On another tangent, anti-military and anti-war are two different things. I've elaborated on this and about other things in other threads.
US military beats out Disney as happy place to work
- Thread starter Big Don
- Start date
On another tangent, anti-military and anti-war are two different things. I've elaborated on this and about other things in other threads.
Who are you to make blanket accusations against every service person?
Who are you to decide the guilt and innocence of millions of people?
You are so sure then that everyone joins up thinking it's a job akin to one in the local supermarket that suddenly turns out to be in a warzone? You think people joining the army wouldn't cotton on to what the job entails when they get issued guns and shown how to use them? Bollocks. People know what it is before they join, they may join initially for different reasons but they all know it's to serve their country. They take pride in what they do and they do it to the best of their abilities.
Whether the country serves it military well or not is a long discussion and not my point here.
Do the innocent get killed, yes they do. I wish it were not so and so does every other service person I know. I wish there were no wars and we didn't need armed forces, I wish there were no starving people, no refugees, no flood victims, no abused children but wishing doesn't make it so. So we must do what we can to stop as much suffering as we can and you don't do that by ranting on the internet. I'm not going into all the things I help support either with money or time, I'm sure a great many people here do the same as I.
You paint this picture of the Servicies as some sort of Vandal/Goth horde wreaking its way across the world spreading death and destruction. You say anti military and anti war are two different things but to you they don't seem to be, you have made it clear that you regard all the military as war criminals. Now some are, theres no doubt but have you noticed the disgust felt by other service personnel towards this people? Have you heard anyone from the forces defending them? I haven't. When the stuff came to light about the way the Iraqi prisoners were being treating by soldiers I heard condemnation from all quarters, soldiers saying that's not what soldiers should do. I have no doubt that American soldiers were also condemning the actions, it came to light, and there were court martials. The forces don't want this behaviour either, they want people with honour and will weed it out. If you think they cover everything up you are wrong, it may not be publically known but it's dealt with. The people with honour in the forces of which there is a great many, the majority in fact make sure.
You have a case of the soldier who is accused of killling civilians at the moment, if that was the normal behaviour of soldiers would he be on trial or just left to carry on? No, other soldiers have reported him and are testifying against him, honour binds them to. We've had similiar types of cases.
If I posted up something alone the lines of all Americans are gun toteing murdering swines killing thousands of innocents everyday you would come back pretty damn quick at me saying.......
"My message in response to this article, is think for yourself, judge a person by action and not some pre-existing expectation or stereotype. Judge a job by the actions performed."
yet you are unable to do this yourself, you feel qualified to judge thousands of people you don't know, have a stereotype of in your head as ignorant thugs hoodwinked into fighting for their country. Judge them indeed by all their actions not the actions of a few. Look at those that are risking their lives to do the right thing, to actually help build instead of destroying, that safeguard lives instead of taking lives.
Do you think we heap praise on the military just because they wear a uniform? or do you think it's perhaps because we know these people have made a commitment to defend their country, that they are dedicating themselves to a life of potential hardship, the risk of death and injury so that others don't have to? Regardless of what governments use the military for the bottom line is that these men and women have joined up voluntarily and are risking death and injury so you don't have to.
The Colonel of the Scots Guards who have just come back from Afghan, stated his objectives before they went and very high on the list of requiments for his Guards was Moral Courage, to do the right thing as a matter of honour. Don't you dare sit there and tell me these men and women raped, killed, and poisoned their way across Afghanistan. These people went out with the intention of doing what they can to help make a difference and to fight a professional army, the Taliban. When they parade to receive their medals on St Andrew's day next month you can be sure they will hold their heads up high and will be proud that they have upheld the regiment's honour. The concept of honour may be old fashioned and redundant to you but not to the regiments here, the Scots Guards have been guarding that honour jealously since 1642 and you have no idea what it means to them, its fierce, a living entity almost. If you don't live up to that you are out on your ear pdq.
Honour, comradeship, eterntal friendships, patriotism at its best not jingoism, the idea of making a difference for the better these are things that drive people in the forces and that's what allows other people to enjoy their work at Disney.
