Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
None of the above

Birth Defects Epidemic after Iraq invasion

43 posts in this topic

Iraqi Birth Defects: Fallujah And Basra Babies Brain Damaged After UK-US Bombardment, Study Finds

Babies born in the cities at the heart of the US and UK's bloodiest military campaigns in Iraq are more likely to have heart defects, deformed limbs and brain damage, according to a new report.

In the survey, more than half of all babies who were conceived after the US invasion of Fallujah were born with birth defects. Before the siege, it was one in 10.

Graphic images of babies with twisted limbs, organs forming on the outside of bodies and inflated skulls are included in the study headed by University of Michigan researchers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/15/iraqi-birth-defects-babies-basrah-fallujah_n_1966498.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really doesn't surprise me, more casualties of war. Maybe health warnings should be put on war like they do with cigarettes.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope nobody is surprised by this ........

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War always is tragic but sometimes failure to fight just makes things worse. When Iraq began I thought this was one of those instances. I was wrong. That Saddam needed to be removed there was no doubt, but it was naive to think that he was somehow unique. A fund should be set aside to build hospitals and provide free treatment for Iraqis, especially children, for a decade as a start. It's the honorable thing to do. But the program in it's entirety should be administered by Americans and strenuously evaluated for cost effectiveness and to keep out corruption. IOW the money should used for the intended purpose - not to line anyone's pockets. And if Iraqis blow up a hospital then THEY can rebuild it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this goes further than birth defects in Iraq, what about the soldiers that served in that war. They need treatment themselves which some aren't getting. There is also a lot of people here in the US that could stand medical care but don't get it. I would have to see health care for all Americans before I would want to build a hospital for someone else. Iraq needs to use some of that oil money to provide medical care for their people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember 'Shock and awe'?

We bombarded civilian cities to break the will of the Iraqi forces. That's a choice to use that tactic.

We were far less concerned about Iraqi civilian deaths than we were about coalition casualties and the gigantic and continuing civillian death toll bears that out.

Most will see the connection here but those responsible will never be held to account.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember 'Shock and awe'?

We bombarded civilian cities to break the will of the Iraqi forces. That's a choice to use that tactic.

We were far less concerned about Iraqi civilian deaths than we were about coalition casualties and the gigantic and continuing civillian death toll bears that out.

Most will see the connection here but those responsible will never be held to account.

And this seems unreasonable? War isn't some game with rules of fairness. Disagree with the war I understand, but to expect the US or Britain to send their men and women in uniform into a situation where it is GUARANTEED that more would die and be maimed is unrealistic to the point of silliness. It cannot be proven with evidence since it did not occur but do you really think the outcome would have been different ultimately? If our guys had to go building to building we might have lost thousands but I believe civilian casualties would have been even higher than they were since it was a common tactic to use civilians as a shield so that people in the West would grieve and cry for the innocents and go through a bout of self flagellation and end the conflict before a decisive victory. So - shout against the injustice of the war in general but don't complain about individual tactics once a nation has decided to go to war. It isn't a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much loses and gained nothing out of that war and still deaths on the rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this seems unreasonable? War isn't some game with rules of fairness. Disagree with the war I understand, but to expect the US or Britain to send their men and women in uniform into a situation where it is GUARANTEED that more would die and be maimed is unrealistic to the point of silliness. It cannot be proven with evidence since it did not occur but do you really think the outcome would have been different ultimately? If our guys had to go building to building we might have lost thousands but I believe civilian casualties would have been even higher than they were since it was a common tactic to use civilians as a shield so that people in the West would grieve and cry for the innocents and go through a bout of self flagellation and end the conflict before a decisive victory. So - shout against the injustice of the war in general but don't complain about individual tactics once a nation has decided to go to war. It isn't a game.

Of course it IS unreasonable and war does have rules

And if you are asserting that the massive overall civilian casualties of the Iraq war are justifited because they shielded the coalition forces from greater losses, then I'd have several points to make.

Firstly I would propose that the tactic failed. Changing as it did the nature of the war and merely spreading the coalition casualties over a long period (perhaps more politically acceptable?)

Secondly I would remind you that this war was touted as being in part, a 'war of liberation' and it's one that we started. For our first step to be to bombard civilian cities full of the very people that we are supposed to be 'liberating' is unconscionable.

In any war the non-combatants have to be protected, their rights have to be of paramount importance.

As a young Chuck Yeager said in his 1986 memoirs, he noted with disgust that "atrocities were committed by both sides" and went on to recount going on a mission with orders from the Eighth Air Force to "strafe anything that moved." During the mission briefing he whispered to Major Donald H. Boschkay, "If we are going to do things like this, we sure as hell better make sure we are on the winning side." He further noted, "I’m certainly not proud of that particular strafing mission against civilians. But it is there, on the record and in my memory."

