US military action likely caused birth defects in Fallujah, Iraq - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-30-2010, 03:40 PM   #31
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 02:01 PM
This is probably useless, but please don't try to inflate my argument beyond what it was.

To sum up my argument:
The American media from the mid-90s to September 11, 2001, did NOTHING to differentiate the perpetrators of terrorist acts involving U.S. targets. It was all "Middle Eastern terrorists." Obviously, there were many players, but Saddam Hussein was the catch-all face of terrorism as far as the public was concerned, and I'm saying that would indicate why the poll results were what they were.

Yes, I disagree about containment versus invasion of Iraq and Hussein, but that is a different topic that I'm sure has been beaten to death here ad nauseum.
__________________

__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 03:49 PM   #32
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 02:01 PM
I am curious what the potential source of the genetic defects is.

I know after the first Gulf War there were a few accusations of medical problems regarding depleted uranium munitions. I don't know if or why those would have been used in Fallujah since I thought depleted uranium is mainly used in anti-armor munitions.

The timing and statistics the videos bring up indicate that it could coincide with the U.S. operations there. I wonder if there are any unusual medical problems experienced by the adults there?
__________________

__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 05:02 PM   #33
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
This is probably useless, but please don't try to inflate my argument beyond what it was.

To sum up my argument:
The American media from the mid-90s to September 11, 2001, did NOTHING to differentiate the perpetrators of terrorist acts involving U.S. targets. It was all "Middle Eastern terrorists." Obviously, there were many players, but Saddam Hussein was the catch-all face of terrorism as far as the public was concerned, and I'm saying that would indicate why the poll results were what they were.

.
Well, can you point to any specific media source blaming Saddam for the terrorism that occured in 1998 with the US embassies or the bombing of the Cohl? The media started talking about Al Quada and Bin Ladin with those events. Saddam was never mentioned by anyone. There is no need to differentiate the perpetrators from Saddam, when Saddam is not at all being mentioned as being associated with those events. At the time, neither the media nor the American public in any way shape or form associated Saddam with those specific terrorist attacks.

Saddam was considered by the media and the public to be a threat to the persian gulf, energy supply, and a user and developer of Weapons of Mass destruction. The United States had just fought a full scale war against Saddam in 1991 involving over 500,000 US troops. The US was engaged with inspections of Iraq, occasional military air strikes for certain violations and repeated military deployments to the region because of Saddam's actions.

But he was not associated with actual terrorist strikes on US targets by the vast majority of the media and public at the time and there for, that played no role in the poll results in February 2001.

Quote:
Yes, I disagree about containment versus invasion of Iraq and Hussein, but that is a different topic that I'm sure has been beaten to death here ad nauseum.
Containment of Saddam was not possible without an effective and fully enforced sanctions and weapons embargo regime. These key components of containment were essentially gone by 2002, allowing Saddam to start rebuilding conventional and unconventional military power at a pace much faster than before. If the countries that border Iraq as well as other countries around the world no longer cooperate in maintaining sanctions and the weapons embargo, then containment is impossible. That means the only option is regime change through invasion, and that is what happened and Iraq, and the Persian Gulf are safer, more secure, and have brighter future and more opportunity, because Saddam's regime is no longer there.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 05:15 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Well, its a majority equal to the number of people voting for Barack Obama in percentage terms.
So?
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 04:36 AM   #35
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
So?
It obviously does not have to be any more than that. But if you have a satisfactory percentage in mind that is higher, let us know.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 09:03 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
It obviously does not have to be any more than that. But if you have a satisfactory percentage in mind that is higher, let us know.
Sorry, I miswrote in my post back there. I meant to say that "it doesnt say a lot ABOUT the majority of the American people" that they supported the war. I meant to say that the support reflects poorly on the American people. Which is why I followed with the comment about that probably making me an elitist.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 12:33 PM   #37
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Sorry, I miswrote in my post back there. I meant to say that "it doesnt say a lot ABOUT the majority of the American people" that they supported the war. I meant to say that the support reflects poorly on the American people. Which is why I followed with the comment about that probably making me an elitist.
I don't think supporting the removal of Saddam Hussein from power given these circumstances is a poor reflection on anyone. Defending keeping Saddam in power is certainly far more questionable. I have yet to see anyone write a book explaining why keeping Saddam in power would be better for the security and safety of the Iraqi people, the people of the region, and the whole world.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 04:22 PM   #38
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
I don't think supporting the removal of Saddam Hussein from power given these circumstances is a poor reflection on anyone. Defending keeping Saddam in power is certainly far more questionable. I have yet to see anyone write a book explaining why keeping Saddam in power would be better for the security and safety of the Iraqi people, the people of the region, and the whole world.
The three trillion dollar war | Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes - Times Online

Was Iraq worth at least $1,000,000,000,000 of debt by the U.S.?
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:56 PM   #39
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
The three trillion dollar war | Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes - Times Online

Was Iraq worth at least $1,000,000,000,000 of debt by the U.S.?


especially when combined with the Bush tax cuts!!! boo-yah!
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:51 PM   #40
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
The three trillion dollar war | Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes - Times Online

Was Iraq worth at least $1,000,000,000,000 of debt by the U.S.?
It was worth FAR MORE than that and its interesting to note that this book does NOT list ANY of the potential consequences of leaving Saddam in power, over states cost in many area's, has been criticized by other poltiical scientist and economist, and caculates the cost of war in ways that were not done for World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and other wars leading to a grossly inflated figure that is not really comparable.

