so they blatantly lie and you dont care

[STING2]

Klaus,

"If it was about Disarming them because Iraq did not verifiably dissarm...
...why did they talk about self defense, unprooved al-quaida and 9/11 connections and why did they need faked "facts" from their security agencies."

#1 Verifiably disarming Iraq is an action of "Self Defense" for the region, and the entire world.

#2 It would have been inappropriate not to tell the public about any possible connections to Al Quada. The Administration said there were indications and there indeed were at the time, regardless if the possible connections seem less so today. This was the intelligence they had at the time, and they presented it.

#3 The Administration never used "Faked" facts but simply intelligence that proved later to be inaccurate in some cases. That is the nature of any and all intelligence and not some liberal BS conspiracy theory.

"And why - if they did it under the UN rules is the UN not in control of the whole operation?"

The UN is under control of the whole operation as indicated by resolution 1483 passed in May 2003 by the Security Council which declared the member states, USA, United Kingdom, and Australia to be the "Authority" in Iraq. Every aspect of this operation has been approved and authorized by the United Nations. Any further changes to the current structure in Iraq will have to be approved by the United Nations and the United Nations has not done so yet.

"Why was the threat of Iraq (against other countries) so imminent that they couldn't wait that unmovic finished its work?"

It is impossible for UNMOVIC to finish its work without help from SADDAM. If SADDAM will not verifiably show what happened to the 30,000 Bio/Chem shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, and hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, then it is impossible for UNMOVIC to achieve Verifiable Disarmament. From the start in November 2002, Saddam insisted he destroyed the WMD from 1998, but showed no evidence of the destruction. Verifiable disarmament requires that he do this. His failure to do this means that further UNMOVIC operations in Iraq were essentially a waste of time. Unarmed inspectors cannot disarm an armed dictator who does not want to be verifiably disarmed!

The threat of Saddam's WMD was declared imminent back in March 1991. That is why he was forced then in there, with 250,000 US troops in Southern Iraq, to sign agreements to give up all his WMD, or face further military action.

"Why wasn't even the time to wait 3 more days were France and Germany said they would present an alternative at the UN forum?"

Because the weather in Iraq is a big factor in military operations. Hundreds of Thousands of soldiers are have Chem/Bio suits on in 110 degree plus heat. The USA and coalition I feel waited to long to launch the strike. It should have been done weeks earlier to give the soldiers cooler weather to operate in.

Secondly, there is no alternative to Verifiable Disarmament by Saddam. It is Saddam's responsibility per the resolutions to disarm.

It is unbelievable that Germany and France fought so hard to prevent the end of one of the most brutal regimes in history. Thousands of Iraqi's were dying every month because of Saddam's rule. How many more Iraqi's would have to die under the German and French plan. An Alternative German and French plan would have left Saddam in power.

It had been 12 years since March 1991 when the invasion was launched to bring total compliance of Saddam with the resolutions through military force. 12 years. 12 years Germany and France had to present their ineffective plan for Iraq.

France and Germany should understand that enforcement of the UNs most serious resolutions, those past under Chapter VII rules, are vital if the United Nations is going to have credibility in the future. France and Germany should also understand that they will never succeed in preventing other countries from protecting their vital national security interest. They should also understand that the only way to deal with Dictators like Saddam or through the tough rules and resolutions that were laid down back in 1991 and reafirmed multiple times since then. Resolutions that clearly authorized the use of force if Saddam failed to comply. They should also understand that if they take a tougher stand next time, they actually would be more helpful in bringing about compliance without military force.

But the war is over now, and despite the fact that Germany and France were on the wrong side of history when it came to war, they now have the opportunity to be on the right side of history when it comes to the Peace. Japan has just given a Billion dollars to help reconstruct Iraq after 30 years of rule under Saddam. What will France and Germany be willing to contribute to the future of the Iraqi people? The Iraqi people are watching and waiting.

 

[Scarletwine]

But the war is over now, and despite the fact that Germany and France were on the WRONG side of history when it came to war, they now have the opportunity to be on the right side of history when it comes to the Peace. Japan has just given a Billion dollars to help reconstruct Iraq after 30 years of rule under Saddam. What will France and Germany be willing to contribute to the future of the Iraqi people? The Iraqi people are watching and waiting.

This is unbelievable. The arrogance just astounds me.

Although you cannot find your way to consider it, many still feel the war was wrong, not because Sadaam was good, but preemption is wrong. Just let it go.



Any UN Resolutions discussions =

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

I have a political opinion and every right to express it. The war was not about Pre-emption. It was authorized by the necessity to ensure peace, security, and stability in the region because of the lack of verifiable disarmament by Saddam. This was laid down firmly in the UN resolutions regardless of your opinion of them.