Very cogently written, good lady :bows:.
As has been said several times in this thread, there are 'bad apples' in every organisation. When the task of that organisation involves the use of projection of deadly force, then those 'bad apples' can cause some evil things to be done.
Sometimes, I have no doubt, they 'get away' with it because there is noone who witnesses it with the moral courage to do something about it. But I equally have no doubt, as you say, that there are other times too when the reverse is true.
I do happen to hold to the idea that, as a species, we'd be better off not killing each other and trying to impose power over others ... but that is not yet where we have gotten too. Indeed, I fear we are sliding back in that regard as the economically developed nations seek to secure for themselves the resources to fuel their over-consumption.
However, until someone can figure out a way to get all nations and peoples to renounce the use of force to achieve their goals, it would be the depth of foolishness to be the only one who 'lays down their arms' (I know that the arguement exists that someone has to be the first and I don't have an answer to that).
I am, in truth, anti-war, with the proviso that wars of defence are an entirely different thing than wars of aggression or avarice. But I am not anti-military. How could I be when the turning point I regret most in my life is where I obeyed the wishes of my father and did not step up to the line and join the Royal Navy when that is what I most wanted to do?
The Warrior has been a part of the human psyche for as long as we have been in existence (as far as we can tell). The role of the Warrior has been different things to different people over the ages but the core is still that of the soldier that volunteers to stand between his folk and their foe. That buys you at least a due modicum of respect in my book, even if the use that soldiers courage is put to is one I disagree with or despise.
I do understand what Mauna is trying to say here and give him due credit for facing the fire to say it. I also acceed to the truth of the old song lyric "What if they gave a war and noone came?" i.e. that without those who sign-up there can be no fighting.
However, I do not think tho' that your message, with it's volatile, negative, background, will have a positive impact upon those here who have either served or, such as myself, who share a similar mind-set to those that have done so.
As has been said several times in this thread, there are 'bad apples' in every organisation. When the task of that organisation involves the use of projection of deadly force, then those 'bad apples' can cause some evil things to be done.
Sometimes, I have no doubt, they 'get away' with it because there is noone who witnesses it with the moral courage to do something about it. But I equally have no doubt, as you say, that there are other times too when the reverse is true.
I do happen to hold to the idea that, as a species, we'd be better off not killing each other and trying to impose power over others ... but that is not yet where we have gotten too. Indeed, I fear we are sliding back in that regard as the economically developed nations seek to secure for themselves the resources to fuel their over-consumption.
However, until someone can figure out a way to get all nations and peoples to renounce the use of force to achieve their goals, it would be the depth of foolishness to be the only one who 'lays down their arms' (I know that the arguement exists that someone has to be the first and I don't have an answer to that).
I am, in truth, anti-war, with the proviso that wars of defence are an entirely different thing than wars of aggression or avarice. But I am not anti-military. How could I be when the turning point I regret most in my life is where I obeyed the wishes of my father and did not step up to the line and join the Royal Navy when that is what I most wanted to do?
The Warrior has been a part of the human psyche for as long as we have been in existence (as far as we can tell). The role of the Warrior has been different things to different people over the ages but the core is still that of the soldier that volunteers to stand between his folk and their foe. That buys you at least a due modicum of respect in my book, even if the use that soldiers courage is put to is one I disagree with or despise.
I do understand what Mauna is trying to say here and give him due credit for facing the fire to say it. I also acceed to the truth of the old song lyric "What if they gave a war and noone came?" i.e. that without those who sign-up there can be no fighting.
However, I do not think tho' that your message, with it's volatile, negative, background, will have a positive impact upon those here who have either served or, such as myself, who share a similar mind-set to those that have done so.