And that was in a war that could be regarded as a total war. The war in Iraq is hardly comparable in any sense and yet our first tactic was to bombard civilian cities to break the will of the Iraqis. Not greatly different from a similar famous tactic known here as 'The Blitz'.

If you want to defend this odious tactic then tell me what 'good' it did?

I remember the civilian deaths. I remember that among the civilian population the rates of suicide and miscarriage went through the roof, I remember that the Iraqi forces melted away and we faced a protracted and chaotic situation.

And yes, in a war to liberate civilians you do not sacrifice the very people you are meant to be protecting to 'potentially' save some soldiers lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it IS unreasonable and war does have rules

And if you are asserting that the massive overall civilian casualties of the Iraq war are justifited because they shielded the coalition forces from greater losses, then I'd have several points to make.

Firstly I would propose that the tactic failed. Changing as it did the nature of the war and merely spreading the coalition casualties over a long period (perhaps more politically acceptable?)

Secondly I would remind you that this war was touted as being in part, a 'war of liberation' and it's one that we started. For our first step to be to bombard civilian cities full of the very people that we are supposed to be 'liberating' is unconscionable.

In any war the non-combatants have to be protected, their rights have to be of paramount importance.

As a young Chuck Yeager said in his 1986 memoirs, he noted with disgust that "atrocities were committed by both sides" and went on to recount going on a mission with orders from the Eighth Air Force to "strafe anything that moved." During the mission briefing he whispered to Major Donald H. Boschkay, "If we are going to do things like this, we sure as hell better make sure we are on the winning side." He further noted, "I’m certainly not proud of that particular strafing mission against civilians. But it is there, on the record and in my memory."

And that was in a war that could be regarded as a total war. The war in Iraq is hardly comparable in any sense and yet our first tactic was to bombard civilian cities to break the will of the Iraqis. Not greatly different from a similar famous tactic known here as 'The Blitz'.

If you want to defend this odious tactic then tell me what 'good' it did?

I remember the civilian deaths. I remember that among the civilian population the rates of suicide and miscarriage went through the roof, I remember that the Iraqi forces melted away and we faced a protracted and chaotic situation.

And yes, in a war to liberate civilians you do not sacrifice the very people you are meant to be protecting to 'potentially' save some soldiers lives.

When the decision to go to war is made it is done with an understanding that it will be as quick and bloodless for your own forces as possible. I do not attempt to justify THIS war. But I state again that it is silly to expect our forces to DIE.... for the sake of fairness to an enemy force. Civilians die in war....every war. That is why they should not be started unless they are necessary. As it turns out, Iraq was of dubious necessity though no one can say that the exit of Saddam was a tragedy for the world. To do the Monday morning quarterback appraisal of what should have been done is useless. By your standards we would never have prevailed in WWII. I guess losing a million men to death and disability would have been preferable to killing fewer than 200,000 military and civilians in Japan by using a nuke. Apologize for yourself if you feel the need but I have no mea culpas for saving US and British lives in this conflict - ill conceived as it might have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the decision to go to war is made it is done with an understanding that it will be as quick and bloodless for your own forces as possible. I do not attempt to justify THIS war. But I state again that it is silly to expect our forces to DIE.... for the sake of fairness to an enemy force. Civilians die in war....every war. That is why they should not be started unless they are necessary. As it turns out, Iraq was of dubious necessity though no one can say that the exit of Saddam was a tragedy for the world. To do the Monday morning quarterback appraisal of what should have been done is useless. By your standards we would never have prevailed in WWII. I guess losing a million men to death and disability would have been preferable to killing fewer than 200,000 military and civilians in Japan by using a nuke. Apologize for yourself if you feel the need but I have no mea culpas for saving US and British lives in this conflict - ill conceived as it might have been.

No, the HOPE is that within the scope of achieveing the objective of the military action, casualties can be minimised.

How you prioritise those casualties is another thing.

But non-combatants are just that: NON-COMBATANTS.

The legitimacy of any war, especially as in the case of Iraq an 'invasion' to 'liberate' the country, slips away as the civillian casualties mount.

That point is particularly underlined if there appears to be long term poisonous after effects of weapons used on civillian areas.

You comment about WW2 about as credible as me suggesting that YOU would have simply stayed out of the war until the USA had developed the A-bomb and then nuked every axis city and population centre to mitigate allied casualties. Try and be sensible AT.

