Quagmire?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by echidna+29 June 2003 - 13:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (echidna &#064; 29 June 2003 - 13:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>click here to read the quoted original
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=49&ItemID=3812
Bush&#39;s Vietnam

by John Pilger
New Statesman
June 22, 2003


This "hidden" effect is hardly new. A recent study at Columbia University in New York has found that the spraying of Agent Orange and other herbicides on Vietnam was up to four times as great as previously estimated. Agent Orange contained dioxin, one of the deadliest poisons known. In what they first called Operation Hades, then changed to the friendlier Operation Ranch Hand, the Americans in Vietnam destroyed, in some 10,000 "missions" to spray Agent Orange, almost half the forests of southern Vietnam, and countless human lives. It was the most insidious and perhaps the most devastating use of a chemical weapon of mass destruction ever. Today, Vietnamese children continue to be born with a range of deformities, or they are stillborn, or the foetuses are aborted.

The use of uranium-tipped munitions evokes the catastrophe of Agent Orange. In the first Gulf war in 1991, the Americans and British used 350 tonnes of depleted uranium. According to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, quoting an international study, 50 tonnes of DU, if inhaled or ingested, would cause 500,000 deaths. Most of the victims are civilians in southern Iraq. It is estimated that 2,000 tonnes were used during the latest attack.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Pilger is a renowned journalist and documentary film-maker. A war correspondent and ZNet Commentator, his writings have appeared in numerous magazines, and newspapers such as the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, the Independent, New Statesman, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and other newspapers and periodicals around the world. His books include Heroes (2001) Hidden Agendas (1998) and Distant Voices (1994).

[/b][/quote]
I selected this paragraph to illustrate my point about a lack of objectivity.

Here is is trying to make a parallel between "agent orange" and "uranium tipped missles". The point being that the uranium, like agent orange before it, may cause more harm to humans that originally anticipated.

I have no problem with this parallel, I do have problem with his means of expression.


He refers to agent orange as a chemical weapon of mass destruction. This is an obvious "buzz word" and totally misrepresents that agent orange is a herbicide.

We have discussed what constitutes a WMD before (declaring that wet soil was a WMD in it&#39;s time). The salient point to be drawn is that it not the actual device used, but the intent of the device that defines it&#39;s WMD status (or cars could also be a WMD).

Now agent orange did cause health issues, but its intent was to kill plants not people. It was not designed, like nerve gas, simply to kill people. Many American Vets today still get their Agent Orange follow-up exams, as we were exposed, as were the locals. I resent his implied parallel that our use of agent orange was no different than Saddams&#39; use of chemical weapons on his own people.

He goes on to describe birth defects in Vietnamese children, even today. Well, birth defects occur worldwide, daily, as do miscarraiges and stillborn children. A responsible reporter should site a statistical difference between Vietnam birth defect rates vs other countries ( or pre-post agent orange) to validate these claims. He does not do this.

He produces fanciful numbers about how many could die from DU exposure. He makes no attempt to clarify why we use it (to penetrate tanks and bunkers) or note that although controversial, it is NATO approved.

I think objectivity is defined by noting both the pros and cons, then deciding how one outweighs the other. I would have been more inclined to think about what he was saying if he hadn&#39;t muddied the facts with unsupported data and sensationalism to justify his opinion.

[clocker]

I wanna see hobbes&#39; reply
seems like every time we get to a new page the first post is in limbo until a second post gets added

[echidna]

1st :: thanx RF & clocker

Being upfront about ones potential biases gives the reader an context in which to "couch" a post. If Echidna were a Catholic priest in Boston versus a member of the Taliban in Germany, I think we would view his posts a little differently

all that is plain about &#39;you guys&#39; is your nationality.
i have no idea of the colour of your skin, what god[s] you might worship (the alcohol references do hint that halal is not your mode of eating) or what wedding tackle you&#39;ve got in your pants.
yet in an effort to be &#39;up-front&#39; and to make the existence of google a bit more redundant [obviously nobody can work out what an echidna is], i was born in the country called australia and just to be completely sure and to go beyond what you have made plain to me about your flesh-world self i was trained as a roman catholic for much of my childhood
i&#39;m sure everyone will now rush to declare their religious affiliations [not]

basically i share your reasons for posting here, ie.
[QUOTE=hobbes, Posted on 2 July 2003 - 09:19]
The more perspectives I can relate to, or understand, the more likely I am to find common ground with an individual.
[QUOTE]

i want to understand your acceptance or tolerance of your nations behaviour, all i get is very hostile counter-query. i am only assuming that you&#39;re kinda OK with what america is up to in west asia, because you are just questioning my asking of the question rather than telling me what you think of your presidents decisions.
my position has been plain and consistent, i won&#39;t apologise for have serious issues with the USAs foreign policy, but not many americans seem to want to express an opinion