Last edited:
Mauna however is assuming that only a few know about the DU and only a few care and that's far from the truth. It's been in the public domain now for at least two years if not longer, there are many organisations protesting and trying to stop the use of DU, there's International Days of Action, there is a very big chunk of the world's population doing something to stop the use of DU. If you go on Google there are pages of protest groups, blogs, organisations and groups dedicated to protesting against the us of DU in bombs. It has been the subject of television documentaries and current affairs programmes as well as newpsper articles. To assume too that the forces stay silent on this subject is to be mistaken, just because it's not said in public owing to things like Official Secrets Acts and the Allies equivalent, doen't mean to say it's not being said. To assume people here on MT are deliberately ignoring it or just believing the propaganda is a mistake too. The Americans who post on here are probably the most sceptical folk where politicians and governments are concerned,that I've met lol! I don't think for one minute they follow the party line and from what I've seen they think pretty much for themselves.
Only fools and arms dealers want wars, no one else in their right mind does. Sadly we have many who can't be described as being in the mind for peaceful negociations so we are left with a choice, fight or go under to the despots and tyrants because while I don't believe the Afghan and Iraq wars were justified the moment we let down our guards there will come those who will try to dominate us and take our freedoms away. Most of us moan about our governments etc but would we truly be willing to give them up for a Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler. Those of you you dislike Obama or Bush would you be willing to have the North Korean model instead? Our stsytems aren't perfect but they are better than dictatorships and we do work to make things better, we do have a voice even if people don't listen or we feel helpless. How much more helpless would we be in North Korea, Myanmar or Rhodesia for example?
I don't suppose it's really for me to say that if the Americans forefathers hadn't stood up for what they believed in and put their lives on the line for it you would be ruled still by England or perhaps be part of the German empire instead with concentration camps etc. Who knows other than a country was born because of it's willingness to fight.
One day perhaps we shall have peace and Service people will be the first to shout hallelujah I promise but until that day arrives we must do the best we can to make sure it's that much closer to coming.
Not all wars are just, I believe the Allied governments are wrong and all our troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan but the troops have sworn oaths of loyalty to their countries and they will not break faith with their countries. Their countries do however break faith with them, that we should do something about. For the Brits - buy a poppy, go to a homecoming parade, buy something from the Help for Heroes shop, fund raise for the British Legion, Help for Heroes or one of the Regimental Funds...the Scots Guards have a cracking CD of their bands both military and pipe if you donate over a tenner to their Colonel's fund! The Mercian's fund is very low due to the amount of injured they are supporting.
Peace will come only when every man woman and child is fed, secure and safe. Peace will only come when reason rules not might but until that day comes our troops are there to do the unspeakable and to lay down their lives to keep us safe so that we may live our lives never having to do what they do. That you speak in freedom is testament to those troops. We owe them a debt that cannot be repaid but we can keep faith with them.
Only fools and arms dealers want wars, no one else in their right mind does. Sadly we have many who can't be described as being in the mind for peaceful negociations so we are left with a choice, fight or go under to the despots and tyrants because while I don't believe the Afghan and Iraq wars were justified the moment we let down our guards there will come those who will try to dominate us and take our freedoms away. Most of us moan about our governments etc but would we truly be willing to give them up for a Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler. Those of you you dislike Obama or Bush would you be willing to have the North Korean model instead? Our stsytems aren't perfect but they are better than dictatorships and we do work to make things better, we do have a voice even if people don't listen or we feel helpless. How much more helpless would we be in North Korea, Myanmar or Rhodesia for example?
I don't suppose it's really for me to say that if the Americans forefathers hadn't stood up for what they believed in and put their lives on the line for it you would be ruled still by England or perhaps be part of the German empire instead with concentration camps etc. Who knows other than a country was born because of it's willingness to fight.
One day perhaps we shall have peace and Service people will be the first to shout hallelujah I promise but until that day arrives we must do the best we can to make sure it's that much closer to coming.
Not all wars are just, I believe the Allied governments are wrong and all our troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan but the troops have sworn oaths of loyalty to their countries and they will not break faith with their countries. Their countries do however break faith with them, that we should do something about. For the Brits - buy a poppy, go to a homecoming parade, buy something from the Help for Heroes shop, fund raise for the British Legion, Help for Heroes or one of the Regimental Funds...the Scots Guards have a cracking CD of their bands both military and pipe if you donate over a tenner to their Colonel's fund! The Mercian's fund is very low due to the amount of injured they are supporting.
