[/b][/quote]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 @ 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'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).
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'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'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' 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't muddied the facts with unsupported data and sensationalism to justify his opinion.
Bookmarks