Tuesday, August 31, 2004



by Christopher Bollyn

Lost in the media circus about the Iraq war, supposedly being fought to prevent a tyrant from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, is the salient fact that the United States and Britain are actively waging chemical and nuclear warfare in Iraq – using depleted uranium munitions.

The corporate-controlled press has failed to inform the public that, in spite of years of UN inspections and numerous international treaties, tons of banned weapons of mass destruction (WMD) – used and unused – remain in Iraq. Indeed, both chemical and radioactive WMD have been – and continue to be used against U.S. and coalition soldiers.

The media silence surrounding these banned WMD, and the horrendous consequences of their use, is due to the simple fact that they are being used by the U.S.-led coalition. They are the new “Silver Bullet” in the U.S. arsenal. They are depleted uranium weapons.

Depleted uranium (DU) weapons were first used during the first Gulf War against Iraq in 1991. The Pentagon estimated that between 315 and 350 tons of DU were fired during the first Gulf War. During the 2003 invasion and current occupation of Iraq, U.S. and British troops have reportedly used more than five times as many DU bombs and shells as the total number used during the 1991 war.

While the use of DU weapons and their effect on human health and the environment are subjects of extreme importance the Pentagon is noticeably reluctant to discuss these weapons. Despite numerous calls to specific individuals identified as being the appointed spokesmen on the subject, not one would answer their phone during normal business hours for the purpose of this article.

Dr. Doug Rokke, on the other hand, former director of the U.S. Army’s Depleted Uranium Project, is very willing to talk about the effects of DU. Rokke was involved in the “clean up” of 34 Abrams tanks and Bradley armored vehicles hit by friendly fire during the 1991 Gulf War. Today he suffers from the ill effects of DU in his body.

Rokke told American Free Press that the Pentagon uses DU weapons because they are the most effective at killing and destroying everything they hit. The highest level of the U.S. and British governments have “totally disregarded the consequences” of the use of DU weapons, Rokke said.

The first Gulf War was the largest friendly fire incident in the history of American warfare, Rokke says. “The majority of the casualties were the result of friendly fire,” he told AFP.

DU is used in many forms of ammunition as an armor penetrator because of its extreme weight and density. The uranium used in these missiles and bombs is a by-product of the nuclear enrichment process. Experts say the Department of Energy has 100 million tons of DU and using it in weapons saves the government money on the cost of its disposal.

Rather than disposing of the radioactive waste, it is shaped into penetrator rods used in the billions of rounds being fired in Iraq and Afghanistan. The radioactive waste from the U.S. nuclear weapons industry has, in effect, been forcibly exported and spread in the environments of Iraq, Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere.


“A flying rod of solid uranium 18-inches long and three-quarters of an inch in diameter,” is what becomes of a DU tank round after it is fired, Rokke said. Because Uranium-238 is pyrophoric, meaning it burns on contact with air, DU rounds are burning as they fly.

When the DU penetrator hits an object it breaks up and causes secondary explosions, Rokke said. “It’s way beyond a dirty bomb,” Rokke said, referring to the terror weapon that uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive material.Some of the uranium used with DU weapons vaporizes into extremely small particles, which are dispersed into the atmosphere where they remain until they fall to the ground with the rain. As a gas, the chemically toxic and radioactive uranium can easily enter the body through the skin or the lungs and be carried around the world until it falls to earth with the rain.

AFP asked Marion Falk, a retired chemical physicist who built nuclear bombs for more than 20 years at Lawrence Livermore lab, if he thought that DU weapons operate in a similar manner as a dirty bomb. “That’s exactly what they are,” Falk said. “They fit the description of a dirty bomb in every way.”

According to Falk, more than 30 percent of the DU fired from the cannons of U.S. tanks is reduced to particles one-tenth of a micron (one millionth of a meter) in size or smaller on impact.“The larger the bang” the greater the amount of DU that is dispersed into the atmosphere, Falk said. With the larger missiles and bombs, nearly 100 percent of the DU is reduced to radioactive dust particles of the “micron size” or smaller, he said.

While the Pentagon officially denies the dangers of DU weapons, since at least 1943 the military has been aware of the extreme toxicity of uranium dispersed as a gas. A declassified memo written by James B. Conant and two other physicists working on the U.S. nuclear project during the Second World War, and sent to Brig. Gen. L.R. Groves on October 30, 1943, provides the evidence:

“As a gas warfare instrument the [radioactive] material would be ground into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs,” the 1943 memo reads. “In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small. It has been estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulation in a person’s body would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty.”

The use of radioactive materials “as a terrain contaminant” to “deny terrain to either side except at the expense of exposing personnel to harmful radiations” is also discussed in the Groves memo of 1943.

“Anybody, civilian or soldier, who breathes these particles has a permanent dose, and it’s not going to decrease very much over time,” Leonard Dietz, a retired nuclear physicist with 33 years experience told the New York Daily News. “In the long run … veterans exposed to ceramic uranium oxide have a major problem.”

Inhaled particles of radioactive uranium oxide dust will either lodge in the lungs or travel through the body, depending on their size. The smallest particles can be carried through cell walls and “affect the master code - the _expression of the DNA,” Falk told AFP.

Inhaled DU can “fool around with the keys” and do damage to “practically anything,” Falk said. “It affects the body in so many ways and there are so many different symptoms that they want to give it different names,” Falk said about the wide variety of ailments afflicting Gulf War veterans.

Today, more than one out of every three veterans from the first Gulf War are permanently disabled. Terry Jemison of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs said that of the 592,561 discharged veterans from the 1991 war in Iraq, 179,310 are receiving disability compensation and another 24,763 cases are pending.

The “epigenetic damage” done by DU has resulted in many grossly deformed children born in areas such as southern Iraq where tons of DU have contaminated the environment and local population. An untold number of Americans have also been born with severe birth defects as a result of DU contamination.

The New York Daily News conducted a study on nine recently returned soldiers from the New York National Guard. Four of the nine were found to have “almost certainly” inhaled radioactive dust from exploded DU shells.

Laboratory tests revealed two manmade forms of uranium in urine samples from four of the 9 soldiers. The four soldiers are the first confirmed cases of inhaled DU from the current Iraq war.