What makes me sick is the Anti-War crowds failure to realize the consequences of not enforcing the resolutions both in terms of Security for the region and the world, as well as the Iraqi civilians continueing to live under Saddam's brutal rule. Their consequences in terms of the losses from the war were flat out wrong and everytime the condition in Iraq improves for the people, its one more thing that shows the supporters of military enforcement of the Resolutions were correct and those that opposed were incorrect. The reconstruction of Iraq going on now is bringing about the biggest change ever in Iraqi history in terms of the politically stability and standard of living of the people that live there.

I'm well aware of other peoples opinions, but this is mine.

 

[Klaus]

Germany and France didn't fight to prevent the end of Saddam. They simply weren't convinced by the proofs which were presented at the UN.
Today we know that these facts where our foreign minister said "excuse me - but i'm not convinced" were wrong or outdated.
Just because our Governments thought that the US/GB coalition was wrong DOES NOT mean that they were pro Saddam!

Klaus

 

[Scarletwine]

Their consequences in terms of the losses from the war were flat out wrong and everytime the condition in Iraq improves for the people, its one more thing that shows the supporters of military enforcement of the Resolutions were correct and those that opposed were incorrect. The reconstruction of Iraq going on now is bringing about the biggest change ever in Iraqi history in terms of the politically stability and standard of living of the people that live there.

You are also incorrect here. Conditions have not improved only deterioriated. Ubay is no longer stealing women and raping them, many men are. Sadaam is no longer plundering homes in the night of political opposition, we are. The only one profiting from this war is Halliburton, Bechtel, and other admin. special buddies.

PS - that's what Britian said wwhen they formed Iraq.

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

"You are also incorrect here. Conditions have not improved only deterioriated. Ubay is no longer stealing women and raping them, many men are. Sadaam is no longer plundering homes in the night of political opposition, we are. The only one profiting from this war is Halliburton, Bechtel, and other admin. special buddies."

"PS - that's what Britian said wwhen they formed Iraq."

Sorry but my friends who spent 8 MONTHS in Iraq present a different story. They have worked hard to build schools and infrastructure in Southern Iraq that had long been brutalized by Saddam. The total amount of Electricity available in Iraq is now greater than it was before the war. The Shia population in Iraq no longer have to fear execution by Saddam's security services.

Over 1 Million Iraqi's died under Saddam's rule. How many more was the Anti-War crowd willing to let die from Saddam's rule? The USA has removed the single greatest menace to the lives of Iraqi Childern and their families. The USA this year alone is going to pump 20 BILLION DOLLARS in economic and humanitarian aid into Iraq. No other leader or administration in history from any country has ever given the people living within the borders of Iraq this much aid.

Nope, Iraq is not an X-Files story or an Oliver Stone movie. Every town in Iraq that starts to improve, every Iraqi house that gets running water and electricity for the first time in decades, every Iraqi police officer and soldier that is trained professionally, every Iraqi child that is fed and recieves medical treatment regardless if their Shia, Kurd or Sunni, every smile that more Iraqi childern experience as US Marines build them new schools, is one more thing that proves that the Bush administration made the right choice in using military force to remove Saddam. None of these things would be happening if the Anti-War crowd had succeeded in preventing the removal of Saddam from power back in March/April 2003.

 

[STING2]

Germany and France didn't fight to prevent the end of Saddam. They simply weren't convinced by the proofs which were presented at the UN.
Today we know that these facts where our foreign minister said "excuse me - but i'm not convinced" were wrong or outdated.
Just because our Governments thought that the US/GB coalition was wrong DOES NOT mean that they were pro Saddam!

Klaus

#1 France and Germany did work hard to prevent the overthrow of Saddam this past March.

#2 Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. That is a fact. Saddam was the only one required to prove anything. Saddam never complied with a single resolution passed against him and was in open violation of the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement.

#3 I never said they were "pro-Saddam", but the actions they took were to prevent the overthrow of Saddam back in March/April 2003.

 

[Klaus]

#1 they worked hard to stop a war based on wrong facts

#2 right, but it's questionable if these 10 resolutions alone justify a war.
I guess that's why the US didn't talk too much about the old resolutions in front of the UNO but presented new facts why it's important to invade now because of a imminent threat of Saddam.

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

"#1 they worked hard to stop a war based on wrong facts"

#1 It was a fact that Saddam had failed to comply with 17 UN resolutions after 12 years. It was a fact that Saddam had failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD as required by the Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement. In case of such violations, member states of the UN were authorized to use all means necessary to bring about compliance. The coalition members succeeded in enforcing UN resolutions by removing Saddam from power. France and Germany tried to prevent this from happening.

"#2 right, but it's questionable if these 10 resolutions alone justify a war.
I guess that's why the US didn't talk too much about the old resolutions in front of the UNO but presented new facts why it's important to invade now because of a imminent threat of Saddam."

A Violation of any one of them justified military action. Thats why the resolutions were passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations, so that military force could be used to enforce the resolutions.

It would have been very stupid to require a dictator like Saddam to disarm, but have no means to enforce disarmament if Saddam decided not to cooperate. Thats why resolution 678 authorizes the use of all means necessary to bring about compliance with ALL SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS.

