Quote :

"If we fuck up like this again, perhaps a group of states will put together a new international body whose sole purpose is just to fuck with the United States"

huh? What we did wasn't really that bad in terms of the impact on other countries.

It just horribly undermines our message to backwards countries that we're better than them.

6/10/2010 8:08:02 PM

Really? If we did this AGAIN in the next 20 or 30 years you don't think it would be that bad in terms of impact on other countries?

6/10/2010 8:11:03 PM

Iraq was clearly the country most affected. And some of the neighboring countries in the region were also affected. But would countries that are not as immediately and directly affected as Iraq come together towards something powerful enough to come into our country and arrest or detain or prosecute a former US President?

Obviously some of the terrorist states or regimes in the Middle East hate the US, and would be willing to band together. But terrorist states generally don't get majority international approval (and spare me with the US is a terrorist state comments).

If we overthrow another dictator in the next 20 or 30 years, regardless of the ulterior motives, do you really think the Japans and Chinas and Frances and Germanys of the world are going to bond together to take us on? I don't.

6/10/2010 8:22:17 PM

Maybe? I mean, Iraq is/was kinda a big deal. The US is getting a free pass here, but I have a feeling that if it were to happen again soon, showing a pattern of gross international bastardry on the part of the US, something would happen on an international scale to hold the US accountable. I know it's hard to think something like this could ever happen, I guess you have to kinda think outside of the box.

6/10/2010 8:27:31 PM

^^^ wait, are we still talking about torture? (i haven't been following this thread too closely...)

6/10/2010 8:31:30 PM

Among all the other human rights violations, yes.

6/10/2010 8:34:04 PM

moral solipsism in this thread like woah!!

6/10/2010 9:27:08 PM

UDHR in this thread like whoa!!!

6/10/2010 9:31:10 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

Quote :

"Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah... exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study... Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer... Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that 'to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened'... ... Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form. He said: 'My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside.'... Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people..."

8/8/2010 12:00:54 AM

I'll tell you what the real problem was with the Ford administration.

8/8/2010 4:57:30 AM

I'm sure those Afghans thank God every day they have the freedom to die from cancer at 15.

8/8/2010 7:41:37 AM

They're probably just enjoying their tanning beds a bit too much.

8/8/2010 8:20:46 PM

Quote :

"Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form. He said: 'My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside.'... "

does he not realize that we shot everything that moved during the first Gulf War with depleted uranium shells?

8/8/2010 8:35:11 PM

Depleted uranium sure as hell doesn't qualify as new. Maybe he meant our new cancer ray.

8/8/2010 8:48:10 PM

^^ yeah but all the neocons and warhawks will tell you that depleted uranium does not cause any ill effects to health.

fuck the soldiers who dropped/shot whatever caused the increase in cancers, fuck the people who designed those weapons and manufactured them, fuck those who ordered for them to be dropped.

there are big pits in hell for them all (to be shared with saddam and obl)


[Edited on August 8, 2010 at 9:22 PM. Reason : ]

8/8/2010 9:18:05 PM

thats interesting, the article i read covering the same thing attributed it to depleted uranium with the disclaimer that no studies have been performed to show causal links. interesting that the independent sidestepped this

[Edited on August 9, 2010 at 1:45 AM. Reason : .]

8/9/2010 1:44:47 AM

^^
Is depleted uranium known to cause ill effects to health?

8/9/2010 9:32:39 AM

well basically the evil USA did this so yea pretty much the worst you could imagine happening is the truth.

8/9/2010 9:50:42 AM

Quote :

"Is depleted uranium known to cause ill effects to health?"

there is plenty of data to show strong correlations, but no studies to show causality

8/9/2010 11:52:21 AM