“These are amazing results, especially since these soldiers were military police not exposed to the heat of battle,” said Dr. Asaf Duracovic, who examined the soldiers and performed the testing. “Other American soldiers who were in combat must have more DU exposure,” Duracovic said. Duracovic is a colonel in the Army reserves and served in the 1991 Gulf War.

The test results showing that four of nine New York guardsmen test positive for DU “suggest the potential for more extensive radiation exposure among coalition troops and Iraqi civilians,” the Daily News reported.

“A large number of American soldiers [in Iraq] may have had significant exposure to uranium oxide dust,” Dr. Thomas Fasey, a pathologist at Mount Sinai Medical Center and an expert on depleted uranium said, “And the health impact is worrisome for the future.”


“I’m hotter than hell,” Rokke told AFP. The Dept. of Energy tested Rokke in 1994 and found that he was excreting more than 5,000 times the permissible level of depleted uranium. Rokke, however, was not informed of the results until 1996.

As director of the Depleted Uranium Project in 1994-95, Rokke said his task was three fold: determine how to provide medical care for DU victims, how to clean it up, and how to educate and train personnel using DU weapons.

Today, Rokke says that DU cannot be cleaned up and there is no medical care. “Once you’re zapped – you’re zapped,” Rokke said. Among the health problems Rokke is suffering as a result of DU contamination is brittle teeth. He said that he just paid out $400 for an operation for teeth that have broken off. “The uranium replaces the calcium in your teeth and bones,” Rokke said

.“You fight for medical care every day of your life,” he said.

“There are over 30,000 casualties from this Iraq war,” Rokke said.

The three tasks set out for the Depleted Uranium Project have all failed, Rokke said. He wants to know why medical care is not being provided for all the victims of DU and why the environment is not being cleaned up.

“They have to be held accountable,” Rokke said, naming President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and British prime minister Tony Blair. They chose to use DU weapons and “totally disregarded the consequences.”

Christopher Bollyn

Article republished courtesy of American Free Press http://www.americanfreepress.net

Photo of an Iraqi child victim of D.U., courtesy of Dave’s Web: The Center for an Informed America: Newsletter #13 August 13, 2002; http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr13.html

Please also see:

Cancer Epidemic Caused by U.S. WMDM.D. Says Depleted Uranium Definitively LinkedBy Christopher Bollyn http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cancer_epidemic_.html


When our soldiers risked their lives in the Gulf, they never imagined that their children might suffer the consequences--or that their country would turn its back on them. Photography by Derek Hudson Text by Kenneth Miller Reporting by Jimmie Briggs Jayce Hanson's birth defects may stem from his father's Gulf War service. But like hundreds of other families, the Hansons face official stonewalling--and a frightening future. http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html

Effects of Wars on IraqDr Jawad Al-Ali, oncologist (tumor specialist) of Basrah, Iraq. Slides - Video - mms://

With thanks to Ross Wilcock and Leuren Moret for drawing the video and slides to our attention.

Read more

Sunday, August 29, 2004

Look at them two..They both have "the hat" and is that Arthur giving Karl tips on how to use the whip or vice versa. Our neighbors across the street..great folks..and Karl and Arthur really get the party going sometimes, quick wits and repartee.  Posted by Hello
Read more

Indiana Jones lives in Bay Center?

Indiana Jones lives in Bay Center? Pic of Arthur with his hat and whip Posted by Hello
Read more

Thursday, August 26, 2004

Beware what you're not aware of,

see original at http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/fwis/fw082604.htm

Beware what you're not aware of, it measures your humanity

By Joan Chittister, OSB

August 25 has been designated by the Save Dafur Coalition (see related story) as a Sudanese awareness day or "Sudan: Day of Conscience." Right. It raises serious conscience questions for us all:

The first important question, I suppose, is how many people are even aware of the awareness day?

The second question is what is the Sudanese situation about anyway?

And the third question is what does any of it have to do with us?

The first two answers, tragic as they may be, are at least obvious.

The third one, basic as it may be to our own future, to our own humanity, is not.

The first answer is undeniable. I'm not sure how many people are aware of the Day of Conscience, but I know how many should be: Everyone of us who call ourselves human should be. Everyone of us who call ourselves moral should be. All of us should be.

A tragedy of massive import is going on in the human family, and we don't even know it. We're too involved in a tragedy of our own making in Iraq -- trying to minimize it, trying to justify it, trying to forget it. The tragedy in Sudan hardly makes our papers. In fact, Iraq hardly makes our papers anymore. We don't know how many Iraqis are dead; we don't know how many of our own soldiers are wounded. The last thing in the world we want to do is to burden our psyches with one more ounce of proof that violence only begets violence.

But we can't ignore this great inhuman dimension of our humanity much longer. The truth is that it has as much to do with who we are as a people as with who they are as a people.

The United Nations calls the situation in Sudan "the world's worst humanitarian crisis" and says the Janjaweed militia is waging "ethnic cleansing" there. The genocide of the entire black population is, in fact, now at stake.

World Watch Institute tells us that over 200,000 black Sudanese have been murdered by this government-supported militia, thugs who have government approval to do what the government does not want to be seen doing.

Another 1.2 million people have fled their villages to save their lives. They are either wandering and homeless or are homeless and living in refugee camps without water, without sanitation, without food.

Most of the men in the villages were murdered, most of the women were brutally raped there and go on being raped by the very guards "guarding" them even in the refugee camps. Women's bodies, like nuclear bombs, are men's newest weapons of mass destruction.

To do nothing now about this when one of the major reasons we give for invading Iraq is because of what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds more than 10 years ago seems almost ludicrous. We must be missing something here. But what could it be?

The answer to the second question is clear, too: The war is about about racism, about religion, about oil - all the usual excuses we give when what we really want is dominance.

War has been raging in the Sudan since 1983. The government, dominated by Arabs from the country's north, has wanted to impose sharia law on the Christian and animist populations of the south and subjugate the black African Muslims of the west. On the side, of course, the government also wants control of the land and water of the west and the oil in the south.

All these things are real and all these things are stoppable if the world really set out to stop them. But we don't. And that question is why?