Peace will come only when every man woman and child is fed, secure and safe. Peace will only come when reason rules not might but until that day comes our troops are there to do the unspeakable and to lay down their lives to keep us safe so that we may live our lives never having to do what they do. That you speak in freedom is testament to those troops. We owe them a debt that cannot be repaid but we can keep faith with them.
I get maunakumu's point. "For evil to flourish, it only requires for good men to do nothing." His point is that if we know what is going on, and we do nothing about it, then evil will flourish and we are as equally responsible as those who made the evil decision in the first place. He even blames himself as one who, with his taxes, supports such action and does the "safe" thing to stop it. By that I mean he will convince others to not join the military, but he won't risk jail by refusing to pay his taxes in support of his convictions.
I get it.
But, what I take issue with is that his world view must be the only acceptable answer for what is occurring. Just because people don't see things his way means they are duped into believing it. In this context, I believe that the military needs to use the technology available to defeat their enemies in the most efficient manner possible to meet their goals. If that means DU rounds, then so be it. Until there is "safe" military ordinance, then that is what they must have.
Maunakumu, I would caution you that we do not live in a world of black and white. There are costs and benefits to every decision made which have to be made. I think that it is perfectly ok to argue these positions, and would, in fact, encourage it. But, I think that it is the height of arrogance to assume that your knowledge is perfect, and therefore anyone who doesn't agree with you on this issue is committing evil.
I get it.
But, what I take issue with is that his world view must be the only acceptable answer for what is occurring. Just because people don't see things his way means they are duped into believing it. In this context, I believe that the military needs to use the technology available to defeat their enemies in the most efficient manner possible to meet their goals. If that means DU rounds, then so be it. Until there is "safe" military ordinance, then that is what they must have.
Maunakumu, I would caution you that we do not live in a world of black and white. There are costs and benefits to every decision made which have to be made. I think that it is perfectly ok to argue these positions, and would, in fact, encourage it. But, I think that it is the height of arrogance to assume that your knowledge is perfect, and therefore anyone who doesn't agree with you on this issue is committing evil.
I don't believe that you can separate the government and its military. The government creates the military as I've stated earlier. If we believe that the actions the government required were unjust, why continue to do it? Is that judgment or is that a wake up call? All I've done here is point out that we have a choice and attempt to clarify the choice.
This thread isn't going to have much impact on things. I don't expect to change the world with it. If anything, I'm learning how this opinion is going to be received IRL. Look, you can blow me off as a military-hater, but that's not the intent of my words. I'm just one man standing up and pointing out our collective responsibility.
If everybody thought about that, the good men and women in uniform wouldn't be in the situation they are in now. If the government is going to create an organization to use violence, we must have people who think about their collective responsibility with the use of violence.
IMHO, I don't think anyone should join the military right now. I would love it if every time the government tried to send our soldiers on some barmy mission with dubious goals, people would just walk away and recruitment would drop to zero. That would put an end to it faster then voting, that's for sure. As long as people volunteer and sacrifice to do these things, the horror will continue.
That's about as clear as I can make my point. Ask yourself if that really sounds like a hater to you? IMO, we need many many many more people to come out and say this.
This thread isn't going to have much impact on things. I don't expect to change the world with it. If anything, I'm learning how this opinion is going to be received IRL. Look, you can blow me off as a military-hater, but that's not the intent of my words. I'm just one man standing up and pointing out our collective responsibility.
If everybody thought about that, the good men and women in uniform wouldn't be in the situation they are in now. If the government is going to create an organization to use violence, we must have people who think about their collective responsibility with the use of violence.
IMHO, I don't think anyone should join the military right now. I would love it if every time the government tried to send our soldiers on some barmy mission with dubious goals, people would just walk away and recruitment would drop to zero. That would put an end to it faster then voting, that's for sure. As long as people volunteer and sacrifice to do these things, the horror will continue.
