Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

*IRAQ: latest news and developments

Uday.Hussein.jpg


grave.jpg
 
I've been busy lately, so I have to get it off my chest, like a smoker has to have a few after a day in a non smoking office.

It's only five o clock p.m, too early for the porn channel.
 
Are American soldiers in Iraq dying due to depleted uranium?
On July 16, the News-Leader site operating out of Springfield, Missouri published a detailed report describing the symptoms of one of the soldiers who has died from the alleged pneumonia. Josh Neusche, a 20-year-old, fit and healthy Missouri National Guardsman, collapsed in Baghdad on July 2. He was evacuated to Landstuhl, Germany. His family was informed he was suffering from pneumonia caused by fluid in his lungs. According to his mother, his liver, kidneys and muscles then began to break down. He was placed on dialysis, but fell into a coma and died on July 12.

For anyone familiar with the research into the medical effects of exposure to depleted uranium, the details of Josh Neusche’s death would have to ring alarm bells. The 2001 World Health Organization report into the issue notes: “Brief accidental exposure to high concentrations of uranium hexafluoride has caused acute respiratory illness, which may be fatal.” [Full report available at http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/ir_pub/en/]

Scenarios that could cause a “brief, accidental exposure to high concentrations of uranium hexafluoride” definitely would include being in the vicinity of a vehicle or building struck by depleted uranium munitions; traveling in or being in the vicinity of a vehicle that is armored with depleted uranium and sustains damage; or being involved in the cleanup of such a vehicle. The organs most affected by exposure are the lungs and kidneys.
full: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/du-a04.shtml
 
Fisk is on the ball yet again.

From: Iraq isnt working...
Why don't the occupation authorities realise that Iraq cannot be "spun"? This country is living a tragedy of epic proportions, and now - after its descent into hell under Saddam - we are doomed to suffer its contagion. By our hubris and by our lies and by our fantasies - including the fantasies of Tony Blair - we are descending into the pit.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3990
 
[Last fall, in a classified assessment of Iraq, the CIA said the only thing that might induce Mr. Hussein to give weapons to terrorists was an American invasion. But month after month, unconstrained by mere facts, the president trumpeted a danger that his own intelligence officials dismissed.
Maybe the claim was just premature. Today, American troops in Iraq are fighting stalwarts of the old regime as well as foreign insurgents that, according to our top general there, probably include al-Qaida. Meanwhile, if the missing weapons exist, there is no telling who has them or how they may be used.
A deadly alliance between Mr. Hussein and bin Laden was once only a nightmare. Mr. Bush has done his best to make it come true. ]
http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion...aug05,0,5020066.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
 
........ pledges of $5 billion were needed from the conference merely to keep Iraq's creaking infrastructure and basic services from grinding to a halt next year.
Iraq needed to spend a minimum of $20 billion in 2004, and income from the ramshackle oil industry and other sources was unlikely to exceed $15 billion. Donors must supply the rest.
"That is just to keep things going," da Silva told reporters. "If you want a qualitative leap, a quantum leap in living standards and conditions, you would need much more."
Even if money is pledged it may not materialize -- much of the cash promised to Afghanistan has yet to arrive.
"If we want to attract something close to $5 billion as support for Iraq next year, donors will have the present security environment very much in mind," da Silva said.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3223490
 
Iraq war lies and impeachment: Official Washington tiptoes round the “i” word
Graham repeated essentially the same statements on both Fox News and NBC’s Meet the Press. On Fox his interviewer was Brit Hume, a fervent right-winger and Bush supporter who did not attempt to disguise his hostility. Hume repeatedly interrupted the senator as though he could not believe that Graham was actually raising the issue of impeachment, and attempted to argue against it. The following exchange took place:

Hume: Now, are you saying that this president knowingly misled the American people about the reasons for going to war?

Graham: Yes, I ...

Hume: Intentionally?

Graham: This—well, he did it knowingly. Certainly this president ...

Hume: When did he do that?

Graham: He did it, for one instance, in the State of the Union address, when he made a statement that he must have known—or certainly should have known, since it was a statement based on an investigation requested by his vice president ...

Hume: I understand that.

Graham: ... to find out whether the Niger issue was correct or not. And then second, I think he also withheld information....

Hume: Are you saying that because he did not lay out with foresight—clairvoyance, even—what would happen after victory, that that’s an impeachable offense?

Graham: It didn’t take clairvoyance to understand what the consequences of military victory in Iraq was going to be. The president...