The answer to the third question, what does any of this have to do with us, is the hardest question of all to answer -- not because we don't know the answer, certainly, but because we don't want to face it in ourselves, perhaps.

The answer to the third question is that we love warriors. And wars will never end until the world stops adoring its warriors.

We are waging a presidential election in this country at this very moment, the major issue of which seems to be who of these two men is the greatest warrior? The one who didn't go to war at all but started his own or the one who went to war only to come back to tell us that going to that war was wrong?

But why are we asking ourselves which one of them is strong enough to fight and not asking ourselves which one of them is strong enough not to fight? Why aren't we asking ourselves which one of them is strong enough to find another way to settle conflicts, strong enough to stop playing the politics of fear, strong enough to cease and desist from spending our lives, and the lives of our children, on power and destruction?

After all, most of the people of the world don't even have the option of fighting. They don't have the weapons, they don't have the resources, they don't have the population, and they don't have the means to blow up the world while we spend most of our national wealth assuring ourselves that we can.

From where I stand, it seems that we badly need a Day of Conscience, a Day of Awareness in our lives.

We need a moment when we stand at a great distance from human inhumanity at its ultimate and ask ourselves what it is in us that makes us more interested in choosing a warrior president than we are in electing a president who will make the country strong in health care, strong in education, strong in civil rights, strong in international relations, strongly involved in an international military police force that would stop the killing, stop the raping, stop the burning of the villages, stop the massacres and stop the forcible depopulation of an entire strain of people everywhere tomorrow -- in Darfur, Sudan, today.

By all means, be aware, have conscience.What you see may tell you as much about ourselves and our future as it tells us about the Sudan.

Comments or questions about this column may be sent to: fwis@nationalcatholicreporter.org


Copyright © 2004 The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company, 115 E. Armour Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64111 All rights reserved. TEL: 1-816-531-0538 FAX: 1-816-968-2280

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Read more

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

We watched The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central on Tuesday night, specifically to see guest, Senator John Kerry. The Daily Show is an amazingly delightful and refreshing change of pace from watching the other long list of news shows we watch practically daily.

Jon Stewart helps us laugh at what is sometimes too deadly serious on other news shows. We have added The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to our "must see" daily news. Tx Jon and tx to Cheri and Sam for pointing us in this direction.

Here is an article on the John Kerry appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Jokesters now the go-to guys for U.S. candidates

By JOHN DOYLE Thursday, August 26, 2004

John Kerry can't do comedy. The world kind of knew that already, but Kerry can do bemused politician. This talent might help him in his television appearances. It is unlikely to help him change the minds of rabid Republicans who hate his stinking guts.

The Kerry-hatred went up a few notches recently and that's why Kerry made a surprise appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Tuesday night. The Daily Show (seen in Canada on CTV, weeknights at 12:05 a.m.) is an American cable show, airing on Comedy Central, which spoofs the news.

It looks like a news program, with its grand opening music signalling puffed-up commentary about important issues. But what follows in the show is drenched in irony. It simultaneously sends up TV news programs and current events. A good deal of its comedy is very childish. Bizarrely, it has become one of the most important programs on American television.

A lot of the American coverage of Kerry's appearance on The Daily Show compared it with Bill Clinton's appearance on The Arsenio Hall Show 12 years ago. In that appearance, Clinton played the saxophone and introduced the Elvis side of his personality. It worked wonders for his appeal. Since then, according to cliché, every American politician needs to appear on late-night TV in order to show his or her loose and funny side.

But Kerry's appearance was not about illuminating his goofy side. It was about establishing his integrity. The TV gig, which was only announced on Tuesday morning, was an important strategic move. He needed an opportunity to counter those people who claim that he exaggerated and lied about his service in Vietnam.

"I watch a lot of the cable news shows," Jon Stewart began, "so I understand that you were never in Vietnam."

"That's what I understand too, but I'm trying to find out what happened," Kerry deadpanned in response.

In the few minutes that Kerry was on The Daily Show, other subjects came up, but that exchange was the most important. And it goes it the heart of the craziness of the American political culture today. The presidential election is now less about the candidates than it is about the media who cover them. Fox News, the most popular cable news channel, has savaged Kerry. In order to challenge the perception that he lied and exaggerated, Kerry chose to appear on a comedy program that spoofs the news. It was actually designed to give him some integrity.

In the rest of the pseudo-interview, Jon Stewart stuck to his mockery of the American media, both print and television, that supports George W. Bush and relentlessly attacks Kerry.

"Are you the number one most liberal senator in the Senate?" he barked at Kerry. The candidate's answer was a bemused, "No."

As Stewart continued in his ironic tone, Kerry tried to deliver some simple statements about his platform and his criticisms of Bush. Twice, he succeeded. "Most Americans would like to have an intelligent conversation about the issues," he said to cheers from the studio audience. Later, speaking to the touchiest issue in the campaign, Kerry managed to get off a round of indignation about the war with Iraq. "You don't go to war because you want to," he said. "You go to war because you have to." The cheering that greeted that statement was cut off as the show went to a commercial.

After that, the chat, as wacky as it had been, went further into ridiculousness. There was an incomprehensible exchange about oil. Kerry then closed with a cutesy comment about the rigours of political campaigning. "You'd be amazed at the number of people who want to introduce themselves to you in the men's room. It's the most bizarre part of this entire thing." Then Kerry left the show with the trademark military salute.

Kerry is wrong about that. The "most bizarre part of this entire thing" is his need to appear on a spoof of the news to answer serious charges against him and get his message out. That tells you something about the insanity that has gripped the American media. Imagine if the leader of a Canadian political party decided, in the middle of an election campaign, to ignore Peter Mansbridge, Lloyd Robertson and Kevin Newman, and only do an appearance on This Hour Has 22 Minutes.

Kerry needed to appear on The Daily Show because the American media itself has become ridiculous and he needs the endorsement of the jokers, not political pundits. The cable news shows that Jon Stewart mocks have become absurdly partisan. The print press is going through a period of self-flagellation as newspaper after newspaper apologizes and backtracks on its initial coverage of the need to go to war with Iraq.