That's about as clear as I can make my point. Ask yourself if that really sounds like a hater to you? IMO, we need many many many more people to come out and say this.
Thanks for this post. My knowledge is NOT perfect. I think a lot of friction comes when people refuse to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong. It also comes from a cultural expectation that I've decided to directly challenge. I feel that when I point out things like DU, I'm putting the details on a black and white image that weren't there before. In the end, we have to decide and if we find out that we are wrong, we have to change.
This is a very touchy issue with a lot of strong feelings on both sides. Maybe the next time around, I'll keep the satire and sarcasm to myself.
Mauna, in the UK the military was raised by the lords and barons for the monarch, today the military still 'belongs' to the monarch. They swear fealty to her alone never to a government or Prime Minister, it means they belong to the country not the politicians. You may think this makes little difference but it does actually, it gives the heads (and anyone else) of the military the right to argue and to refuse to do do what the government wants and they have done before now.
We are open to have our minds changed but you think we don't care about the innocent people, that we don't care about DU being used and the cost in human terms of war but you are wrong. You seem to think you are a one man campign when you aren't, as I said the subject of DU arose some time ago and a great deal is being done to combat it, I already knew that as I suspect many people on this board did. it's a big issue in the forces if you didn't know as it could be a cause of Gulf War Syndrome so you are not the only one fighting this, a good many other organisations are out there as well.
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/71.html
Take a look at this from the Royal British Legion site
http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/search?q=depleted+uranium&x=18&y=12
Heres some views from soldiers (not officers) from a British military site.
"Re: Birth defects 'have risen since US Falluja operation'
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/971203_sites.htm
"Fallujah II: This facility produced chemical weapons precursors destined for the Muhanna site. Products included chlorine, phosphorous trichloride and oxychlorode, thiony1 chloride, and with high probability two direct nerve agent precursors. The site was bombed during the Gulf War. Remaining precursors and equipment were transferred to the Muthanna site for destruction under the supervision of the Chemical Destruction Group. Located 65 km WNW of Baghdad."
Perhaps any industrial chemists in the area should start looking for these in the tap water. This might have been released in the 1990's, and been filtering into the system for years, and only started showing effects in the mid 2000's, coincidentally after the Fallujah battle.
Another view from same site
Some years ago I was involved with a survey in Nepal to do with birth defects, as the Sherpa women drink water that is in most cases Glacier Melt off, now this has none of the nutriants and minerals that we get from our water. So there was a High incidence of cretinisem, and at the time it was common practice to throw any deformed children into the Dhude Kosi river but we had no base line to work from as we had no idea just how many deformed births there were before we arrived,so our findings were not much use so we gave mineral suppliments in the form of injections to as many women as possible who were of child bearing age and this seemed to work,
And another soldier who makes a very salient point at the end
" The problem of rate of change would require reliable stats from the local health organisations. These don't exist, so unless someone starts baselining data, it's all anecdotal and supposition.
The media are aware of Gulf War Syndrome, and Depleted Uranium, but are ignorant of the other environmental factors, and the impacts of decades of sanctions on public health in the run up to the last war.
What they have here is a story that might (or might not) be made up of parts of other stories.
DU might equal birth defects.
(It probably does. There's lots of research that says so. But so do other things, alone or in combination with DU. DU is radioactive, but it's also a heavy metal. They are toxic in their own right.)
OR the story could be :
Birth defects up.
Caused by: Chemicals, DU, other unknown factors
Aggravated by: sanctions and the collapse of public health services
and sanctions, and malnutrition amongst children in that time who are now reaching child bearing age.
But being media, they aren't qualified or interested enough to look beyond the juicy headline 'Filthy Capitalist USA Radioactive bullets kill babies'.
Mind you- Once you identify the problem, there's still the next issue: Who clears it up. And- Who pays?
If you want to know the website to read it for yourself PM me, I've necessarily had to leave out the link because soldiers while they are thoughtful aren't the most tactful, they tell things as it is and the language is ripe lol!
Please don't tell us we know nothing and are doing nothing.
