Inside Iraqi Torture Chambers

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Animal: Nobody denies the nature of Saddam's regime. That was never in question.

Yet many people still say the war should never have been fought...which would have left the prisoners locked in their cells and subjected to regular torture sessions. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Animal: Like Donut said, had Bush an co. stated from the start that this war was about human rights, most everyone would agree but it wasn't about HR it was about WoMD. To change the reasoning behind the war half way through it doesn't, in my eyes, still doesn't justify it.

No it wouldn't have. Why? Because there are NO "U.N. Resolutions" authorizing "serious consequences" for human rights violations. The same countries would have still opposed the U.S. and would have offered the very same arguments being echoed here - "what about North Korea, Africa, etc etc".

And it baffles me that many members are now using the argument that "changing our motives still doesn't justify the war". So I suppose we should have just left these people to die a slow, tortured death in Saddam's prisons since we didn't state from Day 1 that we were interested in freeing them. I'm sorry, the logic of that argument completely escapes me.

Originally posted by Animal: The west (I use that term broadly) could have put an end to Saddam during the original gulf war, but decided not to. That decision had consequences, and even though the situation is being solved as we speak (type), the responsibility of those consequences cannot be ignored.

The "west" didn't put an end to Saddam in 1991 because we did not have U.N. Authorization to - NOT because we "just decided not to". The Coalition Forces of 1991 were under the authority of the U.N. and the only thing they were "authorized" to do was to repel Saddam's forces from Kuwait. Once they crossed back into Iraq, the U.N. would not allow the Coalition Forces to seek further action against them.

I firmly believe that is one of the main reasons George W. Bush did NOT want the U.N. in charge of this operation. He used the threat of WoMD in an attempt to gain the support of the U.N. After all, they HAD unanimously passed a resolution calling for "serious consequences" if Saddam Hussein did not completely disarm. After 12 years of waiting, it was obvious to some that Saddam was NEVER going to comply with Resolution 1441...and it was equally obvious that the U.N. had neither the strength nor the fortitude to actually enforce it's own resolution. So President Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the rest of the Coalition of the Willing went in on their own and solved the problem once and for all.

Since this thread started with a TRIPLE DOG DARE...I'll offer another one. To those who still seem to oppose the war on general principle, I TRIPLE DOG DARE you to offer proof that the results of the war were not beneficial for the general population of Iraq. Show me proof that the average Iraqi citizen is not better off today than they were this time last week.

[Timber Loftis]

Cerek, with your permission, I'll modify your TRIPLE DOG DARE.

The info should be about the population generally. We all realize, and we have all seen, individual instances of traged. (I specifically remember one article about a man who lost his wife and children to US cluster bombs.) So, let's all be realistic -- unless there are a lot of these individual instances of tragedy out there, they do not tip the scales in the aggregate.

Originally posted by pritchke: Another possibility is exposure to depleted Uranium used in ammunition. I know a British Commando who really does not like the idea of using depleted Uranium as it can makes people very sick as well. I guess it is possible to get enough radio active exposure from it to kill you but I am not sure. Definitely likely to shorten your life span at a later time. When I asked him why are goverenments still use it, "He said the alternative is more expensive."

I know even more soldiers and tankers who say that your worries about DU rounds are ridiculous. There are thousands of US tankers who have spent years around DU rounds and are just fine thank you. And by the by, DU is not dangerous because of radiation. DU is dangerous due to the toxicity of Uranium.

Now as to your question. DU is used in anti-tank round fired by Tanks because Uranium is DENSE, the more DENSE and HARD the projectile, the more kinetic energy and thus the better kill probablility on the armored target. And frankly no one is worried if the tankers in the target get uranium poisoning, since they most likely will be incinerated soon after the round impacts. NOTE: NOT ALL tank rounds are DU. There are various rounds for various uses.

Tungsten used to be used, but newer armors have been limiting the effectiveness of tungsten rounds. DU is used out of necessity and accessability.

[ 04-10-2003, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[pritchke]

It is the dust after being fired that is the killer. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiologically hazardous.

The misnamed 'Depleted' Uranium is left after enriched uranium is separated from natural uranium in order to produce fuel for nuclear reactors. During this process, the fissionable isotope Uranium 235 is separated from uranium. The remaining uranium, which is 99.8% uranium 238 is misleadingly called 'depleted uranium'. While the term 'depleted' implies it isn't particularly dangerous, in fact, this waste product of the nuclear industry is 'conveniently' disposed of by producing deadly weapons.

