She commanded a group of transport trucks, I'm not sure of her exact rank...sergeant I think. Anyway, she was sent back from this last conflict after a lump had formed in her throat. She was told it was just a "goitre", has it removed, and was sent home to be honorably discharged. She told me she transported munitions regularly. I'll give you her Facebook page if there's any doubt to what I've just said.

Edit: Misspelled goitre

demonspawn

Hell, I'll give you her Facebook page anyway because she's just that awesome. The guy in the picture is her husband David, a Longbow pilot.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/valerie.kuschel

OhNoYouDidn't

Overheal wrote: »

. I thought you wanted to discuss Depleted Uranium in a theatre of war. Or do you simply which to platform back towards broader anti-US sentiment?.

The point, as you well know, is that if it was a deliberate decision to use low level radioactive ammo in the volume they did, in the environment they did then its the moral equivalent of a dirty bomb.

demonspawn

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The point, as you well know, is that if it was a deliberate decision to use low level radioactive ammo in the volume they did, in the environment they did then its the moral equivalent of a dirty bomb.

i.e. terrorism

Edit: Actually, it's more like genocide as that DU will affects Iraqis for generations to come. We've already seen horrendous birth defects caused by genetic mutation in Iraqi civilians and the children of U.S. servicemen.

Overheal

you think she contracted thyroid cancer just from transporting it? I thought it was only alpha radiation, and not a lot at that. I'd appreciate if she inhaled it from airborne particles from fired ordnance but the shells she was transporting can't have been that harmful?

The point, as you well know, is that if it was a deliberate decision to use low level radioactive ammo in the volume they did, in the environment they did then its the moral equivalent of a dirty bomb.

If true, then I'd like to know the same as you: NTM if non-DU ammo was available why and when was DU used and how does it account for the volume used?

Overheal

demonspawn wrote: »

i.e. terrorism

Edit: Actually, it's more like genocide as that DU will affects Iraqis for generations to come. We've already seen horrendous birth defects caused by genetic mutation in Iraqi civilians and the children of U.S. servicemen.

I was already about to ask you if the German Army were considered terrorists during WWII but now Post-edit I'll also ask if you really think its in the same league as Rwanda or Auschwitz, using DU munitions.

demonspawn

Overheal wrote: »

you think she contracted thyroid cancer just from transporting it? I thought it was only alpha radiation, and not a lot at that. I'd appreciate if she inhaled it from airborne particles from fired ordnance but the shells she was transporting can't have been that harmful?

Well that's speculation that I'm unwilling to accept. The fact of the matter is she developed a lump in her throat while serving in Iraq. She was transporting munitions and other things over long distances. Whether she was affected by the munitions in her truck or from dust particles in the air is completely irrelevant. She still needed surgery to remove the lump either way.

OhNoYouDidn't

demonspawn wrote: »

Hell, I'll give you her Facebook page anyway because she's just that awesome. The guy in the picture is her husband David, a Longbow pilot.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/valerie.kuschel

I would.

Victor

I thought the major problem with Fallujah was the liberal* use of Phosphorous.

Overheal wrote: »

you think she contracted thyroid cancer just from transporting it? I thought it was only alpha radiation, and not a lot at that. I'd appreciate if she inhaled it from airborne particles from fired ordnance but the shells she was transporting can't have been that harmful?If true, then I'd like to know the same as you: NTM if non-DU ammo was available why and when was DU used and how does it account for the volume used?

It turned Manic grey and he didn't even have it taken out of the magazine by someone else. :pac:



* Its legal to use Phosphorous for smoke. Its not legal to use so much Phosphorous that the target believes themselves to be subject to a gas attack.

demonspawn

Overheal wrote: »

I was already about to ask you if the German Army were considered terrorists during WWII but now Post-edit I'll also ask if you really think its in the same league as Rwanda or Auschwitz, using DU munitions.

The murder of innocent civilians is the murder of innocent civilians, regardless of who's doing it. I don't blame any soldier for following their orders. I blame the filthy bastards who gave those orders in the first place.

demonspawn

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I would.

And she'd snap you in half I'm afraid. She's a "crossfit" fanatic.

But I agree she is incredibly beautiful, shame she's only my half sister. I don't share the same genetics.

Overheal

FB link is broken for me

demonspawn wrote: »

Well that's speculation that I'm unwilling to accept.

You're allowing speculation one way but not in another? You have to be able to accept the possibility of another cause. Causes that may not have been from DU at all, but even in speaking of DU it could have come from the DU she was transporting (which is plausible but imo less likely, being transported in cases would have stopped Alpha particles from bleeding out. Alpha gets blocked by a sheet of paper) Or it could have come from radiation particles already airborne from local fire: if she was transporting munitions in a warzone its reasonable to assume she was near to where those munitions got used.

The murder of innocent civilians is the murder of innocent civilians, regardless of who's doing it.