Hume: Are you saying that’s impeachable?

Graham: No. I am saying—I asked the question, here are the standards that were used to impeach Bill Clinton, here are just some of the actions of this president. Let the American people decide if the US House of Representatives has set the proper standard for impeachment...

Later, another Fox panelist, National Public Radio correspondent Mara Liasson, asked Graham directly, referring to Bush, “whether his deceptions rise to the same standard that the House of Representatives set in the Clinton case.”

Graham responded, “Clearly, if the standard is now what the House of Representatives did in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the actions of this president are much more serious in terms of dereliction of duty for the president of the United States.” He said the issue was academic, however, because “Tom DeLay and the other leadership of the House of Representatives are not going to impeach George W. Bush.”
full: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/imp-a06.shtml
 
The war according to David Hackworth:

The retired colonel calls Donald Rumsfeld an "asshole" whose bad planning mired U.S. troops in an ugly guerrilla conflict in Iraq. His sources? Defiant soldiers sending dispatches from the front.


How long do you think U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq?

God only knows, the way things are going. At least 30 years. Tommy Franks [recently retired commander of U.S. troops in Iraq] said four to 10 years. Based on Cyprus and other commitments in this kind of warfare, it is going to be a long time -- unless the price gets too heavy. We say it is costing the U.S. $4 billion a month; I bet it is costing $6 billion a month. Where the hell is that money going to come from?

How do you see the combat situation evolving in Iraq?

There is no way the G [guerrilla] is going to win; he knows that, but his object is to make us bleed. To nickel and dime us. This is Phase 1. But what he is always looking for is the big hit -- a Beirut [-style car-bomb attack] with 242 casualties, something that gets the headlines! The Americans have their head up their ass all the time. All the advantages are with the G; he will be watching. He is like an audience in a darkened theater and the U.S. troops are the actors on stage all lit up, so the G can see everything on stage, when they are asleep or when his weapons are dirty. The actor can't see shit in the audience.

source: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/04/hackworth/print.html
 
And then, a little further away, lies the evidence of another slaughter of the innocents during the Anglo-American invasion; two local families, most of them children, 21 in all, blasted to pieces in the village of Awja when the Americans bombed their homes on 2 April in the hope of killing Saddam. They were supposedly distant cousins of the dictator.

We never heard of this bloodbath during the war, of course. Nor was it reported afterwards. But here are the victims. The child martyr Reem Mohamed Abdullah, aged five; Lawza, her two-month-old sister; their mother, Fatma; her brother, Faez; their father, Mohamed, and Jassim Mohamed Turki and his family, two of them babies.

Fisk: The ghosts of Uday and Qusay.
 
Has Blair Sexed Up Saddam’s Atrocities, Too?

In the past ten days, Mr. Blair has said at least three times – including once on the floor of the House of Commons – that the United Nations is claiming that some 300,000 bodies lie in mass graves in Iraq, and that this alone justifies the US-UK invasion.

In making this claim, Blair is doing with this evidence exactly what he did with the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction.

He is stretching it to the limit, and even telling a partial untruth; he is obscuring the bits which contradict his view of the world; and he is attributing an authority and a reliability to the information which it does not have.

First, the figure does not come from the United Nations. Blair has emphasised the UN as the source, and stressed that the figures does not come from the British or American governments. But the real source is a private non-governmental organisation in America called Human Rights Watch. UN officials may have lent credence to the figure by quoting it in their speeches, but it is not an official UNn figure.

Nor is it an official Red Cross figure. The International Committee of the Red Cross is the body which is responsible in international law for establishing the names of people missing in conflict. It is not the role of a private, unaccountable organisation like Human Rights Watch. While Red Cross officials in Geneva say they might privately accept it as a working basis for evaluating the scale of their task, they absolutely refuse to give the figure their official support. "We would not say that there are 300,000 people missing in Iraq," Antonella Notari, a spokesman, told me.

Human Rights Watch currently has two staff in Iraq. This compares with about 800 Red Cross staff, and a substantial United Nations presence. The International Committee of the Red Cross has had people in Iraq ever since 1980, and the United Nations has had a huge operation there since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. By contrast, Human Rights Watch has had its few staff in the main part of Iraq only for the last few weeks.