George Bush stated that as the centerpiece of his talk to the United Nations on September 12, 2002. He brought out the fact that Iraq had failed to comply with 17 UN resolutions and that the matter had to be resolved. He was ready to give Saddam one last chance and Saddam refused to account for the WMD the inspectors new he had back in 1998.

George Bush also got another resolution passed (1441) in 2002 that reafirmed the previous resolutions and authorized the use of military force if Saddam failed his one last chance.

The United Nations required that Iraq give up its WMD programs back in March 1991 because they were viewed as an imminent threat to the international community. Saddam agreed and signed the Ceacefire Agreement requiring him to disarm.

It has always been the central basis of US foreign policy to Iraq since 1991, that it must Verifiably disarm of all WMD. This policy never required the USA or any other member state to prove anything! The burden of proof is not on the USA or any UN member, it is on SADDAM. Thats how the UN Ceacefire Agreement was written. This is still the central basis of the US governments reasons for military action against Iraq.

 

[Klaus]

We wrote here several times, i think all we can agree on is that we strongly dissagree in the interpretation of the consequences.

But it's not only us, there are several countries who have different opinions as we could see in the UN when the US/GB coalition tried to get a resolution before iraq war that would have convinced countries like Germany that the war was legal.

We can see these differences again in the new approach to get a UN resolution.It's basically the the interpretation of US/GB against view of France supported by Germany and Russia supported by Kofi Anan.

I'm affraid many others stoped to read the War forum because they are tired of our discuss about that. Maybe we should stop talking about that in the whole forum and only write in one thread "The UN Resolutions" .

Klaus

 

[Scarletwine]

Finally the mainstream media is picking up in the LIES.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4932.htm

Selective Intelligence on Road to Baghdad

By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

10/09/03 (New York Times) There is no critique more stinging than one wrapped in sympathy. Tonight, PBS's "Frontline" examines the Bush administration's rationale for the Iraq war in a tone of puzzled sorrow that somehow enhances, rather than mutes, the righteous indignation of the reporting.

Opening softly with the return to Baghdad of an idealistic Iraqi exile, Kanan Makiya, two weeks after the fall of Saddam Hussein, "Truth, War and Consequences" explores the disillusionment of the war's most fervent supporters before backtracking to how the Bush White House brought it all about. But White House deception is the real focus of the program, which draws two main conclusions, both linked to hubris: that the administration twisted the facts to paint Mr. Hussein as an imminent threat to the security of the United States, and that it ignored its own experts' warnings about the risks and cost of postwar reconstruction.

These are, of course, accusations that have been made on Sunday talk shows, in newspaper editorials and at foreign affairs seminars for weeks, growing most recently acute around the scandal over the leaking of the identity of a C.I.A. agent, Valerie Plame.

The "Frontline" documentary, which weaves solemn interviews with Iraqi exiles and disgruntled government officials around scenes of the everyday chaos and violence of Baghdad, does not provide new information so much as it richly illustrates the case against the Bush administration ? a prosecution brief enhanced with charts, photographs and a thick leather binder.

Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who was a vital intelligence source for the Pentagon hawks, is presented as exhibit A. "Do you have any documentary evidence of any kind?" Martin Smith, the program's on-camera reporter and producer, asks Mr. Chalabi, who says he has "very strong" evidence linking Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda. Mr. Smith politely presses the Iraqi to produce an actual document. "I mean, if there is such a document, it makes sense for you to share it, no?" he persists. Mr. Chalabi promises, awkwardly, that the document will be furnished.

"The document was supposed to demonstrate money changing hands between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda," a narrator intones. "After repeated requests, `Frontline' has still not seen the document."

Mr. Chalabi's discomfort is contrasted with the calm self-possession of former United States government officials who question the administration's policy. Robert M. Perito, a retired career diplomat who briefly served as a national security aide in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, says he reminded top administration officials of the costly chaos in Panama City after Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega was removed from power in 1989. "And those lessons were ignored," he says matter-of-factly.

Greg Thielmann, who left his post as director of the strategic, proliferation and military affairs office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research last September, also describes in dispassionate tones how the State Department's intelligence reports were ignored or sanded down to suit the White House's case. Calling the administration's approach "faith-based intelligence," Mr. Thielmann says, "They were cherry-picking the information that we provided to use whatever pieces of it fit their overall interpretation."

What the documentary does not point out is that every administration routinely ignores its most experienced in-house experts. The banks of the Potomac are littered with the spent careers of C.I.A. analysts and foreign service professionals who had discordant assessments of El Salvador, Bosnia and Iraq.

What distinguished the Bush administration, "Frontline" contends, was the openness of its arrogance and the magnitude of its policy shift ? sending more than 200,000 American troops to invade a Muslim country and recreate it along American democratic lines.

Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, the American administrator of Iraq, tells "Frontline" that the reconstruction effort will cost $100 billion. And that is in addition to the $4 billion a month the United States is currently spending on the military occupation.

