On Irony & Tragedy
(note: 4th attempt to post--this is getting mighty frustrating)
Now that I've gotten some emotion out regarding the absolutely awful nature of Blogger lately (see below), I'll try to actually note something I thought was/is significant.

Browsing around, I came across a link from Suburban Guerrilla to Deficient Brain that that again hammers home the tendency of the war bloggers to ignore the needs of the people they claim to be liberating:

After two wars where oil wells were torched, chemical factories bombed and radioactive ammunition fired, the first thing Iraqi women ask when giving birth is not if it is a boy or a girl, but if it is normal or deformed. The number of cancer cases and children born with deformities has skyrocketed after the two Gulf Wars.

In other words, while the outcome of the war is still in doubt, there's NO doubt that the country is poisoned. So, congratulations, "liberators," although I seriously doubt overall public health in Iraq will EVER make it to the pro-war radar screen (although I'd give odds of no worse than 50-50 that these same folks howl and bay if the checkout line at the local Wal-Mart has more than a 5 minute wait).

Oh, and as for supporting the troops? Well, the "radioactive ammunition" referred to above--Depleted Uranium--is considered by some to be a contributing factor in the numerous ailments collectively referred to as Gulf War Syndrome. Yeah, DU keeps on killing long after the shell hits the target (by inhaling DU dust, for example). And it does not discriminate between ally or enemy, soldier or civilian.

So, that's the tragedy--what about the irony? Here:

A US federal court in New York has dismissed a legal action brought by Vietnamese plaintiffs over the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War...

Agent Orange was named after the colour of its container. The active ingredient was a strain of dioxin that stripped the jungle bare.

In time, some contend, the dioxin spread to the food chain causing a proliferation of birth defects.

Some babies were born without eyes or arms, or were missing internal organs.

The Judge, Jack Weinstein (Lyndon Johnson appointee, noted, among other things, for opposing mandatory minimum sentencing for drug crimes as well as his REFUSAL to hear drug cases after attaining the status of "senior" judge)--anyway, Weinstein ruled that the manufacturers of the "product" were not liable for damages, apparently agreeing at least in part with Justice Department thugs lawyers that refusal to supply dioxin to the army would "seriously threaten" the ability of the president to wage war. Reuters also seems to suggest that the "red-flag defense" applied, i.e., how does a plantiff prove (via preponderance of evidence) that a specific condition was caused by a reaction to a specific chemical agent? Call it the tort version of the O.J. defense.

That said, consider the following:

After World War II, two manufacturers of Zyklon B were convicted of war crimes and executed.

--Note: This site provides a good summary of the trial of Bruno Tesch, Karl Weinbacher, and a certain Dr. Drosihn (the latter being acquitted). Another trial at Nuremberg resulted in 13 convictions and 10 acquittals, with no sentence longer than 8 years.

I'm sure they all thought that they were just Good Germans--and that's part of the problem today. I'll bet Dow Chemical thinks they're likewise being good citizens, helping the commander in chief--and I'll bet the manufacturers of DU weapons and/or armor think the same. But Nuremberg and the other trials were held specifically to note that blind obedience to authority is morally unacceptable, particularly when it contributes to mass suffering. But, how easily we forget--to the extent that now arguing in favor of blind obedience is a speciality of some in the Justice Department, while at the same time we're managing to create yet another parallel between Iraq and Vietnam...