Moreover, Blair is quite wrong to imply that the 300,000 figure (which in any case he has inflated a little from the actual Human Rights Watch figure of 290,000) is the numbers of people killed by Saddam. This is not even what Human Rights Watch claims. Their report speaks of an estimated 290,000 missing, "many of whom are believed to have been killed". In other words, their deaths have not been established, and some or all of them may still be alive.
full: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4365.htm
 
Exposing the lies:: Q & A With CIA Analyst Stephen Pelletiere
Who killed the Kurds? Israel's part in a US invasion of Iraq.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target._

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas._

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time._

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran._

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.
article and audio: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2098.htm
 
in reply to the piece about about Iraqi's using gas on the Iranian's: I was speaking a few weeks ago to an Iraqi who was hosting a lone demonstration in Leeds City centre and he told me the same thing. Makes for interesting reading.
 
Originally posted by Johnny Canuck2
Two US soldiers killed in Iraq today. Prior to that, four days went by without a US fatality.

Progress...

Does the fact that 11 Iraqis died in the explosion at the Jordanian embassy effect your assessment in any way shape or form?

Besides there was a death from hostile fire on the 6th...

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20030807-0329.html

DoD Identifies Army Casualty
The Department of Defense announced today that Staff Sgt. Brian R. Hellerman, 35, of Freeport, Minn., was killed on Aug. 6 in Baghdad, Iraq. An Iraqi vehicle opened fire on Hellerman's unit. He died of injuries received during the ambush.

Hellerman was assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 325th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C.

There were two soldiers killed during this ambush. The identity of the second soldier is being withheld pending next of kin notification.

There was a 3 day gap in fatalities: 2nd,3rd and 4th of August... but the average is still around 1.3 per day.

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Details.aspx
 
The context of my comment was the concept of increasing acceptance of american presence. For that issue, the important fact is the lessening of american fatalities.

Earth to Johnny......
 
[Blair 'intervened in hardening up dossier on Iraq'
In mentioning Mr Blair by name, it goes further than Mr Gilligan's report - a fact that will not be lost on Lord Hutton. Mr Mason first relayed details of his source's claims in a little-noticed BBC World Service report on 5 June. In it, he said: "A well-informed source close to British intelligence told me that Downing Street had sent drafts of the document back to the Intelligence Committee six or eight times with a request that the language should be strengthened. Mr Blair himself was said to have been involved in this process at one point."]
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=432239
 
The US military has always been able to deny using "napalm" in Iraq through the rather ingenious expedient of altering the key ingredient used in the weapon and reclassifying them as "firebombs"! Their effect is almost identical to napalm, though in true Orwellian style the US military report that the new formula is "more environmentally friendly" than the one it replaces.
 
for Tim

[A reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald who witnessed another napalm attack on 21 March on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill, close to the Kuwaiti border, wrote the following day: "Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. 'I pity anyone who is in there,' a Marine sergeant said. 'We told them to surrender.'"
At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. "We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on 4 April, 2001," it said.
-----
In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in the war.]
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=432201
 
[CIA warned administration of post war perils in Iraq
But intelligence officials, former military officers, and national security specialists say the administration instead clung to the optimistic predictions of the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group headed by Ahmed Chalabi, who left Iraq in 1958. Chalabi, who is now a member of Iraq's US-backed Governing Council, is a close Rumsfeld and Cheney ally who had the ears of top administration officials in the months before the war.

"I think there was a general sense of how the postconflict phase would go, and it didn't work out that way," said a former deputy defense secretary, John J. Hamre, who recently returned from a Pentagon fact-finding mission to Iraq. "That general sense probably caused them to pass over intelligence assessments that differed from expectations."]

http://www.casperstartribune.net/ar...national/76367769fd88632821dbeff7997988af.txt
 
US troops kill Iraqi police: witness

How can law and order be restored if this here ‘liberation’ is killing members of the new Iraqi police force?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_50949.asp
Nahi, who said he was in civilian clothes but wearing the large police armband and wearing the yellow police badge around his neck, said after the firing had stopped he got out of the car and held his hands up.

"Three soldiers surrounded me. I got down on my knees, hands in the air, holding my badge. One of them kicked me in the back and I fell to the ground. Another one kicked me twice in the face. They put their boots on my head and pressed it into the ground.

"I kept saying 'police, police'; I don't speak English but it's the same word in Arabic," said Nahi, who said the beating lasted several minutes.

Nahi showed AFP cuts to his nose and head, a black eye, and took off his shirt to display bruises over much of his back and on his chest.
 
Back
Top Bottom