Depleted uranium is chemically toxic. It is an extremely dense, hard metal, and can cause chemical poisoning to the body in the same way as can lead or any other heavy metal. However, depleted uranium is also radiologically hazardous, as it spontaneously burns on impact, creating tiny aerosolised glass particles which are small enough to be inhaled. These uranium oxide particles emit all types of radiation, alpha, beta and gamma, and can be carried in the air over long distances. Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and the presence of depleted uranium ceramic aerosols can pose a long term threat to human health and the environment.

What can I say? You have been lied to by your governmenty again. Some links to to help change your opion.

http://www.pinholepictures.com/
http://www.cadu.org.uk/
http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/du/
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/mettoc.htm
http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/ID=94
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...um/default.stm

I can go on. I think your boys need reeducation on DU.

Does the government really care about its troops?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1159218.stm

[ 04-10-2003, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Pritchke I am probably more intimately familiar with DU rounds than you are...(just guessing here) But the propaganda your posting about its effects can't even all be attributed to areas in which DU rounds have been used. Some of those pictures are reused for every complaint about some military weapon. All the recent fuss about children in Baghdad suffering from DU poisoning is just so much bullshit, the kids were in baghdad, the DU was used in southern iraq, the trade winds are west to east...it should have been kids in Iran not Baghdad that suffered. It is so so sad that people will ignore the facts and get all hyped over this crap, GM foods, Flouride in our water, Vaccinations, pesticides, fertilizers,...*sigh*....never mind.

You know some of those websites would be more believable if they were proofread before publishing.

[ 04-10-2003, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Cerek, with your permission, I'll modify your TRIPLE DOG DARE. The info should be about the population generally. We all realize, and we have all seen, individual instances of traged. (I specifically remember one article about a man who lost his wife and children to US cluster bombs.) So, let's all be realistic -- unless there are a lot of these individual instances of tragedy out there, they do not tip the scales in the aggregate.

Not a problem, Timber. I knew it wasn't phrased as well as it could have been...and I fully expected the first "takers" to point out the other thread about the Iraqi boy that lost both arms and most of his family from a missile.

I realize there are individual tragedies, but you are right, my point is that the vast majority of Iraqi citizens have benefitted and several hundred of them certainly appeared happy enough with our efforts yesterday.

Hey Pritchke, while you are on a tear about DU, lets talk about lead poisoning too...lead is toxic as well and is used as projectiles....an phosphorus.....and Tritonol is toxic too....TNT when inhaled is nasty as are most explosive compounds.....Pretty much you have to admit that weapons kill people.

[pritchke]

Possibly Magik, however I do believe the governments do understate the possible dangers of DU for a long, long time.

Lets say for that I am correct and that DU is extremely dangerous and the government tells the truth about the past lie/understatement that troops are not at risk about the dangers of DU, the consequences would be huge.

-They would need to replace everything that contains DU. A small military could do it but I think it would be an expensive project for the US and UK.
- Justified lawsuits from soldiers with their hair falling out and mild radiation sickness.
- Possible drop in enrolment

Just to name a few. Let me put it another way if the material was used in the workplace I am sure that people would not be allowed near it without the proper protection including something protecting inhalation. Why are the troops not treated under the same rules as standards used for hazardous materials in other workplaces.

I do have one question that I don't know. Who authorizes the materials used? and which experts determine if the materials used is safe or not for the application used?

For a public application I know such things need an engineering stamp of approval. Our military however is not restricted by such a standard so they have a work around with things that may not be a compliant product if need be, I am not sure but I think it would be similar with your military.

PS. I could not find any articles on the health benefits of DU.

[John D Harris]

To all the no war because the "right" reason wasn't given to go to war. Help me understand your logic here. You see I'm a result orintated man not an intent or motive orinitated man. So here is the options and results of those options.
1)War-wrong motive-millions of people freed from torture and death-hundreds killed or hurt in freeing of people-people freed to decide their own fate?
2)No War-motive for what ever reason-Millions of people still subject to torture and death-continual "dialog"-Millions of people still subject to torture and death-more dialog-Millions of people still subject to toture and death-etc.(12 years of undisbuteable fact to this result)
3)War-right motive-millions of people freed from torture and death-hundreds killed or hurt in freeing of people-people freed to decide their own fate-?

Now if you are in a burning house does it really matter that the person who pulls you free from the house saving your life, was in the neighborhood casing the place for a robbery? Does it matter if while pulling you out of the burning house he bumps your head or drags you across a nail?

[Skunk]

Nice arguments - but the British Army makes its troops wear chemical warfare suits if their troops have to inspect armour that has been hit with DU munitions. Is the British army wrong then?