The documentary illustrates how the American occupation is beginning to grate even on the least politicized Iraqi citizens. An eight-hour wait for gasoline grows so tense a man fires a gun in frustration ? and the bullet hits a gas tank, killing four civilians, including the brother of a young boy, filmed as he wails his rage and grief. Soldiers assigned to find Mr. Hussein or his henchmen conduct house-to-house raids, each small, fruitless invasion of privacy setting off a ripple of resentment in villages and city neighborhoods.

Those scenes contrast sharply with a clip of President Bush at a news conference boldly pressing the case for a pre-emptive strike, warning, "The Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes."

The narrator notes, "What was missing from all the speeches and television appearances were the caveats and contrary evidence from their own intelligence agencies."

Most documentaries can also be faulted for the same sin: leaving out information that detracts from the central thesis.

No administration official is interviewed on camera. In a flash of journalistic self-importance, the narrator explains that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, were asked for interviews, and that "they all declined." A meeting with Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, was canceled by the White House, according to the narrator, who adds, "We received no explanation."

Instead the program relies on Richard N. Perle, a business consultant who was an important aide in the Reagan administration, to explain the government's view. Mr. Perle is not actually a government official, but he plays one on TV. He advises Mr. Rumsfeld from his unpaid perch on the Defense Policy Board, a position that gives him behind-the-scenes access to top Bush officials as well as the freedom to speak out publicly.

"Let me be blunt about this: the level of competence of the Central Intelligence Agency in this area is appalling," Mr. Perle says, explaining why the Pentagon created its own intelligence unit to find links between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda. "So if you're walking down the street and you're not looking for hidden treasure, you won't find it."

When Mr. Smith suggests that the converse is also true, Mr. Perle agrees. "Of course, there's no absolute truth in this," he says genially.

FRONTLINE: Truth, War and Consequences

On most PBS stations tonight

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

"Finally the mainstream media is picking up in the LIES."

Rather, they are showing they too do not know the definition of a lie!

 

[BVS]

Scarletwine,

Rather, they are showing they too do not know the definition of a lie!

No, but they are questioning if it's the truth...

 

[STING2]

BonoVoxSupastar,

"No, but they are questioning if it's the truth..."

Which is something you can do to anyone.

 

[BVS]

Absolutely

 

[deep]

"They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the intelligence community would produce."



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

 

[STING2]

If that were the case, it would have been far more spectacular. Fact is, Saddam was required to verifiably disarm of all WMD and he never did that. This has been the #1 arguement of the Bush administration and other countries who supported the war.

No member state in the UN had to show evidence of anything. It was incumbent upon Saddam to prove he had disarmed and he failed to do that.

 

[Scarletwine]

Another Lie.

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

 

[STING2]

If one wants an extensive, accurate and scientific based research on the effects of Depleted Uranium, go here:


http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/index.htm

 

[Dreadsox]

Thank you Sting for your always intelligent posts.

 

[anitram]

That is a good link but one thing is troubling - go look at the list of references they provide. I just randomly clicked on the one from the "Chemical properties of DU" and found that overwhelmingly, the data used was from the National Defense Research Institute.

If you want truly objective stuff, go on PubMed and do a search there. If I was writing a paper on the biomedical effects of DU and expected to get an A in a graduate class, but provided data from the NDRI primarily, I wouldn't get the mark I was seeking. Just saying. In scientific research, there is a hierarchy of respect for scientific work, and scientific journals are prioritized as such. The source here, while not bad, would not be seen as totally objective in an academic setting.

 

[Dreadsox]

that is an excellent point Anitram. I amnot saying this invalidates the study Sitng referenced. It would be more solid with a wider bredth of references.

 

[Scarletwine]

I'll do some digging tomorrow for other sources. This one is true but mosrty for effects. The best is the quote from the DU developer. Remember the DOD and Pentagon are loath to admit culpability in order to maximize military superiority and minimize liability or cleanup, just look at their history with agent orange or napalm (they still haven't admitted the need for cleanup). One of the best is the military's own protocol for handling exposure to DU and the clean up of vehicles hit by friendly fire in Gulf one.

 

[STING2]

Just for a second look at the facts that are listed and study them from this report. There are many good, intelligent people who work for the DOD and Pentagon. The same can be said for NATO which has come to the same conclusions as the DOD on this. I'm well aware of the studies that disagree with the DOD and NATO and I have read them. But I have not found them as convincing or as exstensive as this one. In fact several of those reports have printed things which are simply false or inaccurate from what little I know about the whole subject matter independent of major studies like these.

The DU rounds capability is better than rounds made of other material, but the penetrative power is increased at best by about 20%. These rounds get most of their penetrative energy from being propelled at super fast velocity's. The fact of the matter is, there is a wide variety of other ammo available, HEAT rounds, Tungsten rounds, all of which would achieve about the same level of penetration and success that DU rounds have. All of the targets destroyed by DU in the recent Iraq war could have been destroyed by Tungsten, or Heat, or other types of rounds. There is not a compelling need to use DU for rounds in most cases. Yes, DU is the best, but not by a margin that would require its use under any circumstance.

