IRAQ: Experts Warn of Radioactive Battlefields

[G_j]

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/NewsArticle.cfm?NewsID=627

Katherine Stapp, Interpress Service News Agency
09/12/2003

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=20113

NEW YORK, Sep 12 (IPS) - Concerns are growing about the presence of depleted uranium and other toxins in Iraq following a rash of illnesses among U.S. troops and the discovery by a reporter that radiation levels in parts of Baghdad are extremely elevated.

So far, according to figures obtained by the 'Washington Post', more than 6,000 soldiers have been pulled out of Iraq for medical reasons since the start of the war. About 1,400 of them were injured in combat or non-combat incidents, such as vehicle accidents, meaning the majority were evacuated for various physical or psychological illnesses.

No further breakdown has been released. In July, the U.S. Army announced that two soldiers had died of severe pneumonia and more than 100 were hospitalised for the illness. The deaths are still being investigated
<snip>

These fears were heightened when a correspondent for the 'Christian Science Monitor' took a Geiger counter to parts of Baghdad that had been subjected to heavy shelling by U.S. troops. He found radiation levels 1,000 to 1,900 times higher than normal in residential areas where children were playing nearby.

One explanation is the presence of depleted uranium (DU), the trace element left over when uranium is enriched and the most radioactive types have been removed for use as nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons. DU munitions vaporise on contact, dispersing particles over wide areas, where they settle as dust that can be inhaled or ingested.
<snip>
www.nuclearpolicy.org

[G_j]

1. Gulf War II Syndrome?Military Equipment and "Pneumonia"By STAN GOFF

http://www.counterpunch.com/goff08062003.html


To understand the official military response to the mysterious "pneumonia" breaking out among American troops in Iraq, we have to understand that troops are equipment.
To the unremitting vexation of Donald Rumsfeld and his "network-centric" techno-groupies, troops are articles of equipment whose preparation and maintenance prove troublesome. They have to be coaxed into "service" with Army-of-One-style Madison Avenue pitches and educational bribes, enculturated to discipline and punctuality, taught how to perform their various functions, then kept in the job through a system of economic and psychological rewards. Troops are the only part of the "tables of organization and equipment" (TO&E is the military's term to describe its units, not mine) that have to be indoctrinated.

There are a couple of troublesome aspects to this for the politicians who control the military. First, troops are not equipment. Second, indoctrination narratives are perishable as circumstances change.

I tend to harp about this, having been military for so long and now being a very politically active leftist, but no member of the armed forces is ever transformed into the unthinking, unfeeling, lethal robot that thrills the right and haunts the left. These men and women start and end as human beings exactly like all of us. They experience the same range of emotions, desire the same outlets for their creativity, seek the same human companionship, and are driven by the same intellectual curiosity. They are not computers that can be programmed. They feel loneliness, awe, pain, lust, confusion, mirth, dread, appetites, and obsessions just like every last one of us, and they exist in the same uncontrollable mix of potentially subversive facts that we do. They are the same combination of goal-directed willfulness and unmanaged acting-out as the rest of us. They are part of the same system as you and me, in which Wal-Mart workers and soldiers are both necessary and expendable. Like the rest of us, they can also get mad when they find they've been had.
..more..

more from Stan Goff at www.bringthemhomenow.org

[G_j]

3. not starting anymore threads in GD

this is my last thread posting in GD for a bit. I'm obviously wasting my time trying to find interesting stuff to share with ya'll. I feel like an idiot kicking my own threads. bla
Have fun :hi: :hi: :hi:

[Eloriel]

5. Oh, c'mon

Some of th BEST threads die for want of a good thread title; some of the die because the timing isn't right; some die for no damned good reason that I can tell.

Don't take it personally, and don't go away.

*I* appreciate your thread very much.

Eloriel

[G_j]

7. thanks, I'm not going anywhere

I just get too involved trying to post stuff I want to share (cause I'm a Libra? :shrug: )
For some reason I just loathe kicking my own treads but that's often the only way to save them. I'll just wait 'til the 'candidate wars" die down a bit. I'll still be here responding on other threads.

