I make no secret of the fact that there are few things in this world which enrage me as much as hypocrites.

Seven years ago the U.S. invaded Iraq, SUPPOSEDLY to prevent IRAQ from ever using "weapons of mass destruction" against other nations. As we all now know, this was just a fabricated pretext, and there never was any WMD threat from Iraq (at least not AFTER the original "Gulf War").

What we DO now know is that the United States and United Kingdom USED WMD's against Iraq. If we needed any further evidence of the COMPLETE absence of morality of these governments (along with their gulags and use of torture), we now have it.



"Iraq to sue US, Britain over depleted uranium bombs"
www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=106091

"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..."

Legally, these plaintiffs have a leg to stand on. However, based on international treaties, DU (depleted uranium) is *not* a WMD.

If people are dying, technicalities are no comfort. DU as currently used can *definitely* be harmful, but I don't believe it was ever meant to function as a poison versus a populace. It's intended military use is to provide density which aids in adding mass/kinetic energy to armor-piercing projectiles, but a moratorium on its use until DU's health effects are better studied would certainly be appropriate.

Refusals to do such research and to enforce such a moratorium are unconscionable.

I think this is a can of worms better left unopenned. Getting off topic from our normal financial banter. I have been much closer to this topic, and y'all don't have the clearance to discuss it with informed detail.
I have served in some of these detainee camps and never witnessed anything resembling torture. In fact our basic training was much tougher that how much the detainees were had to deal with. The fact was that Iraqi detainees were much harder on each other, than we were on them. Doesn't mean that some form of emotional torture didn't happen somewhere at some time, but because of poor leadership, not a doctrinal choice.
As for WMDs, we know Iraq had them at one point because we were kind enought to furnish them (chems) during the Iran/Iraq war. No comment on the policy choices made thereafter. Boot (US Army (Ret)

Brian, I don't know how rigid your definition of "torture" is, but even with respect to what was PHOTOGRAPHED and released to the public, it would seem to cross the line in my own conception of the term (and none of the graphic pics were ever shown).

JsJ, keep in mind how far the U.S. has "lowered the bar", with respect to the term "weapons of mass destruction". They include ALL chemical and biological weapons - weapons which "destroy" nothing. Thus, the lack of explosive power of depleted uranium does NOT exclude it from the extremely BROAD definition which the U.S. government has created.

For example, even with respect to the government oafs who MISHANDLED the weapons-grade anthrax used in the infamous "Anthrax Letters", only a few people were killed. While depleted uranium shells are not as lethal as those exposed to weapons-grade anthrax, there is really no way to deliver such an attack over a wide area. It is purely a close-range weapon - meaning its impossible to describe this as a "weapon of mass destruction", since it DOESN'T "destroy" anything, or affect "masses" of people.

Thus, the point I was making is that given the U.S.'s arbitrary and ludicrous definition of "weapons of mass destruction", depleted uranium shells fit that definition AT LEAST as well as some other so-called "WMD"s.

Meanwhile, its HUGE "bunker-busting bombs" could kill 10's of thousands if used against a large population center - yet these horrific bombs are officially NOT "weapons of mass destruction", despite the fact they DO "destroy" and CAN kill "masses" of people.

Your right, our definition of torture are different. The pictures release were an expample of poor leadeship and poor decision making at the unit level (Abu Ghraib). They were however more mind games by soldiers that were not superivised sufficiently. The soldier throwing the punch was wrong. Soldiers in the unit fraternizing his chain of command was wrong. The pyramids for the sake of sad photo ops was wrong. All local level bad choices. Not Army Docrine. Soldiers careers ended over these poor choices.
I served in Abu Ghraib to help our folks and theirs in a medical mission. I saw no evidence of physical injury from MPs mis-handling soldiers. Occassionally detaines injured each other and required treatment. (Prisons can be a tough place) Part of our mission was to be VERY even handed and help diminish the poor image that this situation created. I have a Bronze Star hanging on my wall, representing the fair treatment and leadership my group created.
Those photos simply do not reflect Army doctrine, and is not representative. I don't like hearing generalization about torture techniques and the ARMY in one sentence. It just wasn't the case from what I experienced. Why we were there, what fight we are fighting and for whom are other topics for other day. Perhaps not for this venue IMO.

Brian, you're right that these are issues that were probably best not raised (again), but my anger is directed to the GOVERNMENTS of the U.S./U.K. - not the people in their armed forces.

As has been said by many, the acts which occurred would not have been possible without the rot at the top. Even so, I thought I was past the point of being surprised at the atrocities which the U.S./U.K. governments were capable of.

There can be NO POSSIBLE EXCUSE for using such heinous weapons against an "enemy" which was already out-manned and out-gunned by essentially a 100:1. However, for these two hypocrites to START A WAR by pretending they were trying to "protect the world from weapons of mass destruction", and then to USE such weapons in this campaign simply exceeds any example of hypocrisy I've ever encountered in my life.

I would think that this would anger you, as well, since obviously the US/UK governments knew there would be RESIDUAL RADIATION which they would be exposing their OWN people to - and couldn't care less about that either.

It's bad enough that 500,000 Iraqi children died during the decade-long U.S. economic sanctions and military blockade - because of no access to medicines, but to engage in these "war crimes" against ANOTHER generation of Iraqi children is beyond despicable.

