Cancer rise in Fallujah

[PhantomWolf]

I can agree that the evidence against DU is strong

Actually it isn't. The first part of the "Evidence against DU" is that DU was actually used and that hasn't been established.

Currently you are doing the equivalent of pointing at the Butler and declaring "He did it, because who else could it have been?" without bothering to establish that the Butler was actually at the scene at the time of the murder.

 

[Travis]

I don't know the cause, but I suspect very strongly that there is a direct correlation and causation between US military activity and the alarming spike in defects and cancers.

Why are you assuming that such spikes only follow US military activity? If such spikes follow urban military activity in general then wouldn't that basically establish that heavy combat in heavily populated areas tend to cause conditions that lead to post battle spikes in defects and cancers?


Actually, I think we should just cut to the chase.


Suppose that there is indisputable evidence that the US used depleted uranium in Fallujah and that this caused the spikes in defects and cancers. What then? What should the US have done differently? What should be done now?

Need I remind everyone yet again that the battle, and thus the aftermath, wouldn't have even been necessary had not the Insurgents decided to turn the place into a fortress and fight a battle there? What responsibility should they in turn bear for the post battle events?

 

[JihadJane]

Why are you assuming that such spikes only follow US military activity? If such spikes follow urban military activity in general then wouldn't that basically establish that heavy combat in heavily populated areas tend to cause conditions that lead to post battle spikes in defects and cancers?


Actually, I think we should just cut to the chase.


Suppose that there is indisputable evidence that the US used depleted uranium in Fallujah and that this caused the spikes in defects and cancers. What then? What should the US have done differently? What should be done now?

Need I remind everyone yet again that the battle, and thus the aftermath, wouldn't have even been necessary had not the Insurgents decided to turn the place into a fortress and fight a battle there? What responsibility should they in turn bear for the post battle events?

Who invited the US military into Iraq?

 

[theprestige]

Who invited the US military into Iraq?

Saddam Hussein, last time I checked.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Saddam Hussein, last time I checked.

He agreed to the ceasefire and then almost immediately started violating it non-stop for more than ten years.

A remarkable display of patience on the part of the coalition.

 

[Travis]

Not to mention the terrible way he treated his own people which was reason enough for me, a life long Liberal, to support the idea of an invasion.

 

[bit_pattern]

Actually it isn't. The first part of the "Evidence against DU" is that DU was actually used and that hasn't been established.

Currently you are doing the equivalent of pointing at the Butler and declaring "He did it, because who else could it have been?" without bothering to establish that the Butler was actually at the scene at the time of the murder.

You completely misunderstood what I said. There is good evidence in the scientific literature against DU causing cancers and birth defects, not 'against' in the adversarial sense.

Why are you assuming that such spikes only follow US military activity?

I'm not. We were talking about a specific example.

If such spikes follow urban military activity in general then wouldn't that basically establish that heavy combat in heavily populated areas tend to cause conditions that lead to post battle spikes in defects and cancers?

Yes.

Suppose that there is indisputable evidence that the US used depleted uranium in Fallujah and that this caused the spikes in defects and cancers. What then? What should the US have done differently? What should be done now?

Well, I'm not saying DU did cause the spike, but I am curious as to what did, if the evidence against DU being the cause is as strong as has been suggested.

As for for what should be done - well, a massive epidemiological study into the phenomenon that identifies the cause would be a good start, followed up by a comprehensive overhaul of the way we go to war in order to prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again, and if that means not using, or even banning, the use of certain weapons - or at least rewriting the rules on how and where such weapons can be deployed in battle - then that would be a vast improvement. Especially if you think it is a ood iea to use military force to go around "liberating" people, it's not a real good look if you poison them in the process.

Not to mention the terrible way he treated his own people which was reason enough for me, a life long Liberal, to support the idea of an invasion.

LOL, a trillion dollars well spent, you reckon? I wonder whether you'll be saying that when the Iraqi Shi'ite's exercise their new found freedom by forging an alliance with a nuclear Iran?

 

[WildCat]

I wonder whether you'll be saying that when the Iraqi Shi'ite's exercise their new found freedom by forging an alliance with a nuclear Iran?

The religious parties have taken a beating in the last few Iraqi elections, I don't think the Iraqi Shiites will be running into the arms of the Iranian mullahs any time soon. Especially as more and more Iraqis realize that many of the car bombs causing so many deaths in Iraqi markets have "made in Iran" stamped on them.

 

[bit_pattern]

I guess we'll just wait and see, won't we

Iraq…It's an Iranian Alliance

06/05/2010

By Tariq Alhomayed

There is no other way to describe the electoral alliance that was announced on Tuesday between the State of Law Coalition and the Iraqi National Alliance except as an Iranian one. What’s considered a purely sectarian alliance made sectarianism prevail over the nation, with the aim of excluding half of the Iraqi society, and of course the consequences will be detrimental.