The other point is that you make unsubstantiated allegations against the Forces such as killing, raping, burning and poisoning innocent people, I say.....prove it. Post specific proof of such acts that have been left untried by civilian courts or courts martial.
You would love it you say if soldiers turned round and refused to serve, thats fine there's no cost to you is there? You are asking people to make sacrifices while you stand on the sidelines clapping. Thats not clever and it's not fair. don't ask people to do something you won't do yourself. You aren't challenging cultural expectations here ,you are complaining about being misunderstood. You don't know what British cultural expectations are concerning the military and I'm not sure you actually know what Americans are either.
We are open to have our minds changed but you think we don't care about the innocent people, that we don't care about DU being used and the cost in human terms of war but you are wrong. You seem to think you are a one man campign when you aren't, as I said the subject of DU arose some time ago and a great deal is being done to combat it, I already knew that as I suspect many people on this board did. it's a big issue in the forces if you didn't know as it could be a cause of Gulf War Syndrome so you are not the only one fighting this, a good many other organisations are out there as well.
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/71.html
Take a look at this from the Royal British Legion site
http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/search?q=depleted+uranium&x=18&y=12
Heres some views from soldiers (not officers) from a British military site.
"Re: Birth defects 'have risen since US Falluja operation'
There is some suggestion that potentially contaminated waste might have entered the water supply after the wreckage was ... bulldozed into the river. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...operation.html
However, it's also worth remembering that Saddam had a LOT of nasty chemicals industry, and didn't listen to the Health and Safety Executive.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...fallujah_2.htm
"Fallujah II was one of Iraq's principal CW precursor production facilities before the Gulf war. In the last few years the Iraqis upgraded the facility and brought in new chemical reactor vessels and shipping containers with a large amount of production equipment. They expanded chlorine output far beyond pre-Gulf war production levels—capabilities that can be diverted quickly to CW production. Iraq sought to purchase CW agent precursors and applicable production equipment and tried to hide the activities of the Fallujah plant.
Before the Gulf War Iraq depended on importing-specialized equipment-and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline. Chlorination normaly is accomplished during several stages of purification, including the inital treatment stage to prevent the equipment from liming and to kill pathogens just prior to storing the fully treated water. The chlorine used in most plants is either sodium hypochlorite, a liquid, or calcium hypochlorite, a powder. If they are equipped with injectors, low-capacity plants can use chlorine gas directly. At the time of the Gulf War, Iraq's plant in Fallujah and the PC-I petrochemical plant at Basrah produced sodium hypochlorite and, as a by-product, caustic soda, which was used to adjust the PH of water supplies. Normally, both locations produced relatively small quantities of chlorine for industrial and some municipal use; chlorine for municipal supplies also was imported. [SOURCE: IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES DIA WASHINGTON DC - 22 JAN 91]
Some dodgy maps on this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...q/fallujah.htm
suggest that the Fallujah CW plant cluster weren't that far away from the town.
Inspection showed up a lovely mix of stuff, 'herbicides' ' pesticides', phenols and aniline (strangely carcinogenic, and used in rocket fuel)
I'd check the local groundwater and wells for dumped chemicals before I'd start blaming DU.
PS- We ought to know about Fallujah II. We built it in the 1980's!
http://www.mail-archive.com/thepower.../msg00680.html
There is some medical research that links these kind of birth defects to agricultural pesticides (not a million miles away from CW agents), but there is also the possibility that there were other things being produced in the area. However, it's also worth remembering that Saddam had a LOT of nasty chemicals industry, and didn't listen to the Health and Safety Executive.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...fallujah_2.htm
"Fallujah II was one of Iraq's principal CW precursor production facilities before the Gulf war. In the last few years the Iraqis upgraded the facility and brought in new chemical reactor vessels and shipping containers with a large amount of production equipment. They expanded chlorine output far beyond pre-Gulf war production levels—capabilities that can be diverted quickly to CW production. Iraq sought to purchase CW agent precursors and applicable production equipment and tried to hide the activities of the Fallujah plant.