How would you like to come here everyday and find a sparkling clean pro-America post with "we&#39;re #1" to finish each thread. First, it would irritate you due to it&#39;s lack of objectivity, then you would get frustrated because I just keep &#39;em coming. You would say, "Alright, already Hobbes, we get your perspective, do you have anything else you can talk about?"

please note that this section is titled &#39;Ongoing US/Coalition vs. Iraq War Discussion&#39; if i have other things to talk about on the board i will do it in another section, if i posted pro-US activity threads then i would be being dishonest.

equally if S&A gets too riled reading non pro-US opinions [as you seem to as well] why read a section called &#39;Ongoing US/Coalition vs. Iraq War Discussion&#39; it is assured to be polarised vitriolic and complex, so if you can&#39;t deal with heat why come into the kitchen?

in terms of pro-US threads

• North Korean War: Yet another
• America&#39;s Reasons: For attacking the Middle-East
• U.s. Foreign Policy: What would YOU do?
• War Was A Good Thing...
• Amnesty International: accuses US

[i don&#39;t know where jerry spingers senate thread falls]


PS :: S&A what is the deal with these links;
MKULTRA/COINTELPRO
Whistleblower
[i only wish i could have read the article at MKULTRA/COINTELPRO on &#39;C.I.A.-Satanic
Ritual Abuse&#39;]
i hope this isn&#39;t your idea of what qualifies;

I on the other hand have criticized my goverment on many occasions and would be allot more if I didn&#39;t have constantly defend her from outright lies, innuendo and outrageous insults.
I think you would be very surprised&#33;

does anyone know why quote won&#39;t work? i can&#39;t be bothered trying to debug this now :: e

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>He refers to agent orange as a chemical weapon of mass destruction. This is an obvious "buzz word" and totally misrepresents that agent orange is a herbicide[/b]

Not really when you consider that "Agent Orange contained dioxin, one of the deadliest poisons known". If someone sprayed you with that stuff I think you&#39;d be more than justified in saying you were the victim of a chemical weapon.

Originally posted by hobbes@
He goes on to describe birth defects in Vietnamese children, even today. Well, birth defects occur worldwide, daily, as do miscarraiges and stillborn children. A responsible reporter should site a statistical difference between Vietnam birth defect rates vs other countries ( or pre-post agent orange) to validate these claims. He does not do this

I agree with your point about defects in Vietnamese children, he should provide statistics. [edit] Whoops&#33; Just read enchidnas latest post and realised the guy did provide a source after all. [/edit]

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
He produces fanciful numbers about how many could die from DU exposure. He makes no attempt to clarify why we use it (to penetrate tanks and bunkers) or note that although controversial, it is NATO approved.[/quote]

This is where I think your being a little biased too. He produces figures produced by the " United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, quoting an international study" The UK AEE are hardly a bunch of cowboys. As for DU it has been classified as a WMD by the UN.

When you bear in mind that the UK/USA are meant to be civilized countries.. its pretty shocking.

Just for the record Im a UK citizen so I should be biased in favour of the coalition not against them.

[j2k4]

EBP-you failed to respond to my request-do you so contend?

Feel free to add any other failings on my part as you see fit.

As you have said: "I&#39;m waiting".

[evilbagpuss]

So... given the choice between dealing with this issue...(which I have already dealt with)

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Wrong again. The capitalized section you reference does not contain the words "military" or "invade/invasion"; what ARE you reading?[/b]

and this one....

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
I am sober as a judge. I have a proposal, EBP-it is your contention that my posts lack clarity and reason; that I obfuscate my "true" leanings, am inconsistant- that I am uncivilized, yes?[/quote]

You choose the latter, very telling....