In amazement, a Western official told me “how America handed over Iraq to Iran.” The truth is that the first person to say this openly and in America was the Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal when, in the presence of the then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, he said that America had handed Iraq to Iran on a golden platter. A well-informed Saudi told me that the Americans, Rice in particular, were very angry that day, however today Prince Saud al Faisal’s words have been confirmed decisively.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

The religious parties have taken a beating in the last few Iraqi elections, I don't think the Iraqi Shiites will be running into the arms of the Iranian mullahs any time soon. Especially as more and more Iraqis realize that many of the car bombs causing so many deaths in Iraqi markets have "made in Iran" stamped on them.

Really? I thought most of the car bombs were by al-qaeda types.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

He agreed to the ceasefire and then almost immediately started violating it non-stop for more than ten years.

A remarkable display of patience on the part of the coalition.

As I recall, the 'coalition' was not averse to bombing Iraq in response to perceived violations in the years between the two Gulf Wars.

 

[WildCat]

Really? I thought most of the car bombs were by al-qaeda types.

I have no idea on the raw numbers, but there have been numerous such attacks on Sunni towns, such as this one in May: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=176115

And it's Iran that supports the Shia on Sunni violence by funding training the terrorists who do it, and is closely associated with several Shiite militias.

 

[bit_pattern]

I have no idea on the raw numbers, but there have been numerous such attacks on Sunni towns, such as this one in May: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=176115

And it's Iran that supports the Shia on Sunni violence by funding training the terrorists who do it, and is closely associated with several Shiite militias.

The Sunni's won't be forming government again anytime soon, and it is the Shi'ia who will ally with Iran (in the event that happens), hence your original reply to my comments are most likely to be wrong. Dead wrong.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I have no idea on the raw numbers, but there have been numerous such attacks on Sunni towns, such as this one in May: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=176115

And it's Iran that supports the Shia on Sunni violence by funding training the terrorists who do it, and is closely associated with several Shiite militias.

From the article you cited:
"Khalis is a Shiite enclave in the largely Sunni province of Diyala."

Sounds like Shia (Shiites?) were targeted here.

This may be more like what you were looking for:
http://www.jpost.com/home/article.aspx?id=91774

I agree that Iran support some Shiite (Shia? never know which to use where), but I thought their MO regarding sectarian violence was usually of the kidnap-and-torture-to-death type.

 

[WildCat]

The Sunni's won't be forming government again anytime soon, and it is the Shi'ia who will ally with Iran (in the event that happens), hence your original reply to my comments are most likely to be wrong. Dead wrong.

Actually, the fact that it's the Sunnis preventing the formation of a government shows how disunified the Shia are. The Sunni make up only 35% of the population, if the Shia were united with Iran they could easily form a government.

I doubt more than 30% or so of the Shia want to be BFFs with Iran. While they share the same religious sect the ancient Arab vs. Persian thing trumps that for many.

 

[bit_pattern]

Shiite (Shia? never know which to use where)

Shi'ite is the people, a Shia is a person, ie. the Shia is a Shi'ite - although it's more fun to spell it Shi'ia, I find

 

[Captain.Sassy]

The Sunni's won't be forming government again anytime soon, and it is the Shi'ia who will ally with Iran (in the event that happens), hence your original reply to my comments are most likely to be wrong. Dead wrong.

I'm slowly reading a book on US-Iranian relations and it mentions that the revolutionary Iranian leadership expected Iraqi Shia to rise up against Saddam, which largely didn't happen.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/religion-shia1.htm

There's a brief corroborating sentence in this article:
"During the Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi Shia for the most part chose their Arab identity over their religious one. "

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Shi'ite is the people, a Shia is a person, ie. the Shia is a Shi'ite - although it's more fun to spell it Shi'ia, I find

Shi'ia!

 

[WildCat]

From the article you cited:
"Khalis is a Shiite enclave in the largely Sunni province of Diyala."

D'oh! I had too many tabs open and got my stories confused... any way here's one in Fallujah in March: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8567444.stm

I agree that Iran support some Shiite (Shia? never know which to use where), but I thought their MO regarding sectarian violence was usually of the kidnap-and-torture-to-death type.

Usually, but I don't think they're too picky. It seems fewer Shia want to blow themselves up for the cause. Far more Sunni in the pool to pick from.

 

[FireGarden]

D'oh! I had too many tabs open and got my stories confused... any way here's one in Fallujah in March: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8567444.stm

But even that article doesn't mention Iran. You seem sure that Iran is responsible, even though al-Qaeda has targeted Sunnis before.

You seem to have a simplisitc notion of Sunni-Shia relations. The civil war between them in Iraq was by no means inevitable. It took al-Qaeda quite a while to get it going. Even in 2005, there were stories like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081301209.html

Rising up against insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, Iraqi Sunni Muslims in Ramadi fought with grenade launchers and automatic weapons Saturday to defend their Shiite neighbors against a bid to drive them from the western city, Sunni leaders and Shiite residents said.

That was before the civil war really got going, when someone (probably al-Qaeda) blew up an important Mosque in 2006.

As for Iranian influence... If you want politicians who were anti-Saddam, then you will have politicians who were friendly with Iran. And probably spent some of their Saddam-years exile in Iran/Syria.

The fact of the matter is... Iran doesn't need to rock the boat. They've won more out the Iraq war than they had a right to expect -- and they had a right to expect some wins. Why would they risk it all by stirring up trouble?