There is no longer a mainstream media in the United States. Every outlet postures and preens. Comedy is now as important as political commentary. Only the jokers have integrity.

The last thing Kerry said, as he left The Daily Show, was a remark to Stewart. He said, "You do a great job." In that, Kerry was correct. It's sad, but true.

Dates and times may vary across the country. Please check listings or visit http://www.globeandmail.com/tv



Read more

'His Scream' Father learns death of soldier son in Iraq

'His Scream’

Marine’s Father Burns Van, Himself After Learning of Son’s Death in Iraq


H O L L Y W O O D, Fla., Aug. 26, 2004— Melida Arredondo said her husband, Carlos Arredondo, immediately fell apart when he saw three Marines approaching his home.

"My husband immediately knew that his firstborn son had been killed," Arredondo said on ABC News' Good Morning America.

The three Marines showed up at Arredondo's home to inform the family that Lance Cpl. Alexander Arredondo, 20, had died Tuesday in Najaf.

What happened next shocked the Marines and Arredondo's neighbors.

After getting the news, Carlos Arredondo walked into the garage, picked up a propane tank, a lighting device and a can of gasoline. He then proceeded to set the Marines' van ablaze while he was inside.

"I went to pieces and my husband, as you know, went to pieces and basically tried to accompany his son," Melida Arredondo, Alex's stepmother, said.

The Marines were eventually able to pull Carlos Arredondo from the burning vehicle. While they extinguished the flames that had engulfed him, the distraught father still suffered burns over as much as 50 percent of his body.

Arredondo, 44, was initially taken to Memorial Regional Hospital in Hollywood. He was later moved to the major burn unit at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, about 20 miles south of Hollywood.

He was listed in serious condition with severe burns to his arms and legs.

The Marines, reservists who are members of a military Casualty Assistance Calls Officer team, were not injured, but the van was completely gutted.

"Every reaction is negative, it's the loss of a loved one and I don't think any of us are qualified to go into the depths of the mind and truly anticipate how somebody is going to react," Marines spokesman Maj. Scott Mack said.

Melida Arredondo said her husband's reaction was about more than just sheer emotion.

"This was his scream that his Chi-Chi — that's what he called Alex — this is his scream that his child is dead and the war needs to stop," she said. Authorities say they are concerned about Arredondo's recovery right now. It's unclear whether he will be charged with any crime.

U.S. forces in Najaf have been battling for nearly five months against Iraqi militiamen loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.


Read more

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Made in Iraq: The New Antiwar Veteran

Made in Iraq: The New Antiwar Veteran

by Robert J. Lifton

ON THE FRINGE of the recent Democratic National Convention in Boston, there was a miniconvention of a group called Veterans for Peace. Most of the 400-plus participants were Vietnam veterans, though there were smaller contingents of veterans of World War II, the Korean War, and the first Gulf War. But the most dramatic presence was that of a group of new kids on the block, veterans of the war in Iraq. These new veterans could come to have a powerful influence on our country. Iraq veterans undergo the same psychological struggles of all survivors over images of deaths , how much to feel and not to feel, pain and guilt from the deaths of buddies and their own behavior. Above all, war survivors hunger for meaning -- for some kind of moral judgment about their encounters with death.

In this quest for understanding, it turns out that Iraq veterans have much in common with their older compatriots who fought in Vietnam. Both groups were involved in a confusing counterinsurgency war conducted in an alien, hostile environment against a nonwhite enemy as elusive as he was dangerous. The result in both cases was an atrocity-producing situation -- one structured militarily and psychologically so that ordinary soldiers with no special history of violence or antisocial behavior were suddenly capable of killing or torturing civilians who were loosely designated as "the enemy."

A significant number of Vietnam veterans found meaning in opposing their war while it was in progress. The hearings on American war crimes and the throwing away of medals were their way of rejecting the war and holding not just themselves but their country accountable.

Their impact on the nation was different from that of other antiwar protesters because they were able to bring the Vietnam death scene directly to the American public, as John Kerry did in his 1971 testimony before a US Senate subcommittee, when he asked, "How we can ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

What Kerry and other antiwar veterans were contesting was the wartime tradition that in order to make sure the fallen did not "die in vain," one must rally round the flag, assert the nobility of the cause, and prosecute the war ever more vigorously.Instead, they invoked the authority of the dead to oppose rather than perpetuate the war.

This kind of alternative is by no means new -- it was powerfully expressed by writers surviving World War I and goes back as far as Homer.

Iraq veterans are beginning to express similar sentiments. In Boston they sounded not unlike their Vietnam predecessors. They emphasized the large-scale killing of Iraqi civilians by American firepower, along with their own widespread confusion. "We were lost. We had no idea what we were doing," was the way one put it.

These veterans formed a new organization at the convention, Iraq Veterans Against the War, modeled on the earlier Vietnam Veterans Against the War. It is too early to say how many will join this new group; much depends on what happens in Iraq and on the extent of antiwar opposition at home.

But there is already a personal and primal connection between veterans of Vietnam and Iraq: They are literally fathers and sons or daughters. Generational transmission of war experience has always had enormous psychological importance. Men who fought in Vietnam told me decades ago of having heard, on their fathers' knees, tales of courage and heroism in fighting the "good war." Those World War II fathers were often perplexed and angered by their sons' disillusionment with and bitter opposition to their own war. But Vietnam veteran fathers may have no such difficulty with the disillusionment of their children.

The sharing of an antiwar sentiment may indeed be a powerful bond. That was the case with an Iraq veteran, the daughter of a Vietnam veteran, who spoke at the meeting of the extreme chaos in which neither Americans nor Iraqis could be "protected" and of her constant question of "what we were doing there."

American soldiers fighting in Iraq are also saying things reminiscent of their Vietnam veteran fathers and uncles. The British newspaper The Guardian reported American soldiers as saying: "It's really frustrating cause I mean we can't find these guys. They shoot at us all the time, they run away, we try to figure out who it is, we interrogate people -- do they know who it was? No, nobody knows who it was"; and "This is the last place I'd probably ever want to die"; and "I don't have any idea of what we're trying to do out here. I don't know what the [goal] is, and I don't think our commanders do either."

