Iraqi Babies Deformed from Depleted Uranium

B

Beowulf

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
12,449
Reaction score
528
Depleted Uranium needs to be BANNED.
Vast sections of Iraq is just about uninhabitable now thanks to our use of depleted uranium in our weapons, and the Iraq people will suffer for countless generations because of it.
Take a look at the pictures in the link below.
WARNING---THE PICTURES ARE VERY GRAPHIC
http://www.aztlan.net/du_deformed_iraqi_babies.htm
 
And, the Bush Administration knew all about this before startin' war with Iraq ? Yes, I saw all the graphics. Very sad !
 
That is extremely horrible. Why can't we boycott against the war ?
 
I don't see any proof that depleted uranium caused that. Next you will show us a soldier glowing in the dark and then blame it on dpleted uranium.
 
Reiko said:
I don't see any proof that depleted uranium caused that. Next you will show us a soldier glowing in the dark and then blame it on dpleted uranium.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point! The media would have a heyday with this but...they don't. I wonder why? Is it because it is not so? Or is the evidence is inconclusive? The part I have trouble with is trying to compare symptoms of Agent Orange from Vietnam to DU in Iraq. That is utterly ridiculous as they have totally different properties and how they effect people. The symptoms might be similar but there will also be differences that are notable. One is chemical and the other is radiation in nature.

There can be other reasons why these birth defects occurred. I'm sure Saddam didn't give a hoot about the average Iraqi citizen and who knows what pollution was generated during his watch (some three decades?). Does anybody remember the chemical weapons he used (via "Chemical Ali") on the Kurds and the horrific deaths that entailed? I seen the pictures and it is quite ghastly. If he was willing to do that, I'm sure there were leakages here and there around the country. That can go a long way to explaining some of these pictures.
 
sr171soars said:
Exactly my point! The media would have a heyday with this but...they don't. I wonder why? Is it because it is not so? Or is the evidence is inconclusive? The part I have trouble with is trying to compare symptoms of Agent Orange from Vietnam to DU in Iraq. That is utterly ridiculous as they have totally different properties and how they effect people. The symptoms might be similar but there will also be differences that are notable. One is chemical and the other is radiation in nature.

There can be other reasons why these birth defects occurred. I'm sure Saddam didn't give a hoot about the average Iraqi citizen and who knows what pollution was generated during his watch (some three decades?). Does anybody remember the chemical weapons he used (via "Chemical Ali") on the Kurds and the horrific deaths that entailed? I seen the pictures and it is quite ghastly. If he was willing to do that, I'm sure there were leakages here and there around the country. That can go a long way to explaining some of these pictures.
Click to expand...

It is pretty obvious that Saddam did NOT gas the Kurds. The Iranians did.
http://www.indymedia.nl/en/2002/08/5919.shtml

Anyway....
It is not known how many tons of DU were fired in Iraq. In the first Gulf War they used about 350 tons, but they were mostly confined to battlefields.
In THIS war, I have heard estimates of about 2,000 tons, this time fired into cities and population centers. It would be naive to think that it would have no effect on the genetic future of the Iraqi people.
And as for the fact that the media is not having a "heyday" with this is a rather simple one---it is FAR more right-wing than liberal.
 
Beowulf said:
It is pretty obvious that Saddam did NOT gas the Kurds. The Iranians did.
http://www.indymedia.nl/en/2002/08/5919.shtml

Anyway....
It is not known how many tons of DU were fired in Iraq. In the first Gulf War they used about 350 tons, but they were mostly confined to battlefields.
In THIS war, I have heard estimates of about 2,000 tons, this time fired into cities and population centers. It would be naive to think that it would have no effect on the genetic future of the Iraqi people.
And as for the fact that the media is not having a "heyday" with this is a rather simple one---it is FAR more right-wing than liberal.
Click to expand...

Interesting...one can find just about anybody to support one's viewpoint. How about this news article? This one places blame on Iraq...the evidence is thoughtful as well.
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

Your choices of news media that you use to back your assertions is interesting in itself. That speaks volumes...to me....about as liberal as can be and the sensationalist aspect to it (sic...to get attention!) One believes what one wants to believe.

By the way CNN and especially BBC are more of a liberal mindset and would easily cover the story if there were evidence of such a thing. Remember, BBC is British and liberal to the core and does not bow to the US. They have been known to say lots of things that aren't appreciated over here (whether true or not). What about other mainstream media in Europe? They aren't shy in saying things if they thought it was happening.

We can go on and on about which way the media is either right or left wing. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
 
sr171soars said:
Interesting...one can find just about anybody to support one's viewpoint. How about this news article? This one places blame on Iraq...the evidence is thoughtful as well.
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

Your choices of news media that you use to back your assertions is interesting in itself. That speaks volumes...to me....about as liberal as can be and the sensationalist aspect to it (sic...to get attention!) One believes what one wants to believe.
QUOTE]
The same can be said of you too, sir. In my link it directly quotes White House advisor Jude Wanniski's memo to Karl Rove about the gassings, in which he says Saddam did NOT gas the Kurds.
Oh well.
Click to expand...
 
Reba said:
Battle of the websites continues:

http://www.slate.com/id/2063934/
Click to expand...

Lol, yes it does.
http://www.wanniski.com/PrintPage.asp?TextID=2001

It says in part:"Your report never mentioned the fact that in March 1988, when the monstrous deed supposedly occurred, the Iraqi army was engaged with the Iranian army in a battle for control of Halabja. The whole PREMISE of your report was that Saddam Hussein suddenly decided to have fun and drop chemical weapons on his own citizens..."

Hmmm, that sounds right. I am sure the Iraqi army had their hands full battling the Iranian army, and it doesn't make sense they would gas the citizens of Halabja. Besides, the gas used was cyanide-based, something Iraq did not have in its arsenal at the time. Iran sure did.
Oh well, I suppose we will never know.

And by the way, our sanctions resulted in the deaths of almost 1.5 million Iraqi people, more than 3000 times the number of people allegedly gassed. That is a perspective to ponder.
But good link, Reba, thanks for posting it.
 
There will always be side effects that follow the aftermath of any war.

During the Vietnam War, the United States used Agent Orange. Today, there are still side effects from that.
 
Oh boy! Such a debiliating range of disabilities.

Wars always seem to make victims out of children even if the war's over.
 
Beowulf said:
...But good link, Reba, thanks for posting it.
Click to expand...
Just trying to show that if you search, you can find a website supporting each and every viewpoint possible. :D

Sometimes the focus seems to be "my website is bigger than your website", or "there are more Google results for my point of view than yours", instead of real content and research.

Just food for thought.
 
Beowulf said:
It is pretty obvious that Saddam did NOT gas the Kurds. The Iranians did.
http://www.indymedia.nl/en/2002/08/5919.shtml

Anyway....
It is not known how many tons of DU were fired in Iraq. In the first Gulf War they used about 350 tons, but they were mostly confined to battlefields.
In THIS war, I have heard estimates of about 2,000 tons, this time fired into cities and population centers. It would be naive to think that it would have no effect on the genetic future of the Iraqi people.
And as for the fact that the media is not having a "heyday" with this is a rather simple one---it is FAR more right-wing than liberal.
Click to expand...

If I found a blog saying klingons gassed the kurds and posted it would you believe it?
 
Back
Top