Before the Gulf War Iraq depended on importing-specialized equipment-and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline. Chlorination normaly is accomplished during several stages of purification, including the inital treatment stage to prevent the equipment from liming and to kill pathogens just prior to storing the fully treated water. The chlorine used in most plants is either sodium hypochlorite, a liquid, or calcium hypochlorite, a powder. If they are equipped with injectors, low-capacity plants can use chlorine gas directly. At the time of the Gulf War, Iraq's plant in Fallujah and the PC-I petrochemical plant at Basrah produced sodium hypochlorite and, as a by-product, caustic soda, which was used to adjust the PH of water supplies. Normally, both locations produced relatively small quantities of chlorine for industrial and some municipal use; chlorine for municipal supplies also was imported. [SOURCE: IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES DIA WASHINGTON DC - 22 JAN 91]
Some dodgy maps on this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...q/fallujah.htm
suggest that the Fallujah CW plant cluster weren't that far away from the town.
Inspection showed up a lovely mix of stuff, 'herbicides' ' pesticides', phenols and aniline (strangely carcinogenic, and used in rocket fuel)
I'd check the local groundwater and wells for dumped chemicals before I'd start blaming DU.
PS- We ought to know about Fallujah II. We built it in the 1980's!
http://www.mail-archive.com/thepower.../msg00680.html
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/971203_sites.htm
"Fallujah II: This facility produced chemical weapons precursors destined for the Muhanna site. Products included chlorine, phosphorous trichloride and oxychlorode, thiony1 chloride, and with high probability two direct nerve agent precursors. The site was bombed during the Gulf War. Remaining precursors and equipment were transferred to the Muthanna site for destruction under the supervision of the Chemical Destruction Group. Located 65 km WNW of Baghdad."
Perhaps any industrial chemists in the area should start looking for these in the tap water. This might have been released in the 1990's, and been filtering into the system for years, and only started showing effects in the mid 2000's, coincidentally after the Fallujah battle.
Another view from same site
Some years ago I was involved with a survey in Nepal to do with birth defects, as the Sherpa women drink water that is in most cases Glacier Melt off, now this has none of the nutriants and minerals that we get from our water. So there was a High incidence of cretinisem, and at the time it was common practice to throw any deformed children into the Dhude Kosi river but we had no base line to work from as we had no idea just how many deformed births there were before we arrived,so our findings were not much use so we gave mineral suppliments in the form of injections to as many women as possible who were of child bearing age and this seemed to work,
And another soldier who makes a very salient point at the end
" The problem of rate of change would require reliable stats from the local health organisations. These don't exist, so unless someone starts baselining data, it's all anecdotal and supposition.
The media are aware of Gulf War Syndrome, and Depleted Uranium, but are ignorant of the other environmental factors, and the impacts of decades of sanctions on public health in the run up to the last war.
What they have here is a story that might (or might not) be made up of parts of other stories.
DU might equal birth defects.
(It probably does. There's lots of research that says so. But so do other things, alone or in combination with DU. DU is radioactive, but it's also a heavy metal. They are toxic in their own right.)
OR the story could be :
Birth defects up.
Caused by: Chemicals, DU, other unknown factors
Aggravated by: sanctions and the collapse of public health services
and sanctions, and malnutrition amongst children in that time who are now reaching child bearing age.
But being media, they aren't qualified or interested enough to look beyond the juicy headline 'Filthy Capitalist USA Radioactive bullets kill babies'.
Mind you- Once you identify the problem, there's still the next issue: Who clears it up. And- Who pays?
If you want to know the website to read it for yourself PM me, I've necessarily had to leave out the link because soldiers while they are thoughtful aren't the most tactful, they tell things as it is and the language is ripe lol!
Please don't tell us we know nothing and are doing nothing.
The other point is that you make unsubstantiated allegations against the Forces such as killing, raping, burning and poisoning innocent people, I say.....prove it. Post specific proof of such acts that have been left untried by civilian courts or courts martial.