These feelings arise from the war in Iraq. But the Vietnam experience hovers over everything; it is reactivated by what we hear about Iraq. In that sense a shared parent-child antiwar sentiment may come to reverberate throughout society. We have not heard the last of this poignant generational alliance.

Robert J. Lifton is a lecturer in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and author, most recently, of "Superpower Syndrome: America's Apocalyptic Confrontation with the World."

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Visit their website; Iraq Veterans Against the War at



Read more

God is Not a Republican. God is Not a Democrat.

from Sojourners


You know the saying that truth is stranger than fiction. When it comes to the Religious Right, we believe that truth is scarier than fiction.

Sojourners is outraged by claims that Christians can only vote for George W. Bush and that Bush is God's candidate. So we produced this animated Web video. Watch for yourself and see what several Religious Right leaders are actually saying.

Watch the video at: www.sojo.net/video

We also distributed a petition that has been signed by more than 25,000 people. It will appear as a full-page advertisement in The New York Times next week during the Republican convention - and in other local newspapers across America!

Every faithful citizen in America should know that they can choose to vote for any candidate - for reasons deeply rooted in their faith.

Let's tell America that the Religious Right doesn't speak for us. Let's take back our faith.



These leaders of the Religious Right mistakenly claim that God has taken a side in this election, and that Christians should only vote for George W. Bush.

We believe that claims of divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his re-election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion.

We believe that sincere Christians and other people of faith can choose to vote for President Bush or Senator Kerry - for reasons deeply rooted in their faith.

We believe all candidates should be examined by measuring their policies against the complete range of Christian ethics and values.

We will measure the candidates by whether they enhance human life, human dignity, and human rights; whether they strengthen family life and protect children; whether they promote racial reconciliation and support gender equality; whether they serve peace and social justice; and whether they advance the common good rather than only individual, national, and special interests.

We are not single-issue voters.

We believe that poverty - caring for the poor and vulnerable - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' budget and tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for poor families? Do their foreign policies include fair trade and debt cancellation for the poorest countries? (Matthew 25:35-40, Isaiah 10:1-2)

We believe that the environment - caring for God's earth - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it? (Genesis 2:15, Psalm 24:1)

We believe that war - and our call to be peacemakers - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' policies pursue "wars of choice" or respect international law and cooperation in responding to real global threats? (Matthew 5:9)

We believe that truth-telling is a religious issue. Do the candidates tell the truth in justifying war and in other foreign and domestic policies? (John 8:32)

We believe that human rights - respecting the image of God in every person - is a religious issue. How do the candidates propose to change the attitudes and policies that led to the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners? (Genesis 1:27)

We believe that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. Do the candidates adopt the dangerous language of righteous empire in the war on terrorism and confuse the roles of God, church, and nation? Do the candidates see evil only in our enemies but never in our own policies? (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13 )

We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. Do the candidates' positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world obey the biblical injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19)

We also admonish both parties and candidates to avoid the exploitation of religion or our congregations for partisan political purposes.

By signing this statement, we call Christians and other people of faith to a more thoughtful involvement in this election, rather than claiming God's endorsement of any candidate.

This is the meaning of responsible Christian citizenship.

Founded in 1971, Sojourners is a Christian ministry whose mission is to proclaim and practice the biblical call to integrate spiritual renewal and social justice.



Read more

Impact of film Farenheit 9/11 Abroad..Britain, Coalition

Dear friends,

I came across this article about "Fahrenheit 9/11" in Britain's Guardian newspaper today (the Guardian is one of the U.K.'s largest and most respected daily newspapers). It was written by the acclaimed author John Berger (winner of the Booker Prize) and I thought you might like to see how our fellow "Coalition of the Willing" members are responding to the movie.

Hope you haven't been wondering where I've been. All is well. Just making plans for the fall adventure.

Michael Moore



Fahrenheit 9/11 has touched millions of viewers across the world. But could it actually change the course of civilisation?

by John BergerTuesday August 24, 2004

Fahrenheit 9/11 is astounding. Not so much as a film - although it is cunning and moving - but as an event. Most commentators try to dismiss the event and disparage the film. We will see why later.

The artists on the Cannes film festival jury apparently voted unanimously to award Michael Moore's film the Palme d'Or. Since then it has touched many millions across the world. In the US, its box-office takings for the first six weeks amounted to more than $100m, which is, astoundingly, about half of what Harry Potter made during a comparable period. Only the so-called opinion-makers in the media appear to have been put out by it.

The film, considered as a political act, may be a historical landmark. Yet to have a sense of this, a certain perspective for the future is required. Living only close-up to the latest news, as most opinion-makers do, reduces one's perspectives. The film is trying to make a small contribution towards the changing of world history. It is a work inspired by hope.

What makes it an event is the fact that it is an effective and independent intervention into immediate world politics. Today it is rare for an artist to succeed in making such an intervention, and in interrupting the prepared, prevaricating statements of politicians. Its immediate aim is to make it less likely that President Bush will be re-elected next November.

To denigrate this as propaganda is either naive or perverse, forgetting (deliberately?) what the last century taught us. Propaganda requires a permanent network of communication so that it can systematically stifle reflection with emotive or utopian slogans. Its pace is usually fast. Propaganda invariably serves the long-term interests of some elite.

This single maverick movie is often reflectively slow and is not afraid of silence. It appeals to people to think for themselves and make connections. And it identifies with, and pleads for, those who are normally unlistened to. Making a strong case is not the same thing as saturating with propaganda. Fox TV does the latter; Michael Moore the former.

Ever since the Greek tragedies, artists have, from time to time, asked themselves how they might influence ongoing political events. It's a tricky question because two very different types of power are involved. Many theories of aesthetics and ethics revolve round this question. For those living under political tyrannies, art has frequently been a form of hidden resistance, and tyrants habitually look for ways to control art. All this, however, is in general terms and over a large terrain. Fahrenheit 9/11 is something different. It has succeeded in intervening in a political programme on the programme's own ground.

For this to happen a convergence of factors were needed. The Cannes award and the misjudged attempt to prevent the film being distributed played a significant part in creating the event.