As hard as it may be for you to accept, I have very little interest in you as a person and alot more interest in events in Iraq.

Feel free to defend your arguments regarding Iraq. But... if you think Im going to go OT with discussions about you as an individual... think again

[echidna]

BTW :: i was born in the city where union carbide made the agent orange for US use in vietnam, words like terrorism and ideas like WMD are pretty unclear really, carpet bombing is pretty f#cking mass destruction from a &#39;conventional&#39; weapon, they about killing people in industrial numbers aren&#39;t they? and in the context of carpet bombing &#39;demorallisation&#39; is pretty much the same as &#39;terrorisation&#39;

Originally posted by hobbes+2 July 2003 - 10:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 2 July 2003 - 10:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
He goes on to describe birth defects in Vietnamese children, even today. Well, birth defects occur worldwide, daily, as do miscarraiges and stillborn children. A responsible reporter should site a statistical difference between Vietnam birth defect rates vs other countries ( or pre-post agent orange) to validate these claims. He does not do this.
[/b]

pilger quotes his source as &#39;A recent study at Columbia University in New York&#39;, it shouldn&#39;t be beyond an average high school student to check these facts

Originally posted by hobbes@2 July 2003 - 10:23

He produces fanciful numbers about how many could die from DU exposure. He makes no attempt to clarify why we use it (to penetrate tanks and bunkers) or note that although controversial, it is NATO approved.

fanciful numbers, once again referenced to an easily searched out organisation &#39;According to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority&#39;
once again it is used to try to kill or maim
[that sort of feeling toward a tank is a bit kinky, becarefull you don&#39;t hurt yourself]
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@2 July 2003 - 10:23

I think objectivity is defined by noting both the pros and cons, then deciding how one outweighs the other. I would have been more inclined to think about what he was saying if he hadn&#39;t muddied the facts with unsupported data and sensationalism to justify his opinion.[/quote]
what news services do you read? none i&#39;m familiar with,
please give me some examples of &#39;bias free&#39; or &#39;bias equal&#39; journalism
the well documented &#39;sensationalism&#39; of north american media is legendary, and the bias is often to close to propagandistic to bother discussing [ie. CNN, FOX]

Ed. typo :: e

[j2k4]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@1 July 2003 - 19:54
As hard as it may be for you to accept, I have very little interest in you as a person and alot more interest in events in Iraq.

Feel free to defend your arguments regarding Iraq. But... if you think Im going to go OT with discussions about you as an individual... think again

Just as I thought.

[hobbes]

Echidna, (pardon, I refrain from quoting for the time being as there are technical issues, apparently)

Don&#39;t you remember that I called you an "egg laying mammal" months ago. You never listen to me.
You have never used any typical Aussie lingo, so I figured you may live there but didn&#39;t come from there.

As for the forum, the title is dead. A poll on the off-topic page is looking for a new name. I&#39;m sorry you have felt so straight-jacketed by the name, feel free to discuss anything but Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake.

Who am I? Well, if you were observant you would already know from bits and pieces of other threads that I am an agnostic Texan (transplanted from Missouri- very important distinction from the native breed). I like long, hot wet kisses that last for hours and pleated pants.

[hobbes]

To Echi and EPB,

Yes Echi, from his phrasing it was unclear that he was still citing the article. Mea culpa. Little bit harsh, eh?

EPB- Dioxins are deadly but this was not recognized until after the Vietnam war. In fact, in 1982 the government had to buy out Times Beach, Missouri because of contamination. It stands today, a ghost town.

So, it was dropped to kill plants, not people.

The fanciful numbers I refer to describe a situation in which the Uranium is ingested or inhaled and this is not likely to occur to the average Iraqi, unless he is in a tank, hit by such a missle.

Anyway, where are the 350,000 dead from the Gulf War from DU?. There are conflicting reports on the consequences of DU and he picked something sensational.

My post made no comment on American media. You think that his bias is ok because you don&#39;t like "legendary" Fox bias. Two wrongs make a right? Have I ever lauded American media?

My post specifically states that his post is intentionally inflammatory, nothing else.

When I read a post I try to infer, was this meant to start a discussion or just to anger. If I wanted to start a discussion I would word things differently.