There we go getting into the debates about War and Murder. But personally if you are striking military objectives, and civilian casualties occur, it's not automatic to assume it was the cold blooded murder of civilians.

Thread is too hot anyway, theres a lot of message lag going on. Out for now.

OhNoYouDidn't

Overheal wrote: »

I was already about to ask you if the German Army were considered terrorists during WWII but now Post-edit I'll also ask if you really think its in the same league as Rwanda or Auschwitz, using DU munitions.

That fundamentally comes down to why the decision was made to use the wrong, toxic ammo.

If it was a live experiment, then I see it as being morally analogous with Auschwitz at least, if it was to deliberately law waste to the next 10 generations of Fallujians, there is an equivalence with Rwanda, if it was just the wrong call, then while the intent might not have been there the consequences are and its still a war crime.

OhNoYouDidn't

demonspawn wrote: »

And she'd snap you in half I'm afraid. She's a "crossfit" fanatic.

But I agree, she is incredibly beautiful, shame she's only my half sister. I don't share the same genetics

That a promise? What a way to go!?!

Manic Moran

The revolutionaries that liberated the U.S. could be seen as terrorists today

Guerrilla =/= insurgent =/= terrorist.

I have seen no indication that the revolutionaries conducted themselves in a manner which would be analagous to the definition of terrorists. They appear to have generally confined their actions to the arms of the King's government, generally leaving the denizens of the country free from threat.

My sister was also in Iraq. She commanded a group of transport trucks, I'm not sure of her exact rank...sergeant I think. Anyway, she was sent back from this last conflict after a lump had formed in her throat. She was told it was just a "goitre", has it removed, and was sent home to be honorably discharged. She told me she transported munitions regularly

Is it her contention that she succumbed to an ailment caused by the transport of these munitions?

[Edit. I see that it is not.]

NTM

demonspawn

Manic Moran wrote: »

Guerrilla =/= insurgent =/= terrorist.

I have seen no indication that the revolutionaries conducted themselves in a manner which would be analagous to the definition of terrorists. They appear to have generally confined their actions to the arms of the King's government, generally leaving the denizens of the country free from threat.

My point was that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. To call Iraqi insurgent terrorists because they are using unconventional fighting methods is no different to calling the revolutionaries terrorists because they didn't line up like the Brits did and they didn't always wear conventional uniforms.

Is it her contention that she succumbed to an ailment caused by the transport of these munitions?

[Edit. I see that it is not.]

NTM

Nope, she accepts the military explanation that it was perfectly normal and nothing at all to worry about. That's why we don't really discuss it much. She'd rather forget the whole thing and move on. I don't blame her.

Overheal

To call Iraqi insurgent terrorists because they are using unconventional fighting methods is no different to calling the revolutionaries terrorists because they didn't line up like the Brits did and they didn't always wear conventional uniforms.

I'd certainly agree: killing informant's and the loved ones of informants that assist Coalition forces is Unconventional, at best.

Mahatma coat

Overheal wrote: »

I'd certainly agree: killing informant's and the loved ones of informants that assist Coalition forces is Unconventional, at best.

Death to collaborators was a Very 'Conventional' tactic amongst a lot of freedom fighting organisations throughout recent history.

demonspawn

Overheal wrote: »

I'd certainly agree: killing informant's and the loved ones of informants that assist Coalition forces is Unconventional, at best.

What's the current penalty for treason in the U.S.? What was the penalty years ago?

In Ireland, we murdered our country's liberators on the grounds of treason.

Overheal

And their families though?

Mahatma coat

Overheal wrote: »

And their families though?

Depends, were they all gathered for a wedding at the time????? cos that'd be different Like


YES, their families too, collaborators are collaborators, end of.
Does How we kill them change your opinion tho?

If someone were to Wander in to a childs Bedroom and slice its throat would that be Wrong????

I someone Dropped a 200lb bomb on that childs bedroom would that be OK?

demonspawn

Overheal wrote: »

And their families though?

Hypothetical situation:

Terrorist bad guy: We hear you've been talking to the Americans?
Traitor 1: Yeah, so what? If you kill me my accomplice will just release more information to the Americans.
Terrorist bad guy: Well, we'll just kill your whole family then.
Traitor 1: You wouldn't dare.
Terrorist bad guy: *bang* ........*bang bang bang bang bang*

A few months later...

Terrorist bad guy: So, we hear you've been talking to the Americans.
Traitor 2: Yeah, so what? If you kill me my accomplice will just release more information to the Americans.
Terrorist bad guy: Well, we'll just kill your whole family then.
Traitor 2: Oh....oh right. Well, I haven't said anything and I never will again.
Terrorist bad guy: Correct. *bang*

Probably works a little something like that, though it's obviously just speculation.

FlutterinBantam

:rolleyes:

Obviously!!

demonspawn

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Obviously!!

Well they're terrorist bad guys, killing families is what they do. :rolleyes: