Iraq to sue US, Britain over depleted uranium bombs

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Bob26003, Feb 2, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    This will go down as one of the worst crimes against humanity of the modern era

    ************************************

    Iraq's Ministry for Human Rights will file a lawsuit against Britain and the US over their use of depleted uranium bombs in Iraq, an Iraqi minister says.

    Iraq's Minister of Human Rights, Wijdan Mikhail Salim, told Assabah newspaper that the lawsuit will be launched based on reports from the Iraqi ministries of science and the environment.

    According to the reports, during the first year of the US and British invasion of Iraq, both countries had repeatedly used bombs containing depleted uranium.

    According to Iraqi military experts, the US and Britain bombed the country with nearly 2,000 tons of depleted uranium bombs during the early years of the Iraq war.

    Atomic radiation has increased the number of babies born with defects in the southern provinces of Iraq.

    Iraqi doctors say they' have been struggling to cope with the rise in the number of cancer cases —especially in cities subjected to heavy U-S and British bombardment.

    The high rate of birth defects and cancer cases will move in the coming years to the central and northern provinces of Iraq since the radiation may penetrate the soil and water by air.

    The ministry will seek compensation for the victims of these bombs.

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=117557&sectionid=351020201
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2010
  2. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    Legacy of Iraq war: Cancer, birth defects
    REUTERS, 2 December 2009, 01:00am IST

    BAGHDAD: The guns are gradually falling silent in Iraq as a fragile stability takes hold, turning the spotlig


    to stalk Iraqis for years to come.

    Incidences of cancer, deformed babies and other health problems have risen sharply, Iraqi officials say, and many suspect contamination from weapons used in years of war and accompanying unchecked pollution as a cause.

    “We have seen new kinds of cancer that were not recorded in Iraq before war in 2003, types of fibrous (soft tissue) cancer and bone cancer. These refer clearly to radiation as a cause,” said Jawad al-Ali, an oncologist in Iraq’s second city of Basra.

    In Falluja in western Iraq, scene of two of the fiercest battles between US troops and insurgents after the 2003 US invasion, a spike in the number of births of stillborn, deformed and paralyzed babies has alarmed doctors.

    “There are over 200 square km of land south of Basra containing war debris, some of which is contaminated with depleted uranium,” said Bushra Ali, of the environment ministry.

    ***********************

    Cancer - The Deadly Legacy of the Invasion of Iraq

    SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 6 (New America Media) - Forget about oil, occupation, terrorism or even Al Qaeda. The real hazard for Iraqis these days is cancer.


    Cancer is spreading like wildfire in Iraq. Thousands of infants are being born with deformities. Doctors say they are struggling to cope with the rise of cancer and birth defects, especially in cities subjected to heavy American and British bombardment.

    Here are a few examples. In Falluja, which was heavily bombarded by the US in 2004, as many as 25% of new- born infants have serious abnormalities, including congenital anomalies, brain tumors, and neural tube defects in the spinal cord.


    The cancer rate in the province of Babil, south of Baghdad has risen from 500 diagnosed cases in 2004 to 9,082 in 2009 according to Al Jazeera English.

    In Basra there were 1885 diagnosed cases of cancer in 2005. According to Dr. Jawad al Ali, director of the Oncology Center, the number increased to 2,302 in 2006 and 3,071 in 2007. Dr. Ali told Al Jazeera English that about 1,250-1,500 patients visit the Oncology Center every month now.


    Not everyone is ready to draw a direct correlation between allied bombing of these areas and tumors, and the Pentagon has been skeptical of any attempts to link the two. But Iraqi doctors and some Western scholars say the massive quantities of depleted uranium used in U.S. and British bombs, and the sharp increase in cancer rates are not unconnected.

    Dr. Ahmad Hardan, who served as a special scientific adviser to the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the Iraqi Ministry of Health, says that there is scientific evidence linking depleted uranium to cancer and birth defects. He told Al Jazeera English, "Children with congenital anomalies are subjected to karyotyping and chromosomal studies with complete genetic back-grounding and clinical assessment. Family and obstetrical histories are taken too. These international studies have produced ample evidence to show that depleted uranium has disastrous consequences."


    Iraqi doctors say cancer cases increased after both the 1991 war and the 2003 invasion.

    Abdulhaq Al-Ani, author of "Uranium in Iraq" told Al Jazeera English that the incubation period for depleted uranium is five to six years, which is consistent with the spike in cancer rates in 1996-1997 and 2008-2009.


    There are also similar patterns of birth defects among Iraqi and Afghan infants who were also born in areas that were subjected to depleted uranium bombardment.

    Dr. Daud Miraki, director of the Afghan Depleted Uranium and Recovery Fund, told Al Jazeera English he found evidence of the effect of depleted uranium in infants in eastern and southeastern Afghanistan. "Many children are born with no eyes, no limbs, or tumors protruding from their mouths and eyes," said Dr. Miraki.


    It's not just Iraqis and Afghans. Babies born to American soldiers deployed in Iraq during the 1991 war are also showing similar defects. In 2000, Iraqi biologist Huda saleh Mahadi pointed out that the hands of deformed American infants were directly linked to their shoulders, a deformity seen in Iraqi infants.