To point this out in no way implies that the film as such doesn't deserve the attention it is receiving. It's simply to remind ourselves that within the realm of the mass media, a breakthrough (a smashing down of the daily wall of lies and half-truths) is bound to be rare. And it is this rarity which has made the film exemplary. It is setting an example to millions - as if they'd been waiting for it.

The film proposes that the White House and Pentagon were taken over in the first year of the millennium by a gang of thugs so that US power should henceforth serve the global interests of the corporations: a stark scenario which is closer to the truth than most nuanced editorials. Yet more important than the scenario is the way the movie speaks out. It demonstrates that - despite all the manipulative power of communications experts, lying presidential speeches and vapid press conferences - a single independent voice, pointing out certain home truths which countless Americans are already discovering for themselves, can break through the conspiracy of silence, the atmosphere of fear and the solitude of feeling politically impotent.

It's a movie that speaks of obstinate faraway desires in a period of disillusion. A movie that tells jokes while the band plays the apocalypse. A movie in which millions of Americans recognise themselves and the precise ways in which they are being cheated. A movie about surprises, mostly bad but some good, being discussed together. Fahrenheit 9/11 reminds the spectator that when courage is shared one can fight against the odds.

In more than a thousand cinemas across the country, Michael Moore becomes with this film a people's tribune. And what do we see? Bush is visibly a political cretin, as ignorant of the world as he is indifferent to it; while the tribune, informed by popular experience, acquires political credibility, not as a politician himself, but as the voice of the anger of a multitude and its will to resist.

There is something else which is astounding. The aim of Fahrenheit 9/11 is to stop Bush fixing the next election as he fixed the last. Its focus is on the totally unjustified war in Iraq. Yet its conclusion is larger than either of these issues. It declares that a political economy which creates colossally increasing wealth surrounded by disastrously increasing poverty, needs - in order to survive - a continual war with some invented foreign enemy to maintain its own internal order and security. It requires ceaseless war.

Thus, 15 years after the fall of communism, a decade after the declared end of history, one of the main theses of Marx's interpretation of history again becomes a debating point and a possible explanation of the catastrophes being lived.

It is always the poor who make the most sacrifices, Fahrenheit 9/11 announces quietly during its last minutes. For how much longer?

There is no future for any civilisation anywhere in the world today which ignores this question. And this is why the film was made and became what it became. It's a film that deeply wants America to survive.



Read more

US sociologists are finally challenging the intellectual stranglehold of economists

This comes from another blog I follow Bellaciao http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=2981

US sociologists are finally challenging the intellectual stranglehold of economists

Four days in California

by Jonathan Steele

In the ocean-fed air and mild August sunshine of America’s most beautiful city, optimism flows easy. But the real mood-lift these past few days was in the windowless conference rooms of two downtown mega-hotels. More than 5,000 American sociologists, plus a few foreign scholars, held their largest and, many said, most vibrant annual convention for years.

Bush and Kerry were campaigning through nearby states. Their soundbites were rarely mentioned, but the lack of serious debate is one reason for US sociology’s new political engagement after decades of quiet since the 60s.

The profession’s centre of gravity is moving left. There is a drive to inject ethical standards into the analysis of what most agree is a US society becoming increasingly polarised beneath its veneer of shared consumerism.

Above all, sociologists are starting to challenge the intellectual stranglehold of American economists who have managed to get the neo-liberal model of competitive individualism and corporate globalisation to dominate public discourse and policy-making for the past 20 years.

Words like "empire" and "inequality" popped up frequently at this conference after their post-Vietnam war dormancy. New phrases like "the corporate state" and "global apartheid" appeared.

Half the world’s PhDs in sociology are taken at American universities. The US has 13,000 career sociologists, a potential for extraordinary intellectual hegemony. They flexed their muscles last year, becoming the only US professional association to oppose the invasion of Iraq. A few unions denounced the war and even the normally conservative trade union federation, the AFL-CIO, passed a mildly worded vote of criticism. But with the exception of the sociologists, America’s professions were coy about raising their collective voice.

It was no accident that this year’s conference theme was "public sociologies". It was chosen by the American Sociological Association’s president, Michael Burawoy, a modest Mancunian ethnographer and sociologist who emigrated in the 70s. He distinguishes public sociology from professional sociology, which he describes as work aimed primarily for academic journals and peer review - "solving puzzles". It also differs from policy sociology, which is "solving problems" for mainly government or business.

Public sociology, by contrast, is a conversation with society about values. Burawoy is careful to argue that it does not have a single orientation since a third of the sociologists who voted rejected the anti-war motion. He also insists that the three types - professional, policy and public - are inter-dependent. Without rigorous scholarly standards no public sociology will be taken seriously.

Most controversially, Burawoy wants to "provincialise" American sociology. This may sound odd since US intellectual life has long been scarred by insularity. Burawoy means his slogan provocatively. The famous "end of history" claim that US liberal democracy and market capitalism were the only models left was a sign, in his view, that many Americans were trying to universalise the particular. They should realise their culture is not always preferred else where. To make the point, he invited high-profile foreigners like Arundhati Roy, the anti-globalisation campaigner, and Mary Robinson, a former UN human rights commissioner.

Sociologists’ relations with the state vary in time and place. The South Africans and east Europeans present were ex-dissidents who described how the advent of democratic and legitimate governments in their countries had brought new problems. Debate narrowed, intellectuals were less in demand and disappointment with rising social inequality and the new governments’ economic policies was leading to public apathy.

Jacklyn Cock, author of a path-breaking exposure of the plight of domestic workers in South Africa, called on sociologists to stand in solidarity with the new social movements. But she warned against romanticising civil society in the struggle against globalisation’s injustices. "The real issue of our time is how to reinvent the state," she said.

Her point applies with greatest force in the US. Behind the rhetoric of small government, the US has created a monster state where political, economic and media power is dominated by corporations. America’s political scientists ought to be taking the leading role in analysing this distortion of democracy but, according to their sociology rivals, their profession is in a conservative phase. It churns out graduates for the foreign service rather than critics who want to reform the system. Sociologists have to move alone.