Studies done on miners of natural uranium have not shown additional health effects greater than the normal population. US troops imbedded with Depleted Uranium shrapnel from friendly fire incidents have not shown greater health problems than the general population. These troops not only have Depleted Uranium in their bodies, but have injested more depleted uranium dust than any other individuals in the US military or Persian Gulf population. These troops continued to be monitered of course, but after 12 and a half years the health fears that several organizations claim that Iraqi civilians suffer from in mass numbers have not come about for these troops that live with depleted uranium inside them and have breathed in more depleted uranium than anyone in the Persian Gulf or elsewhere. Since most of if not all these troops are not sick with depleted uranium in them, the idea that thousands of Iraqi civilians are suffering from the effects of DU is simply not credible.

It would be truely unfortunate to blame DU for something that it has not caused and fail to fix what ever might be causing the alleged health problems of many Iraqi's.

 

[Scarletwine]

I totally disagree. Our troops are sick also. 67% of Gulf war I soldiers children have birth defects. Everyone seems to agree the dust is harmful, except the military or nuclear regulatory agencies.

US denies its use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons in Iraq pose any health hazard

Major Doug Rokke, Army Reserve Major and Health Physicist in charge of DU cleanup after the Gulf War exposes the lies and talks about the British medical society blowing the whistle, while the Pentagon claims no problem. FlashPoints News Radio

The War Against Ourselves

An Interview with Major Doug Rokke

Doug Rokke has a PhD in health physics and was originally trained as a forensic scientist. When the Gulf War started, he was assigned to prepare soldiers to respond to nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare, and sent to the Gulf. What he experienced has made him a passionate voice for peace, traveling the country to speak out. The following interview was conducted by the director of the Traprock Peace Center, Sunny Miller, supplemented with questions from YES! editors.

QUESTION: Any viewer who saw the war on television had the impression this was an easy war, fought from a distance and soldiers coming back relatively unharmed. Is this an accurate picture?

ROKKE: At the completion of the Gulf War, when we came back to the United States in the fall of 1991, we had a total casualty count of 760: 294 dead, a little over 400 wounded or ill. But the casualty rate now for Gulf War veterans is approximately 30 percent. Of those stationed in the theater, including after the conflict, 221,000 have been awarded disability, according to a Veterans Affairs (VA) report issued September 10, 2002.

Many of the US casualties died as a direct result of uranium munitions friendly fire. US forces killed and wounded US forces.

We recommended care for anybody downwind of any uranium dust, anybody working in and around uranium contamination, and anyone within a vehicle, structure, or building that?s struck with uranium munitions. That?s thousands upon thousands of individuals, but not only US troops. You should provide medical care not only for the enemy soldiers but for the Iraqi women and children affected, and clean up all of the contamination in Iraq.

And it?s not just children in Iraq. It?s children born to soldiers after they came back home. The military admitted that they were finding uranium excreted in the semen of the soldiers. If you?ve got uranium in the semen, the genetics are messed up. So when the children were conceived?the alpha particles cause such tremendous cell damage and genetics damage that everything goes bad. Studies have found that male soldiers who served in the Gulf War were almost twice as likely to have a child with a birth defect and female soldiers almost three times as likely.

Q: You have been a military man for over 35 years. You served in Vietnam as a bombardier and you are still in the US Army Reserves. Now you?re going around the country speaking about the dangers of depleted uranium (DU). What made you decide you had to speak publicly about DU?

ROKKE: Everybody on my team was getting sick. My best friend John Sitton was dying. The military refused him medical care, and he died. John set up the medical evacuation communication system for the entire theater. Then he got contaminated doing the work.

John and Rolla Dolph and I were best friends in the civilian world, the military world, forever. Rolla got sick. I personally got the order that sent him to war. We were both activated together. I was given the assignment to teach nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare and make sure soldiers came back alive and safe. I take it seriously. I was sent to the Gulf with this instruction: Bring ?em back alive. Clear as could be. But when I got all the training together, all the environmental cleanup procedures together, all the medical directives, nothing happened.

More than 100 American soldiers were exposed to DU in friendly fire accidents, plus untold numbers of soldiers who climbed on and entered tanks that had been hit with DU, taking photos and gathering souvenirs to take home. They didn?t know about the hazards.

DU is an extremely effective weapon. Each tank round is 10 pounds of solid uranium-238 contaminated with plutonium, neptunium, americium. It is pyrophoric, generating intense heat on impact, penetrating a tank because of the heavy weight of its metal. When uranium munitions hit, it?s like a firestorm inside any vehicle or structure, and so we saw tremendous burns, tremendous injuries. It was devastating.

