nimashirali

Why the U.S Has Used Uranium Bombs Against Iraq

By: Nima Shirali
Sep/2003

George Bush's benevolence towards the poverty-stricken people of Iraq can best be shown by the increase in cancer rates within Iraq's population. With their blatant and indiscriminate violation of human rights, the American warlords (father and son) have dropped thousands of uranium bombs on Iraqi civilian centers. It is unquestionable that such actions have had profound negative consequences for the health of desperate Iraqi civilians. This manifests the fact that American military planners, which adhere to an imperialist agenda, rely on targeting peripheral, as well as military targets in actualizing their goals. As time progresses and as new plans are revealed, their total disregard for Iraq's population becomes increasingly clear.


To substantiate this, one can refer to numerous UN reports, which validate the fact that cancer rates amongst Iraqi children have increased up to 400 percent since 1991. As well, the death rate per 1000 Iraqi children under the age of five has increased eight fold since the first Gulf War.

To fully understand why such consequential trends are witnessed, we need to consider American motives for subjugating Iraq. It is clear that U.S ambitions to dominate Iraq emanate from a bourgeois perspective of subordinating weaker classes within the global community. American war planners, determined to advance their masters' imperialist agenda, have, and will, use any weapon at their disposal. As we have seen, and as colonial powers have shown in the past, ascendancy over weaker classes must be achieved at all costs.

In the present context, American imperialists have concurred to use uranium bombs to help achieve this. Their strategy can clearly be discerned as causing disease and desperation within Iraq's population, which they have reckoned would lead to a submission to their oil and bloodthirsty ambitions. They have falsely predicated that a mother's anguish over the loss of her child to cancer would give them leeway to realize their goals. As mentioned, they have intentionally utilized uranium bombs to accomplish this.

However, despite what American war planners may think, the 400 percent increase in Iraq's cancer rate will lead to increased animosity towards the U.S. In turn, this will lead to the solid unity of Iraq's most affected class, namely, the working class. Clearly, this class has been most affected due to two factors. First, a larger number of individuals, and second, less access to health care as a result of economic status.

In essence, the American objective of subduing Iraqi society, partly with the use of uranium bombs, will not be left unanswered. A concerted and united effort by Iraq's population, especially the working class, will disprove Bush's miscalculated assumption that a form of imposed 'democracy' will be accepted. Indeed, within a short period of time, we may all witness calls for revolution.

www.merecforum.org

__________________
Nima Shirali is Co-founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Middle Eastern Reconciliation Forum (MERF), www.merecforum.org

Emma LB

I like the article, because I agree with you. But... it really depends who you are trying to reach with it. It's just fine for people who already hate Bush and Blair, but if you're trying to reach Bush's supporters....
I wrote a speech before the war and did a lot of research for it, it seems you have done quite a bit for your article too. But an article is different from a speech. If you really want it to impress people you have to make it sound a little more uh... scientific. What I'm trying to say is that basically you want people to read this who are not too sure of Bush or actually support him ( ) and get them to realise that they are supporting the wrong guy.
You see, at the moment this reads like a speech to fire on protesters at an anti-war demo, if you want it to actually convince anyone then drop terms like warlord, clearly say, which UN documents you are refering too (if they are online, then add a link).
This where you come in with the cancer, because the depleted uranium not only seriously affected the people in Iraq, but also the British and US soldiers, and the government is still denying that the Uranium has anything to do with it. Then you can mention the Iraqis. I have a feeling that most Bush-lovers would just stop reading your beautiful artice after one sentence .

What I liked a lot about your article was that you mentioned imperialism, but make sure you clarify that, I mean, go on and say about indirect and direct imperialism, otherwise some people might not realise what you are talking about.

__________________
"You should be the change that you want to see in the world." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
(Avatar by geckzilla)

greggb

I did a quick search on the internet on the topic of "uranium bombs", because this sounded like such a wild assertion that I had a hard time believing it. I mean when you say "uranium bomb" I start thinking of nuclear weapons, and I'm pretty sure the US hasn't used nuclear weapons in an aggressive manner since 1945.

It turns out that the correct terminology is "depleted uranium". Incidentally, depleted uranium is a whole lot different than uranium. For one thing it's not radioactive--and cannot be used to generate a nuclear explosion--that's a pretty major difference. For another thing it's not used as the primary explosive in a warhead. So, I think the correct terminology for weapons that contain depleted uranium would be "weapons that contain depleted uranium". To describe the same thing with "uranium bomb" requires a very serious twisting of facts.

While doing my research I noticed something else very interesting. I found this exact same article, word for word, by this exact same author, in 3 other places (and it's probably in many more places... I only went through one page of search results).

This article was written with the intent to be distributed in many places over the internet. And it's very obvious the author of this posting wants us to agree with his/her point of view. There's a word for something like this: propaganda. This posting is pure, 100% unadulterated propaganda, and nothing more.

None of the so-called "facts" in this posting are backed by credible sources. Many of the claims the author makes are far stretches on beliefs of the scientific community. There's very little scientific backing at all for this entire posting.

Once again, this is just propaganda, aimed at gathering sympathy from those who are ignorant enough to believe any of this BS.

To the author of this posting I say, if you have gripes about the Americans' involvement in present day Iraq, come right out and say what your gripes are. But don't dump a bunch of crap like this on us and expect us to believe it. Go to www.propagandaforums.com if all you want to do is spread your propaganda.