US Complicicity in Chemical Weapons Attacks

[jugoso]

Twenty-five years ago the U.S. was not calling for "accountability for the use of chemical weapons."

Foreign Policy magazine reported on Monday:

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

Even years before the U.S. provided Iraq with intelligence it used to carry out chemical attacks, friend of President Ronald Reagan and then Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey and other intelligence officials were repeatedly informed of Iraq's use of chemical weapons in attacks, including strikes carried out by Saddam on Iraqis, the magazine reported.

“The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew,” said retired Air Force colonel Rick Francona, a military attache in Baghdad during the 1988 attacks.

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/26-5

[Kowalski]

I guess the United States hypocrisy knows no bounds.....

[Ashotep]

Republicans were in office at that time and now democrats are. Different administrations, different ideas of what is right and wrong. Those differences are becoming less recognizable all the time in some areas.

[AwakenAscension]

It wouldn't matter which party. None of them have My best interest in mind. Nor others under their feet, so long as they can still hold them up.

[Babe Ruth]

As I've been reading on another controversial subject, it appear probable that US forces used nuclear weapons in some form or other at Fallujah back in 2004.

If that is the case, this finger pointing and feigned indignation over "crimes against humanity" is utter hypocrisy on the part of the US.

Considering our role in chemical weapon use by Saddam against the Iranians all those years ago, the hypocrisy is even greater.

[Agent0range]

Didn't happen. I was 15 miles away.

[Babe Ruth]

Didn't happen. I was 15 miles away.

What were you, the division commander?

[jugoso]

Republicans were in office at that time and now democrats are. Different administrations, different ideas of what is right and wrong. Those differences are becoming less recognizable all the time in some areas.

With respect to foreign policy, I see no difference; republican or democrat.

[Stellar]

It always strikes me as interesting that people use arguments such as these. In 1988, the demographic in the US was different, the culture was different and the people in power were different. How can the actions or inactions of those people, long gone, be held against the current people? Is Germany unable to take a moral stand today because of the actions of Hitler in the 30s and 40s?

[aztek]

american slavery ended 150 or so years ago, yet modern whites are still blamed and hated for that, why should not germans. but than who am i to talk about it, ask russians or jews about german morals

Edited August 29, 2013 by aztek

[Bavarian Raven]

american slavery ended 150 or so years ago, yet modern whites are still blamed and hated for that, why should not germans. but than who am i to talk about it, ask russians or jews about german morals

Russians weren't exactly "white knights" either just saying...

[questionmark]

From what we know today Iraq was never capable of making a single ounce of WMDs themselves. Suddenly I don't find it so odd anymore that US forces in Bagdad were preoccupied with cleaning out every archive of every ministry in the whole city and sending the stuff for intelligence review.

It could be that somebody wanted to hide how Saddam laid his hands on Sarin to start with.

As for complicit: The observer is never an accomplice, he only observes, no matter if he knows what happens next or he does not.

[Rafterman]

https://www.commondr...ne/2013/08/26-5

Yeah, Ronald Reagan practically pulled the cannon lanyards himself.

[Rafterman]

As I've been reading on another controversial subject, it appear probable that US forces used nuclear weapons in some form or other at Fallujah back in 2004.

From your usual "credible sources" no doubt.

Fallujah must have been one hell of a battle. Let's see, in the just the past couple of days I've read that the US used mustard gas, sarin gas, AND nukes. ****. We were going for the full WMD cocktail baby! Let me guess, we even went old school and gave the survivors smallpox laced blankets. Did we put babies on spikes too?

[jugoso]

It always strikes me as interesting that people use arguments such as these. In 1988, the demographic in the US was different, the culture was different and the people in power were different. How can the actions or inactions of those people, long gone, be held against the current people? Is Germany unable to take a moral stand today because of the actions of Hitler in the 30s and 40s?

The players may change but the song remains the same. If there is some type of strategical advantage (economic,political etc.), it will be done. If not, it won´t. Please don´t bring up morality before taking a good look at previous track record. I think the US lacks integrity when it comes to morality.

[Kowalski]

Is Germany unable to take a moral stand today because of the actions of Hitler in the 30s and 40s?

The difference is, at least some (not all, but quite a few) of the Nazis were prosecuted, and tried.

[jugoso]

Did we put babies on spikes too?

No, but you have use bombs made from depleted uranium and that ain´t good for future generations.

In January 2001, the world press finally discovered depleted uranium (DU) weapons(1), the super hard munitions made with waste U-238 -- an alpha emitter with a radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years. Nine years of radiation-induced death, disease, and birth abnormalities in Iraq did not move major news organizations to investigate, but the deaths from leukemia of 15 Western Europeans -- after their participation in military missions in Bosnia and Kosovo -- prompted the major media, the European Parliament and 11 European governments to launch investigations into the health and environmental consequences of what Dr. Rosalie Bertell calls "shooting radioactive waste at your enemy."

Edited August 29, 2013 by jugoso

[DarkHunter]

I think a bit of actual facts about depleted uranium would greatly help this thread. First depleted uranium is barely radioactive, the radioactivity of depleted uranium is about 15 kBq/g, unless it is fresh then it is about 40 k/bq/g but it quickly drops to 15 kBq/g in about a month. Naturally occurring uranium is 25 kBq/g and to further show how small the radioactivity of depleted uranium actually is, potassium in the body produces about 4 kBq/g and the global amount of carbon-14 is estimated at causing about 8.5^15 kBq/g or for those not good with numbers raised to a power, 8500000000000000 kBq/g. Second depleted uranium is not classified as a dangerous radioactive substance, further depleted uranium is not known as a carcinogen, or known to cause birth defects, or known to cause genetic mutation. Multiple studies have even shown that the reports made about health issues from depleted uranium used in the first golf war does not match heath statistics or analysis. Even when the UN Environmental Programme when studying the effects of 9 tonnes of depleted uranium being used in Kosovo have found no contamination of the water or food chain and found no correlation between the depleted uranium use and reported health issues.