As I have already pointed out, there is a world of difference between the 'total war' of WW2 and the INVASION of a country that we are not engaged in hostilities with, in part to Liberate it's population.

The allies did commit war crimes in WW2. But the circumstances were totally different and the stakes were hardly comparable.

It's much easier to make the case for the aliied tactics in WW2 than to make the case for coalition tactics in Iraq.

To apply the tactics of 'total war' to the first phase of a war like the invasion of Iraq (even in a limited way) completely undermines the legitimacy of this being a 'just war'.

In war as in life we must do what is right, not what is easy and the two are seldom the same thing.

And in a war where we claim the moral high ground, when we stoop to using the tactics of our enemy, we simply become the enemy. (apologies to Sun Tzu for the paraphrase)

Edited by Atlantia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraqi Birth Defects: Fallujah And Basra Babies Brain Damaged After UK-US Bombardment, Study Finds

In the survey, more than half of all babies who were conceived after the US invasion of Fallujah were born with birth defects. Before the siege, it was one in 10.

Graphic images of babies with twisted limbs, organs forming on the outside of bodies and inflated skulls are included in the study headed by University of Michigan researchers.

I cannot see how just using normal everyday weapon's would cause such a thing to happen...

Make's me wonder if there was any chemical's used that we do not know of or are not being told about...

The only other time I have heard of such thing's like in the OP is from the Vietnam war and the use of Agent Orange...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange#Use_in_the_Vietnam_War

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predicted this the very day the USA armed forces illegally invaded that country.

One day, during the first three days of the invasion, I stupidly was watching the TV as they showed the invasion. All of the sudden, the reporter stopped taking, slammed on his bioweapon gear and got really scared. This fear lasted for about 5 minutes, on TV, while they tried to assess for the viewers what was happening. Then the all-clear came and he, thoughtlessly relieved, told us our OWN weapons triggered the alert. While he seemed relieved, I was sitting there thinking, "what do you mean, our weapons triggered it?". My memory of that news cast has little faded. I will always remember it.

DU is an atrocious thing. It should never, ever have been used at any time for any reason.

The evil, malicious Bush cabel seemed hell-bent on destroying generations to come.

Iraqi Birth Defects: Fallujah And Basra Babies Brain Damaged After UK-US Bombardment, Study Finds

Babies born in the cities at the heart of the US and UK's bloodiest military campaigns in Iraq are more likely to have heart defects, deformed limbs and brain damage, according to a new report.

In the survey, more than half of all babies who were conceived after the US invasion of Fallujah were born with birth defects. Before the siege, it was one in 10.

Graphic images of babies with twisted limbs, organs forming on the outside of bodies and inflated skulls are included in the study headed by University of Michigan researchers.

http://www.huffingto...l?utm_hp_ref=uk

Edited by regeneratia
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depleted uranium is no more harmful than lead. Which is to say yes it is deadly - just not radioactive. My guess is that these problems are the result of the massive amounts of lead introduced into the environment all at once as well as the industrial pollutants from the destruction of building going into the water and the food chain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depleted uranium is no more harmful than lead. Which is to say yes it is deadly - just not radioactive. My guess is that these problems are the result of the massive amounts of lead introduced into the environment all at once as well as the industrial pollutants from the destruction of building going into the water and the food chain.

50% of babies concieved since the invasion.

Have you got kids?

The prospect of alongside everything else, and them having to start out their life in that chaotic situation, you have a coin flips chance of them not even being born healthy.

It's completely appalling. Another example of our complete failure in our duty of care to these people.

Liberation!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see how just using normal everyday weapon's would cause such a thing to happen...

Make's me wonder if there was any chemical's used that we do not know of or are not being told about...

The only other time I have heard of such thing's like in the OP is from the Vietnam war and the use of Agent Orange...

http://en.wikipedia....the_Vietnam_War

I think it's a perfect storm of us simply not giving a toss about these people.

Lead, DU, phospherous, mercury and as 'A.T' points out, the other toxins released by our use of overwhelming misplaced force on the country's infrastructure.

And we are supposed to swallow some carp about this being a war of liberation.

What a joke.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50% of babies concieved since the invasion.

Have you got kids?

The prospect of alongside everything else, and them having to start out their life in that chaotic situation, you have a coin flips chance of them not even being born healthy.

It's completely appalling. Another example of our complete failure in our duty of care to these people.

Liberation!