The US military decided to blow up Saddam?s chemical, biological, and radiological stockpiles in place, which released the contamination back on the US troops and on everybody in the whole region. The chemical agent detectors and radiological monitors were going off all over the place. We had all of the various nerve agents. We think there were biological agents, and there were destroyed nuclear reactor facilities. It was a toxic wasteland. And we had DU added to this whole mess.

When we first got assigned to clean up the DU and arrived in northern Saudi Arabia, we started getting sick within 72 hours. Respiratory problems, rashes, bleeding, open sores started almost immediately.

When you have a mass dose of radioactive particulates and you start breathing that in, the deposit sits in the back of the pharynx, where the cancer started initially on the first guy. It doesn?t take a lot of time. I had a father and son working with me. The father is already dead from lung cancer, and the sick son is still denied medical care.

Q: Did you suspect what was happening?

ROKKE: We didn?t know anything about DU when the Gulf War started. As a warrior, you?re listening to your leaders, and they?re saying there are no health effects from the DU. But, as we started to study this, to go back to what we learned in physics and our engineering?I was a professor of environmental science and engineering?you learn rapidly that what they?re telling you doesn?t agree with what you know and observe.

In June of 1991, when I got back to the States, I was sick. Respiratory problems and the rashes and neurological things were starting to show up.

Q: Why didn?t you go to the VA with a medical complaint?

ROKKE: Because I was still in the Army, and I was told I couldn?t file. You have to have the information that connects your exposure to your service before you go to the VA. The VA obviously wasn?t going to take care of me, so I went to my private physician. We had no idea what it was, but so many good people were coming back sick.

They didn?t do tests on me or my team members. According to the Department of Defense?s own guidelines put out in 1992, any excretion level in the urine above 15 micrograms of uranium per day should result in immediate medical testing, and when you get up to 250 micrograms of total uranium excreted per day, you?re supposed to be under continuous medical care.

Finally the US Department of Energy performed a radiobioassay on me in November 1994, while I was director of the Depleted Uranium Project for the Department of Defense. My excretion rate was approximately 1500 micrograms per day. My level was 5 to 6 times beyond the level that requires continuous medical care.

But they didn?t tell me for two and a half years.

Q: What are the symptoms of exposure to DU?

ROKKE: Fibromyalgia. Eye cataracts from the radiation. When uranium impacts any type of vehicle or structure, uranium oxide dust and pieces of uranium explode all over the place. This can be breathed in or go into a wound. Once it gets in the body, a portion of this stuff is soluble, which means it goes into the blood stream and all of your organs. The insoluble fraction stays?in the lungs, for example. The radiation damage and the particulates destroy the lungs.

Q: What kind of training have the troops had, who are getting called up right now?the ones being shipped to the vicinity of what may be the next Gulf War?

ROKKE: As the director of the Depleted Uranium Project, I developed a 40-hour block of training. All that curriculum has been shelved. They turned what I wrote into a 20-minute program that?s full of distortions. It doesn?t deal with the reality of uranium munitions.

The equipment is defective. The General Accounting Office verified that the gas masks leak, the chemical protective suits leak. Unbelievably, Defense Department officials recently said the defects can be fixed with duct tape.

Q: If my neighbors are being sent off to combat with equipment and training that is inadequate, and into battle with a toxic weapon, DU, who can speak up?

ROKKE: Every husband and wife, son and daughter, grandparent, aunt and uncle, needs to call their congressmen and cite these official government reports and force the military to ensure that our troops have adequate equipment and adequate training. If we don?t take care of our American veterans after a war, as happened with the Gulf War, and now we?re about ready to send them into a war again?we can?t do it. We can?t do it. It?s a crime against God. It?s a crime against humanity to use uranium munitions in a war, and it?s devastating to ignore the consequences of war.

These consequences last for eternity. The half life of uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years. And we left over 320 tons all over the place in Iraq.

We also bombarded Vieques, Puerto Rico, with DU in preparation for the war in Kosovo. That?s affecting American citizens on American territory. When I tried to activate our team from the Department of Defense responsible for radiological safety and DU cleanup in Vieques, I was told no. When I tried to activate medical care, I was told no.

The US Army made me their expert. I went into the project with the total intent to ensure they could use uranium munitions in war, because I?m a warrior. What I saw as director of the project, doing the research and working with my own medical conditions and everybody else?s, led me to one conclusion: uranium munitions must be banned from the planet, for eternity, and medical care must be provided for everyone, not just the US or the Canadians or the British or the Germans or the French but for the American citizens of Vieques, for the residents of Iraq, of Okinawa, of Scotland, of Indiana, of Maryland, and now Afghanistan and Kosovo.

Q: If your information got out widely, do you think there?s a possibility that the families of those soldiers would beg them to refuse?

ROKKE: If you?re going to be sent into a toxic wasteland, and you know you?re going to wear gas masks and chemical protective suits that leak, and you?re not going to get any medical care after you?re exposed to all of these things, would you go? Suppose they gave a war and nobody came. You?ve got to start peace sometime.

Q: It does sound remarkable for someone who has been in the military for 35 years to be talking about when peace should begin.