Also, Us defense spending, despite both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has been a smaller percentage of USA GDP than the spending on defense during the peacetime of the 1980s, as well as peacetime and war time spending in the 1970s, 1960s, 1950s, 1940s!

The book clearly does not specifcally explain why Iraq, the region, and the world would be safer and more secure in the long run with Saddam still in power.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:53 PM   #41
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
especially when combined with the Bush tax cuts!!! boo-yah!
I agree that the Bush Tax cuts for those making over $100,000 a year were a waste, did not help the economy and only added to the national debt.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 11:28 PM   #42
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:01 PM
By the way, today marks 20 years since Saddam's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 12:45 PM   #43
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:01 PM
Joe Klein lays it all out:


Quote:
Obama on Iraq
Posted by Joe Klein Monday, August 2, 2010 at 3:39 pm

Well, at least he didn't announce the end of major combat operations in Iraq under a banner that said "Mission Accomplished." He did it in front of the Disabled American Veterans, the most grave and sober audience imaginable. And appropriately so, after a war that should never have been fought, a war that by some estimates will cost $3 trillion before it's done (including the health care services rendered to those represented by the DAV), a war whose casualties number in the 100s of thousands. The war in Iraq hasn't been much in the news over the past year, but this is an important moment, a moment for reflection, for humility in the face of a national disaster.

There is no "victory" in Iraq, nor will there be. There is something resembling stability, but that might not last, either. There is a semblance of democracy, but that may dissolve over time, or in the next few months, into a Shi'ite dictatorship--which, if not well-run, will yield to the near-inevitable military coup. Yes, Saddam is gone--and that is a good thing. The Kurds have a greater measure of independence and don't have to live in fear of mass murder, which is a good thing, too. But Iran has been aggrandized. Its Iraqi allies, especially Muqtada Sadr's populist movement, remain a force that will play a major role--arguably one more central than ours--in shaping the future of the country. This attempt by western neo-colonialists--that is, the Bush Administration--to construct an amenable Iraq will most likely end no better than previous western attempts have. Certainly, even if something resembling democracy prevails, the U.S. invasion and occupation--the carnage and tragedy it wrought--will not be remembered fondly by Iraqis anytime soon. We will own the destruction in perpetuity; if the Iraqis manage to cobble themselves a decent society, they will see it, correctly, as an achievement of their own.

There are other consequences of this profound misadventure. The return of the Taliban in Afghanistan is certainly one; if U.S. attention, and special forces, hadn't been diverted from that primary conflict, the story in the Pashtun borderlands might be very different now. The credibility of the United States--slowly recovering due to the efforts of Barack Obama--is another, after a war promulgated by a gale of ignorance at best and chicanery at worst. The sense of the United States as a nation of tempered, honorable actions may never recover from the images of the past decade, especially the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison.

The replacement notion that it was our right and responsibility to rid Iraq of a terrible dictator--after the original casus belli of weapons of mass destruction evaporated--is a neo-colonialist obscenity. The fact that Bush apologists still trot out his "Forward Freedom Agenda" as an example of American idealism is a delusional farce. The "Freedom Agenda" brought us a Hamas government in Gaza, after a Palestinian election that no one but the Bush Administration wanted. It brought the empowerment of Hizballah in Lebanon. It raised the hopes of reformers across the region, soon dashed when the Bush Administration retreated, realizing that the probable outcome of democracy in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be the installation of Islamist parties that might prove more repressive than the dictatorships they replaced. Freedom may well be "God's gift to humanity," as Bush intoned regularly, radiating a simple-minded piety that never reflected another of God's greatest gifts--the ability to doubt, to think difficult thoughts and weigh conflicting options with clarity and subtlety. But I'm pretty sure God never designated the United States to impose that freedom violently upon others.

It is the way of the world that Barack Obama's announcement today of the end of the combat phase in Iraq, and the beginning of a 16-month period of advice and support for the Iraqi security forces before U.S. troops leave in 2011, will not be remembered as vividly as George Bush's juvenile march across the deck of an aircraft carrier, costumed as a combat aviator in a golden sunset, to announce--six years and tens of thousands of lives prematurely--the "end of combat operations." But celebration is not appropriate now. What is appropriate is what the President did: promise that amends will be made to those whose lives were shattered and that their service in an unnecessary cause will be honored. What is also appropriate now is a mournful colloquy on America's place in the world--and how our natural leadership among nations, a consequence of the freedom that Bush misconstrued, is best utilized in the future.

As for myself, I deeply regret that once, on television in the days before the war, I reluctantly but foolishly said that going ahead with the invasion might be the right thing to do. I was far more skeptical, and equivocal, in print--I never wrote in favor of the war and repeatedly raised the problems that would accompany it--but skepticism and equivocation were an insufficient reaction, too. In retrospect, the issue then was as clear cut as it is now. It demanded a clarity that I failed to summon. The essential principle is immutable: We should never go to war unless we have been attacked or are under direct, immediate threat of attack. Never. And never again.

Read more: Obama on Iraq - Swampland - TIME.com

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 12:55 PM   #44
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Good read & eloquently stated.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 01:52 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Good read & eloquently stated.
I expect that Saddam-loving claptrap will be shortly refudiated.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama General Discussion diamond Free Your Mind Archive 1009 06-28-2010 01:03 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com