    Many U.S. soldiers are now referring to Gulf War Syndrome #2 and alleging they have developed cancer because of exposure to depleted uranium in Iraq.


    But soldiers can end their exposure to depleted uranium when their service in Iraq ends. Iraqi civilians have nowhere else to go. The water, soil and air in large areas of Iraq, including Baghdad, are contaminated with depleted uranium that has a radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years.

    Dr. Doug Rokke, former director of the U.S. Army's Depleted Uranium Project during the first Gulf War, was in charge of a project of decontaminating American tanks. He told Al Jazeera English that "it took the U.S. Department of Defense in a multi-million dollar facility with trained physicists and engineers, three years to decontaminate the 24 tanks that I sent back to the U.S."

    And he added, "What can the average Iraqi do with thousands and thousands of trash and destroyed vehicles spread across the desert and other areas?"

    According to Al Jazeera, the Pentagon used more than 300 tons of depleted uranium in 1991. In 2003, the United States used more than 1,000 tons.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/20100106/wl_oneworld/world3684721262818690
     
  3. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    It doesn't seem to be the most important effect of the war. Hundreds of thousands of dead attributed to it and there's some thousands of birth defects and these cause a lawsuit?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2010
  4. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member


    What is the half-life of DU? Millions? Billions of years? I would have thought making the country unhabitable, for a ridiculously long period of time, was a much greater crime than that of killing 'x' number of people outright at the time. Not that the latter isnt bad enough.
     
  5. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    It could be removed in a brief cleaning operation :rolleyes:
     
  6. Chargette

    Chargette Well-Known Member

    I edited this because I thought I was reading about Iran. This atrocity is in Iraq.

    That said, now for the clearly human tragedy.

    No matter where it came from (and that needs to be answered), or who uses it (and that needs to be addressed), human lives are shattered.

    We are the guinea pigs of power hungry men in high places. Where does it stop? Some are evil plans, some a defensive plans, and the intent of plans change because of human nature.

    As in any matter of this kind of importance, the people will tend to other people. It is the job of people to not forget these kinds of things and to sound the alarm when they start to happen.

    This knowledge does give meaning to the statement of then US Vice President Dick Cheney said soon after the Iraq war begin, when he said he would rather fight the war over there than here. His assertion was that the war on terror was coming to US soil.

    Men caused all to happen because they cannot handle it all. They cannot handle other people and they cannot (or don't care to) effect solutions without horrid consequences like this.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2010
  7. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    Yeah right, this stuff is in the dirt and the water and the crops. There aint no gettin rid of it.
     
  8. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    The article you linked stated pretty clearly it goes away quickly - the birth defects in Iraq spiked in 1997-1998 and then dropped off again, rather than remaining elevated. It is removed by humans and rain and wind in short order.

    Not saying it's right to use it, just saying there was a war, and this isn't the worst effect.
     
  9. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    dude, doctors are reporting 1500% percent increase in birth defects! And cancers they have never even seen before. Cancers directly linked to radiation. This is a BIG deal

    We are talking about making the land unfit for human habitation

    also

    dude, its radioactive waste. It doesnt just go away. If it rains, it soaks in the soil and gets in the groundwater and crops etc.

    Sure, there could be cleanup, but do you think the US would actually do that?

    and the cleanup would only take care of a fractrion of it
     
  10. Vangelis

    Vangelis Well-Known Member

    Iraq has no government to begin with charging both 2 superpowers of the world with crimes against humanity. And plus their own dictator also at the time used many chemicals against his own people. Take the Kurds for example, Chemical Ali, tested all his chemicals on them and their villages. The birth defects don't even amount to the stuff Chemical Ali used, which includes Sarin, VX, Anthrax, etc, which have also contaminated the area and unfit for habitation. At least he's now dead and charged with the crime. I also question the news source, and why I havent seen it on other liberal news outlets yet. You think the president of Iran would be all over this by now.
     
  11. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    The US supported saddam and his regime while he was gassing his own people. During the Iran Iraq war and before.

    We sold him many of the chemicals :)
     
  12. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Okay, so where did it go following the first Gulf War? The birth defect rate should have remained elevated for billions of years according to you since it's everywhere, but the rate went back down by 1999.

    It gets diluted fast. If it gets into a waterway it'll get buried by tons of sand per gram of DU in no time at all due to its weight; the radiation rapidly drops to background levels.

    According to the articles you linked, Iraq is habitable already and has been since autumn 2003.
     
  13. nos nomed

    nos nomed Well-Known Member

    Horrible thing as far as life there it really depends on radiation levels. Animals should be pretty safe in a few years as was evident in cherynoble however if there is radiation contamination of any high levels it might take around 100 years after cleanup for it to be safe to humans again. As far as the decline in birthdefects you really need more pinpoint information to tell if it has anything to do with the radiation number of births period might have increased or decreased in regions that have little to no radiation to cause the fluctuation in affected babies. Maybe people moved from the areas found to be more dangerous. I wonder can we just hold the Bushes, Clinton, and Tony Blair responsible and leave the rest of us out?
     
  14. Xaos

    Xaos Well-Known Member

    fuck that, take the money away from the people who started the war, then put them in prison
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.