You would love it you say if soldiers turned round and refused to serve, thats fine there's no cost to you is there? You are asking people to make sacrifices while you stand on the sidelines clapping. Thats not clever and it's not fair. don't ask people to do something you won't do yourself. You aren't challenging cultural expectations here ,you are complaining about being misunderstood. You don't know what British cultural expectations are concerning the military and I'm not sure you actually know what Americans are either.
You say there is no cost to me... Piffle. I mortgage my childrens future with these wars. How many great people has my nation lost or injured in this mess? Where could we be be as a society if we used people better? We're all in this together.
You say I'm standing on the sidelines clapping and asking people to do what I won't do... Piffle. Don't you realize that we are on the same side?
Not everyone is ignorant, but a great many people are. The average person hardly spares a thought for it. We've got bread and circuses lined up as far as the eye can see...and the reality of the war is deliberately hidden from the public.
Times are changing though and people are starting to wake up. The sanitized version of reality is crumbling with every leaked document, with every report of torture, with every coffin, and every missing limb. People are asking if it's all worth it and are arriving at some very disturbing conclusions.
The cultural expectation that we support the unsupportable is breaking down. It's only a matter of time as more people join me every single day. As we begin to fully understand the prices we pay, people will simply refuse to fight for this...because it's the right thing to do.
Arrogance.
Ask yourself why people don't think about things like this if that's true, it's because they have to survive in a harch economic climate. Would you ask that a father with a dying child waiting for a transplant he can't afford think more of what is going on in a far country than of his own child? Would you ask a woman watching her husband go senile with Alzheimers to think, not of him but of what the countires soldiers are doing? Or a family facing eviction because there's no work? People are struggling to make ends meet, they are fighting to survive against job losses, homes being repossessed, increasing crime, higher cost of living. If your children have a future do you know how lucky they are? You have the luxury of having time to think, many don't, they work two, three jobs, look after children, they cope..just and you blame them for not caring about what is happening elsewhere? You have your head in the clouds, you may be an idealist but you don't see the reality. What the military is doing is the least of your problems. Yes, campaign for peace, get the troops home, use that money to make a better life for your people first.
You say things are hidden and that nobody cares then you say its there to be seen and the people will rise up, you can't have it both ways. Your country like mine has homeless people, people in need, people struggling in poverty if you are so concerned for people don't rage at them for not caring, how can they, their cup is overflowing with want and need how can they see beyond that? People are worried about redundancies, paying for medical care, paying for education, paying to keep a roof over their heads and this isn't just the poor this is moving up the class structure. It's not that they don't care, they can't care.
In this country we have 500,000 people losing their jobs over the next five years from one sector alone. Up the road from me is Middlesborough, there used to be steel works and a chemical plant, there's nothing now, no jobs, no money, no hope. How can these people care about what is going on in a war so far away, they are just trying to survive themselves. We have lost manufacturing companies, we've lost big companies, Kraft took over one of our chocolate making firms and promptly made hundreds redundant. Competition from the Far East is fierce, they do it cheaper by using cheap labour often young children. The only company now that makes cars here is Japanese, how long will they stay? The country has a massive deficit, every single person in this country even those on benefits will have less money to spend on ever increasingly expensive commodities. Gas and coal prices have gone up, our petrol is over £1.20 a litre, diesel dearer which puts food prices up. I don't know if I will have a job in five years, we are losing 25,000 from our ministry. Don't you see that caring about people in other countries and what our troops do isn't as big an issue as you'd like?
There's a saying 'fine words butter no parsnips', I don't know if you know what that means but when you say you are mortgaging your children's future it's fine rhetoric, it sounds grand when you say it to yourself but the rest of us are just trying to get through the days to see if we have enough to live on now.
There is no cultural expectation from Americans or the British about our forces, they are a sideline in most peoples live's, we are too busy running to try and stand still to worry about things bigger than us. If there's an economic upturn and people feel secure then our minds can afford to turn to things other than making sure we have a roof over our heads and food on our tables for our children to eat.
Good try but you sound like a Guardian reading do gooder who means well, the road to hell however is paved with good intentions.
Similar threads