Brian, you're right that these are issues that were probably best not raised (again), but my anger is directed to the GOVERNMENTS of the U.S./U.K. - not the people in their armed forces.

As has been said by many, the acts which occurred would not have been possible without the rot at the top. Even so, I thought I was past the point of being surprised at the atrocities which the U.S./U.K. governments were capable of.

There can be NO POSSIBLE EXCUSE for using such heinous weapons against an "enemy" which was already out-manned and out-gunned by essentially a 100:1. However, for these two hypocrites to START A WAR by pretending they were trying to "protect the world from weapons of mass destruction", and then to USE such weapons in this campaign simply exceeds any example of hypocrisy I've ever encountered in my life.

I would think that this would anger you, as well, since obviously the US/UK governments knew there would be RESIDUAL RADIATION which they would be exposing their OWN people to - and couldn't care less about that either.

It's bad enough that 500,000 Iraqi children died during the decade-long U.S. economic sanctions and military blockade - because of no access to medicines, but to engage in these "war crimes" against ANOTHER generation of Iraqi children is beyond despicable.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm not a fan of violence of any kind. However not defending yourself is also an act of violence to yourself and damaging to the spirit within. Some perspective.
A world without hunger, anger, warfare, greed, lust, possessiveness, control and self righteousness is a wonderful vision.
Your skyline was not attacked, but ours was. Status Quo would not do, but do what?
Did we vent our anger in the wrong place? A tougher call than the picture you paint. Much more complex, multiple levels of conflict. You are not scratching the surface IMHO. This is a conflict of character both individual and collective.

The DU rounds
DU rounds are Armor piercing, they had 3 Armor Division outside Bagdad.
These spent munitions are dangerous only if directly handled without some kind of protection. They are not dangerous if not handled. They are not "nukes.' Prolonged exposure to your cell phone may be as harmful. No good studies published, i.e. no good data. Should kids be handling these, no, nor should anyone not protected. (May not want to handle the DU rounds either) Not a good situation. Those were "some" of our munitions.

Could we have managed without "Shock and Awe" likely, but the arms dealers pulling strings would have certainly made less money. Overwhelm the enemy to save US soldiers lives. Or was it to deplete weapons stores, to be purchase all over again at great expense to US taxpayers in an emotional period? Raw manipulation IMO. Did I mention greed? I think this is the undercurrent of evil, and the puppet master for many conflicts. Group and Individual. Greed drives Large Bankers, Arms dealers, Lobbiest of all ilk and each individual to manipulate and exploit when poor choices are made.
Sad, unfeeling acts for profit without thought to down-range effects.

I do not agree with all our actions going back 1000s of years, not just here. But look at the world and choices presented to us. Europe was over-run by apathy, and allowed extremism unchecked in the form of Nazism to overtake daily norms and higher values. The world still faces these same foes with a new face. (Extremist regardless of nationality seek power-over and lash out in violence) I see this reflected in inner city gangs the world over be it in Somalia, Haiti, Bagdad or down-town USA. Young, angry and demanding entitlement and respect without trying to earn it.

Would you allow extremist unchecked to harm your cities in Canada?

The 500,000 starving, medically neglected kids. Hmm.
Saddam was building palaces all over the city at astronomical expense. Opulent monstrosities generated from Oil wealth during this very period. He had all the assets necessary to take care of all his people. He chose not to. Why do you think we imposed sanctions in the first place... Again, would you allow a leader unchecked to starve your citizens? Would you help a neighbor in need? Tough calls. Of course if my neighbor was getting robbed or raped my personal choice wouldn't be to drop and bunker bomb on the house. I see your point to be sure.

As for Iraq, if you weren't Bathist, you weren't getting squat.
If you spoke up against your situation you were sent to prison. Their prisons were not a friendly place. Brutal torture, (There was a hook in my cell used to suspend prisoner for beatings). Not just fatigue or literal embarrassment as you malign us for. (Also immature acts)
Make no mistake, Abu Ghraib under Saddam's rule was a death camp. He put countless thousands of people to death in that camp. Genocide and neglect killed most of the numbers you speak of, not sanctions. Don't hear about that much, the media loves to paint us as the big bad bully without conscience. Nosey neighbor with unresolved anger issues and a penchant for profit would be closer.

Knocking off a Genocidal Dictator that targeted your old man for assassination. Do nothing, and wait for the next attack. What would you have done in that chair? We did all this at the expense of our own image and economy, and are trying to rebuild what we harmed. We are not profiting from our acts. Just the opposite. Stupid, selfish or heavy handed? Mind our own business and turn our back on a race of people. Not a win, win.

Again, would I like the world to be without these dark thoughtforms and challenges of character? A world without rape, robbery, violence, prejudice etc. Sure, but I think our challenge is to create that world, it will not be handed to us. Mastery and choice the long, slow way. One choice at a time, every time. No days off, but lots of chances to do over. Slow integration of higher order thought, emotion and action. Salvation is for victims, violence is done by victimizers. Two side of the same coin.

What can we suggest as adults and leaders to mentor and help grow out of this cycle? How do we as a group move beyond our collective immaturity? I lay down that gauntlet, that challenge of character. How do we create a pathway of involved detachment vs power over or detachment? A path of discernment vs judgement, or of creative harmony vs conflict.
I think I need another cup of Joe, this may take a while. Cheers Boot