[FubarFly]

6. I know how you feel. And because of that:

Shameless :kick:

[G_j]

9. LOL, I'll try and return the favor sometime!

[gristy]

8. Hey, it happens to me too

I'll spend quite a bit of time putting together several related links, paragraphs from each link, and some analysis. And sometimes it falls right off the first page, and I'll have to shamelessly kick it myself.

It is a little disheartening when "Why are so many of you against our troops? " is now over 100. Sigh.

I was thinking myself today that I really do need to take a break.

But regarding the DU in Iraq, this is not only a BFEE war crime but a crime committed by so many accomplices. From our political leaders to the pentagon to the defense industries, they are all guilty of this devastation. A friend of my father who is around 75 spends a great deal of time lobbying to expose the dangers of DU. The stuff is extremely toxic, as you know. And it doesn't break down (or maybe it does slowly; I imagine it has a half life). It just blows around.

[G_j]

13. Helen Caldicott (sp?)

I always forget how to spell her name, has written some good stuff on this also. You are right it is a crime for real, and that's not just a figure of speech.

As for the thread thing, I trust that when a Dem candidate is finally nominated the energy will change in GD. It's not worth taking a lot of time putting stuff together when the focus is so singular. One bright spot is the continued interest in Bev Harris's threads. She rocks!

[dfong63]

2. gee, the same kind of radioactive battlefield that Clark left behind

in Kosovo...

[G_j]

4. should have known the one response

would be part of the "candidate" wars.

why doesn't someone just ask Clark about is position on DU? ...edit: (that's Depleted Uranium..)

[gristy]

10. This is a very scary statistic

more than 6,000 soldiers have been pulled out of Iraq for medical reasons since the start of the war.

The war has been going on since March 20. Today is September 18. Huh, we're at the 1/2 year anniversary. We've lost 6,000 soldiers out of 140,000. That's 4% of the troops in 1/2 year. If that rate holds steady (though you know it has to go up), we lose 16% of the troops (our brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters) to illness or injury. These folks aren't going home 'cause they have a cold. What a tragedy.

[G_j]

18. you're right

that is devastating! And imagine the people who live there.

[gristy]

19. Well, yes, of course.

In my post I certainly did not mean to overlook what has been done to the Iraqi population. Depleted uranium, once released in the environment, kills for a long time. Everyone in Iraq suffers the consequences. And since most people in Iraq are Iraqi (and they don't get to leave if they get sick), well, they take the hit.

[Pastiche423]

11. Who ultimately

gives the order to use DU? Is it the president? The pentagon?

Anyone know?

[gristy]

12. Depleted Uranium is used in the tips of bombs, mortars

and other projectiles. It is a very dense, hard metal (it is also a byproduct of our nuclear power generation, and the power companies are happy to sell it to the military, rather than have to bury it in some mountain).

You don't need no stinkin' order to use it.

[Pastiche423]

14. Uh...

my question was serious.

In order to prohibit the use of DU, to whom do we bitch?

[gristy]

15. My guess is your Congresscritters

Write them and tell that DU is killing our own troops and destroying the environment where we fight our wars. I'm pretty sure that DU is illegal (not sure what law or what governing body, though).

[punpirate]

16. All weapons go through what is known as...

... a certification process, which specifies their suitability for a range of battle conditions. Once the weapon is certified for use, it's in the armory and available. From that point on, the Pentagon decides on implementing them.

The current exception is for use of nuclear weapons, but since the Bush administration has included first use of tactical nuclear weapons in the last strategic policy review, I would imagine there is debate going on now in the Pentagon and the White House about allowing regional commanders the option to order the use of so-called tactical nuclear weapons.

That said, even nuclear weapons go through a certification to determine their battlefield uses, i.e., when and when not to use them, what they can and cannot do.

Cheers.

[G_j]

17. I guess the question would be

who first made the decision to use it in weapons manufactoring, or was responsable for purchasing the weapons? When did it start?

on edit looks like you pretty much answered my question.

Is this process classified? How well could one trace the history of DU becoming a part of the arsenal?