ROKKE: When I do these talks, especially in churches, I?m reminded that these religions say, ?And a child will lead us to peace.? But if we contaminate the environment, where will the child come from? The children won?t be there. War has become obsolete, because we can?t deal with the consequences on our warriors or the environment, but more important, on the noncombatants. When you reach a point in war when the contamination and the health effects of war can?t be cleaned up because of the weapons you use, and medical care can?t be given to the soldiers who participated in the war on either side or to the civilians affected, then it?s time for peace.

 

[Scarletwine]

Sting2,

Please check out his reputable site.

http://www.ngwrc.org/Dulink/du_link.htm

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

I've looked at the site and have already found some things that are inaccurate. Some reports cited have not been accurately used and infact refute the claims being made, which I must say is a bit strange. I'll read it again though in case I misread something. The whole tone of the site is that the DOD is guilty no matter what, which makes one question the value of the allegations and assertions made.

There were many environmental factors that could have contributed to Gulf Veterans being sick. These things are not being given attention though when DU is picked as the cause for everything. Everything from medication given to soldiers, to the Oil Fires and Oil Slick caused by Saddam in addition to other chemicals and sprays used in maitenance activities are all more likely to have been factors in veterens that are sick than DU.

Not all veterans who have actually signed the Gulf War registery are sick. Timothy McViey the, the Oklahoma City bomber, is one of them. But there are certainly many that are sick and using DU as the scapegoat for everything is not going to help veterans who are sick or prevent future problems.

NATO has confirmed the reports made by the US Department of Defense. It has stated that to date, they cannot find any solid proof which shows that individuals in Kosovo and Bosnia are suffering or have suffered from the effects of DU.

Many people in the State of Maryland do not live to far from the Aberdeen proving grounds where testing of DU has been occuring since the 1960s. I have yet to read anything about the citizens of the state of Maryland being sick from DU.

Most importantly, the individuals most exposed to DU are those that have been living with DU shell fragments in their bodies. These persons have inhailed more DU than anyone else. If DU is really a problem, these individuals should be incrediblely sick or passed away. Of the 20 individuals with this level of exposure, only two might be suffering from the effects of exposure from a high amount of DU, after having lived with DU shells in their body's for 12 and half years.


If DU really is the health hazard that some claim, then it should not be used. Right now, the evidence does not support many of the wild claims that have been made. Again, it would be impossible for thousands of Iraqi's to be sick from DU when the soldiers that have been living with DU shells in their bodies for 12 years are mostly not sick.

I certainly want all veterans to be properly cared for but singling out DU as the cause of all the different ailments is not an accurate way to go about it. To date there is still no solid evidence that proves that DU causes Gulf War Syndrome. But to date it is still unknown why some veterans of the first Gulf War are sick and the investigations should continue.

DU weapons while stronger than some non-DU weapons are not so strong by a factor that it would make a relevant difference in the military engagements of the Gulf War, Kosovo War or recent Iraqi War. While buying HEAT or Tungsten rounds may be more expensive, compared to the rest of the military budget it is insignificant as far as cost. If DU weapons were a health hazard, there are no major military effectiveness or cost concerns involved with changing to a different type of Ammo such as HEAT and Tungsten which are also already available for use in large numbers if needed. Because of this fact, the US Military could easily switch to another type of round if DU was found to be a problem without compromising military capability or incurring signifcant cost. The rational that the military is poisoning itself for the sake of military capability and cost is flat out false.

I would agree though that the issue should be continued to be studied, but as of right now, there is no "conclusive"evidence to prove the allegations made. At best, the whole issue of the effects is still a question mark. But based on what I have read so far, DU is not the health hazard that critics claim it to be.


Have you examined the extensive information provided by the site I posted?

 

[Scarletwine]

I'm working on it.

This is in no way a criticism of our men in uniform, only the DOD. As a soldier do you deny that they are reluctant to recognize gambles taken that prove disasterous to our troops? Mainly because of liability concerns? Lwt's think Agent Orange suits.


Edited to add:
The Pentagon leads in this problem. My Uncle is a retired full bird retired from the Pentagon. According to him they will never admit liability, much like tobacco, cause of the possible cleanup costs.

 

[Northeast]

we didn't invade to spread democracy. we invaded to incite a regime change. saddam really was a horrible leader...genocidal and all.

that being said, it's clear that wasn't our only reason for invasion, it had fringe benefits aplenty.


but the fact is we didn't have to fight a war to overthrow saddam...we didn't even TRY peaceful talks.

I highly doubt Saddam tried peaceful talks with the thousand of people he slaughtered......

 

[BVS]

Inquiry faults intelligence
on Iraq

Threat from regime was overstated, report finds

By Dana Priest
THE WASHINGTON POST



Oct. 24 ? The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is preparing a blistering report on prewar intelligence on Iraq that is critical of CIA Director George J. Tenet and other intelligence officials for overstating the weapons and terrorism case against Saddam Hussein, according to congressional officials.