Basically unless you are getting hit with or burned by a depleted uranium round there is no danger from it unless you start eating it, which would cause heavy metal poisoning like all other heavy metals.

I have a feeling that most of these health issues people are having from areas where depleted uranium ammunition was used was caused from the dust of destroyed building. Even in America where we have pretty good building codes and restrictions there are still a good bit of stuff that if turned into a dust form and breathed in will cause pretty bad health issues later on so picture how much worse a country with less then western building standards would have when a building is destroyed. If I remember correctly, and I usually do, aren't the people who where exposed to the dust from the World Trade Center attacks facing extremely similar health issues as the people from these countries where depleted uranium was used.

I got a good bit of my information from here in case anyone would like to actually learn a bit more about depleted uranium before talking about how dangerous it is.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Uranium-and-Depleted-Uranium/#.UiAYOBukqt8

[Professor Buzzkill]

great info dark. In your opinion, why have birth defects rocketed in areas of Iraq?

[Zaphod222]

Considering our role in chemical weapon use by Saddam against the Iranians all those years ago, the hypocrisy is even greater.

The "our role" is conspiracy pap.

But I agree about the hypocrisy here. Where was all this bombastic breast-beating and screaming on the part of the Democrats when Saddam was gassing first Iranians and later Kurds?

Now suddenly, the use of gas means that Obomba has to go and bomb another country (even without being sure who actuqally used it).

The Democrat politicians and their sycophantic US media should get whiplash from this 180 degree turn.

But apparently, if it is their guy in the White House, the rules suddenly change completely.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

great info dark. In your opinion, why have birth defects rocketed in areas of Iraq?

Isolated communities inbreeding?

[Raptor Witness]

I used to live near the greatest stockpile of chemical weapons on earth. I even visited the lab where they made and tested the materials.

We got in because I was a Chem. major, and it was the most sophisticated lab in the area. It was curiously the only field trip I can recall to any outside lab.

To say it was creepy is an understatement. You couldn't help wondering to yourself, if you could ever imagine wanting to do work like this.

I remember leaving with a sense of sadness that anyone would want such a job, much less tout it to Chem. majors.

[Stellar]

great info dark. In your opinion, why have birth defects rocketed in areas of Iraq?

There being a war might explain it. Things get destroyed in war. They burn. Things that are normally harmless may become harmful when they burn. Would you stand in the vicinity of a burning car, inhaling the fumes? No. It's highly carcinogenic. Do you want us to stop using cars as a result of this?

[Kowalski]

But I agree about the hypocrisy here. Where was all this bombastic breast-beating and screaming on the part of the Democrats when Saddam was gassing first Iranians and later Kurds?

Now suddenly, the use of gas means that Obomba has to go and bomb another country (even without being sure who actuqally used it).

The Democrat politicians and their sycophantic US media should get whiplash from this 180 degree turn.

But apparently, if it is their guy in the White House, the rules suddenly change completely.

Ha, so true. Republican or Democrat, as long as it's their guy doing it, it's okay....

[Babe Ruth]

I think a bit of actual facts about depleted uranium would greatly help this thread. First depleted uranium is barely radioactive, the radioactivity of depleted uranium is about 15 kBq/g, unless it is fresh then it is about 40 k/bq/g but it quickly drops to 15 kBq/g in about a month. Naturally occurring uranium is 25 kBq/g and to further show how small the radioactivity of depleted uranium actually is, potassium in the body produces about 4 kBq/g and the global amount of carbon-14 is estimated at causing about 8.5^15 kBq/g or for those not good with numbers raised to a power, 8500000000000000 kBq/g. Second depleted uranium is not classified as a dangerous radioactive substance, further depleted uranium is not known as a carcinogen, or known to cause birth defects, or known to cause genetic mutation. Multiple studies have even shown that the reports made about health issues from depleted uranium used in the first golf war does not match heath statistics or analysis. Even when the UN Environmental Programme when studying the effects of 9 tonnes of depleted uranium being used in Kosovo have found no contamination of the water or food chain and found no correlation between the depleted uranium use and reported health issues.

Basically unless you are getting hit with or burned by a depleted uranium round there is no danger from it unless you start eating it, which would cause heavy metal poisoning like all other heavy metals.

I have a feeling that most of these health issues people are having from areas where depleted uranium ammunition was used was caused from the dust of destroyed building. Even in America where we have pretty good building codes and restrictions there are still a good bit of stuff that if turned into a dust form and breathed in will cause pretty bad health issues later on so picture how much worse a country with less then western building standards would have when a building is destroyed. If I remember correctly, and I usually do, aren't the people who where exposed to the dust from the World Trade Center attacks facing extremely similar health issues as the people from these countries where depleted uranium was used.

I got a good bit of my information from here in case anyone would like to actually learn a bit more about depleted uranium before talking about how dangerous it is.

http://www.world-nuc...m/#.UiAYOBukqt8

Exactly right. And now it seems that upon close examination with the events at Fallujah, especially considering the diseases and medical considerations, including some level of genetic mutation, there is a certain probability that enriched uranium was used in some capacity or other. Perhaps a noxious cocktail mixed with conventional artillery rounds.