Four days in California are not going to change the world. But it was hard not to feel that something big is stirring in US academic life. The dominance of Reaganomics is under serious intellectual challenge. Clinton’s third way is rejected as neoliberalism in a different guise - welfare-cutting, support for the out-sourcing of US jobs and unfair "free" trade.

The foreign subjects of America’s global empire have been restless for years. Now some of the sharpest minds are raising questions. Even if John Kerry wins control of the White House, the rebellion is unlikely to stop.

· j.steele@guardian.co.uk




Read more

Soldiers' Iraq Blogs Face Military Scrutiny

Soldiers' Iraq Blogs Face Military Scrutiny

NPR article


Aug. 24, 2004 -- Military officials are cracking down on blogs written by soldiers and Marines in Iraq, saying some of them reveal sensitive information. Critics say it's an attempt to suppress unflattering truths about the U.S. occupation. NPR's Eric Niiler reports.

A blogger with the pen name CBFTW, stationed near Mosul with the First Battallion, 23rd Regiment, says he began his My War Web log to help combat boredom. "I'm just writing about my experiences," the soldier says. "I'm pretty much putting my diary on the Internet -- that's all it is.".........

see the rest of the article at


also shows list of blogs of soldiers in Iraq who are blogging

Read more

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Veterans Contingent To March in NY at Republican Convention

Monday 23rd August 2004 : VETERANS CONTINGENT WILL MARCH: Sunday August 29, New York City



Families and friends encouraged to join


Massive Protest on the eve of the Republican convention

Sunday August 29,

New York City - Contingent Assembly Area: 22nd Street between 7th and 8th Avenues

Assembly begins at 10 a.m and steps off at 12 Noon

Bring Banners, Flags, Signs, Wear Uniforms

Organisation Colors




212 868 5545

We Remember - He Lied They Died




14TH ST and Broadway, New York City

7 AM TO 7 PM


Sponsored by




by : VETERANSMonday 23rd August 2004



Read more

Killed in Iraq in August, 24 American Soldiers

Subject: list of dead American soldiers in Iraq from the last 24 days of August 2004

Army Spc. Armando Hernandez, age 22

Army Spc. Anthony J. Dixon, age20

Marine Cpl. Dean P. Pratt, age 22

Army Spc. Justin B. Onwordi, age 28

Marine Sgt. Juan Calderon Jr., age 26

Army Pfc. Harry N. Shondee, Jr., age 19

Marine Capt. Gregory A Ratzlaff, age 36

Army Sgt. Tommy L. Gray, age 34

Marine Lance Cpl. Joseph L. Nice, age 19

Marine Gunnery Sgt. Elia P.Fontecchio, age 30

Army Spc. Donald R. McCune, age 20

Marine Sgt. Moses D.Rocha, age 33

Army Pfc. Raymond J. Faulstich Jr., age 24

Marine Sgt. Yadir G. Reynoso, age 27

Marine Lance Cpl. Larry L. Wells, age 22

Army Spc.Joshua I. Bunch, age 23

Marine Cpl. Roberto Abad, age 22

Army Pfc. David L. Potter, age 22

Marine Lance Cpl. Jonathan W. Collins, age 19

Army Capt.Andrew R. Houghton, age 25

Marine Lance Cpl. Tavon L. Hubbard, age 24

Marine Staff Sgt. John R. Howard, age 26

Army Capt. Michael Yury Tarlavsky, age 30

Marine Lance Cpl. Kane M. Funke, age 20

Marine Lance Cpl. Nicholas B. Morrison, age 23

Army 1st Lt. Neil Anthony Santoriello, age 24

Marine Corps Pfc. Geoffrey Perez, age 24

Marine Corps Pfc. Fernando B. Hannon, age 19

Army Spc. Mark Anthony Zapata, age 27

Army 2nd Lt. James Michael Goins,age 23

Army Sgt. Daniel Michael Shepherd, age 23

Army Pfc. Brandon R. Sapp, age 21

Army Sgt. David M. Heath, age 30

Army Spc. Brandon T. Titus, age 20

Marine Lance Cpl. Caleb J. Powers, age 21

Army Spc. Jacob D. Martir, age 21

Marine Sgt. Harvey E. Parkerson III, age 27

Marine Lance Cpl. Dustin R. Fitzgerald, age 22

Army Pfc. Henry C. Risner, age 26

Pfc. Kevin A. Cuming, age 22

1st Lt. Charles L. Wilkins III, age 38

Pfc. Ryan A. Martin, age 22.

That is the list of dead American soldiers in Iraq from the last 24 days. That is August, so far. Two other American soldiers - Army Sgt. Bobby E. Beasley, age 36, and Army Staff Sgt. Craig W. Cherry, age 39 - were killed in Afghanistan by an improvised explosive device on August 7th. We don't talk about that war anymore, either.


Why?? Who is in charge??

Read more

Monday, August 23, 2004

And lastly the photo that tears at my heart.. Let's go home, son... after 15 long months at war, yes, take your family home, soldier. I will continue to do my tiny bit to help turn the tide so you don't find yourself back in Iraq in a 2nd deployment. I will do my tiny bit so the soldiers fighting there now can be brought home Now.  Posted by Hello
Read more

Ask this question, ask it every day because still every day soldiers are dying in Iraq.  Posted by Hello
Read more

And despite it all, after viewing this whole picture blog, know that I am proud of our Iraq veterans and relieved that they are home. Know that I have been and will continue to be proud of our military soldiers. I don't have to be proud of our President and what our government has turned a blind eye to until there was no more ability to shut the eyes and remain blind. To me supporting our troops demands a civilian responsibility to preserve for them the country they love and the principles they went off to war to fight for.....  Posted by Hello
Read more

Do you think we can support our troops now...Bring Them Home Now. Posted by Hello
Read more

It was way beyond what I could handle to view let alone save the photos of the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib. And back home the photos depicting our shame as a military power were circulated plenty in newspapers, tv news, internet. I did not want to save any of them. This depiction says for me, what I think needed to be said...again, who gave the orders that were carried out..and where ought the buck to stop..again to that infamous No One. Meanwhile the military will prosecute the soldiers whose faces were in these photos...Our President No One is sure getting a lot of green lights on his bad behaviours...I think someone else who wasn't being held in high regard by the collection of neo-cons, Republicans, big buck corporations and fundamentalist christians would find himself held to trial by now, and likely imprisoned for his crimes. Posted by Hello