I refer you to my first post in this thread (#4). My comment was solely about the use of DU. There is a mythology out there that it is somehow radioactive to a point of causing such problems and there just is no data to back it up. Lead and mercury are just as likely candidates and I have already said that the war was of little value and ill conceived. On the other hand I suspect that if you ask the average Iraqi today would they rather be living in the good old days under uncle Saddam the answer would be most a resounding NO! But no one asks that question, do they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refer you to my first post in this thread (#4). My comment was solely about the use of DU. There is a mythology out there that it is somehow radioactive to a point of causing such problems and there just is no data to back it up. Lead and mercury are just as likely candidates and I have already said that the war was of little value and ill conceived. On the other hand I suspect that if you ask the average Iraqi today would they rather be living in the good old days under uncle Saddam the answer would be most a resounding NO! But no one asks that question, do they?

I wasn't having a go. I actually agree that even if D.U is ONLY as bad as lead or mercury, it's a truly awful substance.

Thing about asking the average Iraqi today is that we can't of course ask all of the 'victims of the Liberation'.

Even if you start with the belief that we were doing the 'right thing' in Invading Iraq, we made a total FUBAR of it and untold thousands of innocents have paid the price and many more will continue to do so into the future it seems.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't having a go. I actually agree that even if D.U is ONLY as bad as lead or mercury, it's a truly awful substance.

Thing about asking the average Iraqi today is that we can't of course ask all of the 'victims of the Liberation'.

Even if you start with the belief that we were doing the 'right thing' in Invading Iraq, we made a total FUBAR of it and untold thousands of innocents have paid the price and many more will continue to do so into the future it seems.

I agree. And I truly think we should do what we can to help with the healthcare issues in the aftermath IF it can be accomplished instead of the money just going to corrupt politicians. We spent BILLIONS ostensibly for rebuilding infrastructure and as of US troops exiting the country the Iraqis still did not have reliable electric power generation. It's ridiculous. Edited by and then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember 'Shock and awe'?

We bombarded civilian cities to break the will of the Iraqi forces. That's a choice to use that tactic.

We were far less concerned about Iraqi civilian deaths than we were about coalition casualties and the gigantic and continuing civillian death toll bears that out.

Most will see the connection here but those responsible will never be held to account.

You are implying that civilians were intentionally targeted and that is false. Shock and awe was meant to demoralize to be sure but it was targeted against legitimate military targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are implying that civilians were intentionally targeted and that is false. Shock and awe was meant to demoralize to be sure but it was targeted against legitimate military targets.

No, I'm saying "We bombarded civilian cities to break the will of the Iraqi forces."

Now whether you believe that these attacks were justified is another thing.

But targetting the mechanisms of the state the infrastructure, transport routes etc IS putting civilians deliberately in harms way.

I don't think that's acceptable, especially in a war of 'liberation' that WE started and especially as an 'opening tactic'.

I would also suggest that this tactic with it's nightime bombings and psychological warfare element was designed to destabilise the 'society' and cause pandemonium among the civillian populace to further put the regime on the back foot.

I don't see these 'tactics' as legitimate.

Edited by Atlantia
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are implying that civilians were intentionally targeted and that is false. Shock and awe was meant to demoralize to be sure but it was targeted against legitimate military targets.

Infrastructure, like water sources/lines , electrical grid , roads .. are not used solely by the military and are not entirely 'military targets". SHOCK AND AWE was unleashed to create a LARGER and more ticked off enemy ,,, in the entire region. You need a good excuse for being there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soo... People think you're going to have a war and not kill civilians and damage the environment for years to come. When you blow things up all kinds of toxins go into the air, some from bombs, some from buildings, some from the ground. This is what happens in war. We need to quit the wars. Every time I see this commercial, I think wonderful you want us in another war?!! It really, really sets me off. I am glad my son was here to stop me from throwing the remote at the TV the first time I saw it. :angry:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soo... People think you're going to have a war and not kill civilians and damage the environment for years to come. When you blow things up all kinds of toxins go into the air, some from bombs, some from buildings, some from the ground. This is what happens in war. We need to quit the wars. Every time I see this commercial, I think wonderful you want us in another war?!! It really, really sets me off. I am glad my son was here to stop me from throwing the remote at the TV the first time I saw it. :angry:

[media=]

[/media]

When do you think a war would be justified? Do you actually believe that people want war instead of peace? Or is it just this particular "aggression" that bothers you so much? Serious questions - not trying to bait you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infrastructure, like water sources/lines , electrical grid , roads .. are not used solely by the military and are not entirely 'military targets". SHOCK AND AWE was unleashed to create a LARGER and more ticked off enemy ,,, in the entire region. You need a good excuse for being there.

This the intention, in your view? To what purpose? I do not agree with Iraq but I still don't believe it was some sort of grand MIC conspiracy either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.