THE COMMITTEE staff was surprised by the amount of circumstantial evidence and single-source or disputed information used to write key intelligence documents ? in particular the Oct. 2002 National Intelligence Estimate ?summarizing Iraq?s capabilities and intentions, according to Republican and Democratic sources.


Staff members interviewed more than 100 people who collected and analyzed the intelligence used to back up statements about Iraq?s chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities, and its possible links to terrorist groups.

?SLOPPY?
Like a similar but less exhaustive inquiry being completed by the House intelligence committee, the Senate report shifts attention toward the intelligence community and away from White House officials, who have been criticized for exaggerating the Iraqi threat. At stake as the presidential political season approaches, said committee sources and intelligence figures, is who gets blamed for misleading the American public if weapons of mass destruction are never found in Iraq ? the president or his intelligence chief.


Asked about the upcoming report, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the committee, said ?the executive was ill-served by the intelligence community.? The intelligence was sometimes ?sloppy? and inconclusive, he said. ?That?s a concern I have with the total report? on Iraq.
?I worry about the credibility of the intelligence community,? said Roberts, who added that he is concerned about demoralizing the intelligence agencies when intensive counterterrorism operations are going on overseas. Still, he insisted, ?If there?s stuff on the fan, we have to get the fan cleaned.?
Despite the progress it has made since June in poring over 19 volumes of classified material, the committee is deeply divided over investigating how the Bush administration used intelligence in its public statements about Iraq.
Sen. John ?Jay? Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) said yesterday he had secured a promise from Roberts to ask one executive agency, the Defense Department and, in particular, its Office of Special Plans, for information about the intelligence it collected or analyzed on Iraq.
The office has been accused by some congressional Democrats and administration critics of gathering unreliable intelligence on Iraq that bolstered the administration?s case for war. Those allegations have not been substantiated, and the director of the office, William Luti, has denied them.

Rockefeller is under considerable pressure from the Senate Democratic leadership not to allow Roberts to focus only on intelligence bureaucrats while avoiding questions about whether Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others exaggerated the threat from Iraq.
But it is unclear whether the committee has jurisdiction on this topic. Also, the administration could cite executive privilege and refuse to give the committee information related to internal White House discussions, as it did when a congressional inquiry tried to find out what Bush had been told about al Qaeda and the possibility of civilian aircraft used as weapons before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

VOTES TO LAUNCH INQUIRY
?We?re going to get this one way or the other,? Rockefeller said yesterday. ?If the majority declines to put the executive branch at risk, then they are going to have a very difficult minority to deal with.?
He said that if that turned out be the case , he has the five votes necessary, under Rule 6 of the committee?s rules of procedure, to launch an inquiry into the administration?s use of intelligence.
The House and Senate intelligence committees have traditionally worked in a more bipartisan fashion than other congressional committees.
CIA spokesman Bill Harlow defended the intelligence community?s performance. ?The NIE reflects 10 years of work regarding Iraq?s WMD [weapons of mass destruction] programs. It is based on many sources and disciplines, both ours and those of partners around the world,? he said.
Harlow said that ?the committee has yet to take the opportunity to hear a comprehensive explanation of how and why we reached our conclusions,? nor has it accepted an offer made Wednesday by Tenet to hear from him and senior intelligence officials.
The Senate panel?s report, congressional sources said, will be harsher and better substantiated than the inquiry near completion by the House counterpart. Last month, leaders of the House panel sent Tenet a letter criticizing him for having to relied too heavily on ?past assessments? dating to 1998 and on ?some new ?piecemeal? intelligence,? both of which ?were not challenged as a routine matter.?
Tenet shot back an angry letter criticizing the committee for not interviewing enough people.
Among the more than 100 people interviewed by the Senate are analysts, scientists, operators and supervisory officials from the CIA, the departments of Energy and State, the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, as well as officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Roberts said none of those questioned have said they were pressured to change their work to fit the administration?s point of view. Other committee members pointed out, however, that some analysts may not have felt free to speak candidly because there were supervisors in the room during their interviews.
Several sources said the committee report is also critical ?of the substantiation the intelligence community gave the administration? on many of its assessments of weapons of mass destruction. They said caveats by agencies other than the CIA often were played down.
The committee also has not found underlying intelligence that would support some changes in the intelligence community?s public conclusions about Iraq in the months leading up to the war. For example, the declassified version of the October 2002 NIE declares in the first paragraph that ?Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons . . . ?
In all other documents, the intelligence community used more qualified language.
A CIA spokesman said the statement, like the entire NIE, was written under extreme time pressure, and that the information was qualified in supporting material later in the report.
The committee is also looking at why some exculpatory information contained in the raw intelligence reports ?seems to not have filtered up? to finished intelligence reports.
Roberts described the report as ?95 percent done.? But others on the committee, including Rockefeller, want to broaden the inquiry. They insist the report is in the preliminary stage and will not be finished until the end of the year, or later.

? 2003 The Washington Post Company