Read more

There was the 911 Commission to see what went wrong, who didn't talk to who, who knew what when...and the buck of accountability apparantly stopped nowhere. No one is responsible or accountable. I remember when my children, when caught out doing something they knew to be wrong were asked "who did this" and answered No One. I guess No One has grown up and become President of the United States now.... Posted by Hello
Read more

A mess in Iraq, the insurgent cities..the reason 1st Armored had to be extended, the outbreaks in Fallujah and Najaf that appeared to me to be more a concern to the President as it reflected on his re-election than the fact of the bloodbath itself. We were not told how many civilians were killed in Fallujah, but we know certainly many soldiers died over the course of the Fallujah insurgency. This is where we heard Rumsfeld using the words our troops which are fungible putting down the Thugs and insurgents and for as long as it takes.... Posted by Hello
Read more

Unforgettable..a mosaic of Bush and each small photo that makes up the mosaic is a soldier who has died in the war..at the time of this mosaic photo the death toll was reaching 500 and since the time of this mosaic photo, soldiers are still dying and the death toll is close to 1000.  Posted by Hello
Read more

And then more photos followed in the news media and online, a kind of flooding of photos, and then it stopped again, the President protested...unfair he said. Like giving up life and limb for a war built of falsehoods and lies is not unfair..  Posted by Hello
Read more

The first photo that was finally at last published in a Seattle newspaper of the returning coffins of soldiers who died in Iraq. The Seattle newspaper was courageous to print and publish this photo in view of the President's orders to the media not to show such photos. The woman who took and shared the photo with the Seattle newspaper, not employed by them, was fired from the job she had elsewhere for sharing this photo. This is our President supporting the troops by not showing dignity, honor or respect to those who gave their lives.. Posted by Hello
Read more

At home we are hearing about long delays in sick soldiers getting seen at military hospitals. We are hearing of other benefit losses, things we aren't hearing on mainstream news media...and the President supports our troops with a knife in their back for when (if) they return home. Posted by Hello
Read more

My daughter creates a yahoo group for wives, family, loved ones of the extended 1st Armor Division.. Posted by Hello
Read more

What else can we do, except be a strong military family. This was one of the encouraging graphs we sent around to each other after news of the extension for our two soldiers in the 1st Armored.  Posted by Hello
Read more

The soldiers deployed in our family are with the 1st Armored..they are both extended... we learn this after plans have been made for their homecoming...we hear at the last possible minute, after children have been told their father's will be coming home...we hear it before my daughter knows it and spend the day on computer IM with her supporting her through the heartbreaking news...she survives and carries on, she alone with her 3 children, she is a military wife after all and what else can she do but put one foot in front of the other and march through the days ahead. Her husband so close to coming home, snatched back into the active hotspots in the war in Iraq..Najaf and Fallujah.  Posted by Hello
Read more

Some of the soldiers will be getting R & R, and need help to pay the fare to fly home. At home a campaign to help with airflight fares gets underway.  Posted by Hello
Read more

Soldier in the field in Iraq.... Posted by Hello
Read more

Rumors of a Draft..Rumsfeld says no, not likely. The rumors continue, and Rumsfeld says not likely. Solution that presented itself was to extend the 1st Armored beyond their 1 year tour of duty as we were told the troops are Not stretched too thin, rather the replacement troops need to be trained, and until they are ready, 1st Armored needs to stay. By now, those of us who are military families know our soldiers do not have the equipment they need, some families are mailing additional supplies, including the ceramic kevlar jacket vests that the military cannot seem to supply. Do I want a draft..No way... I lived through that once when my own young husband was drafted. Did I want this war in Iraq.....no way..it did not make sense as it was being explained to us by our President and his advisors. Do I need now to worry about the other of age young ones in our family now..a potential of a military draft? Head count, who is of age, who is coming of age. What, they are taking all reservists, retired, non-active, Old Men even..............and still there is half the country (according to the polls) wanting to support this President. By now in the press and news we are starting to know there are no WMD, there is the 911 Commission, there was prior knowledge to avoid 911, there was prior knowledge of Al Quaeda and even of Osama Bin Laden...and just about here on the timeline is when we start to hear of prison abuses. Posted by Hello
Read more

Soldiers in the field..news from home, a letter.  Posted by Hello
Read more

Mr President, can we Bring Them Home Now? Of course, he answers no..and the message changes to mean a demand to Bring Them Home Now! Posted by Hello
Read more

Soldiers in Iraq....what will they have to say when they return about this war in Iraq? Posted by Hello
Read more

By now it is March 2004, one year anniversary of Iraq war. We are still in Iraq, there are still soldiers in Afghanistan. Soldiers deaths daily now is becoming part of the standard in the news. A global call to action for people to make their protests heard in countries across the globe. It goes under-reported in the news but it was reported..as briefly as possible. There are hundreds of thousands out in protest on this day across many countries.  Posted by Hello
Read more

Soldiers in the field in Iraq..war news.  Posted by Hello
Read more

A new and alarming concern comes to my attention. Depleted Uranium. The soldiers are potentially being exposed to depleted uranium. I'm onto the computer researching DU for days. I come to realize that there is enough information to be alarmed, even if there is some controvesry about the effects, if even 1/10th of what I've read and researched is true, then our own loved ones have another problem to deal with when they return from Iraq..if they live to return, if they aren't maimed by an explosive device. Their own longevitiy of life, their health, the future children they will create. With this information, I am devastated. I know now that keeping a polite silence is no longer an option. I begin an earnest campaign to call attention at least to this aspect, as all the other aspects to date should be self-evident to others if they are using critical thinking skills. The photo of a card circulated in theatres where depleted uranium has been used...our American soldiers aren't told much about depleted uranium. We certainly aren't hearing much about it at home, not unless we are looking to find it. I write my first speaking out sermon and speak on depleted uranium.  Posted by Hello
Read more
Related Posts with Thumbnails