|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Bush shows respect to veterans by denying them compensation
Posted: 2/15/2005 11:23:00 AM | As a vet, I know this very coldly. I returned from the first Gulf War with Gulf War Syndrome. I was not covered at all for any medical expenses from illness which occured in war-time. It was expensive and I couldn't afford it. That's why I am a chiropractor today pretty much.
My Marine buddy called me the other day and told me that when service men get hit in war, and they go to the hospital, they have to pay for their own meals in the hospital - it is deducted out of their pay. I was shocked! What a crock of sh*t!
OFF TOPIC
Last Friday in case you haven't heard, A single mother was talking to Bush during a photo shoot, and she pleaded for him to make things better and said she had three jobs. Bush responded, that it was "uniquely American" [to have three jobs], and that it was "fantastic." What an A$$hole! | |
|
MikeJ
|
Joined: 1/30/2005
Msg: 3 | |
| Bush shows respect to veterans by denying them compensation
Posted: 2/15/2005 10:16:39 PM | | Not that I want to get involved in this little marriage spat, but the no-fly zones were illegal anyways. There was never any provision in the UNSC resolution that ended the first Gulf War for these. They were arbitrarily implemented by the US, UK and France after Saddam crushed the Shia/Kurdish uprising. | |
|
MikeJ
|
Joined: 1/30/2005
Msg: 4 | |
| |
| |
| |
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 7 | |
| Bush shows respect to veterans by denying them compensation
Posted: 2/15/2005 11:37:56 PM | Gulf War Syndrome is different. It includes flashbacks, medical problems that arise from these incidents, Post Traumatic Stress, etc. There is more to it than that, but these are things I am aware of.
It is possible for Canadian soldiers to gain a full military pension because of PTSD, but it can be a long fight. It depends on how bad the person is. The US recognized this years before Canada did, and took vets from Canada to treat in US hospitals. It took awhile to get the Canadian Forces to pay for this, but it did happen. Now they can treat their own people. Canadian service people can go to doctors outside the military, at their own expense, unless the forces do not have the medical expertise needed...then they may elect to pay for treatments.
But I did hear the US forces will pay for boob jobs......wonderful how I can hang a "boobshot" on a lot of topics, huh? | |
|
| Bush shows respect to veterans by denying them compensation
Posted: 2/15/2005 11:43:38 PM | Gulf War according to Garth Nicholson is an invasion of the immune system by a immune ravenging microbe. I was in the USMC. We got multiple vaccines, were exposed to burning oil and other toxic chemicals.
Medic: PROOF!??? YOu want F*IN proof? DOn't F*in dare to question GULF WAR SYNDROME! YOU HAVE NO FRIGGIN' IDEA DUDE!!!! BAck the F**K with your bullsh*t! YOu spend a friggin' day in war or a friggin' day with GUlf War! | |
|
| |
| |
| Bush shows respect to veterans by denying them compensation
Posted: 2/15/2005 11:56:47 PM | I'm American genius! If you read the post I was in the USMC and I'm a war veteran. Are you? I'm here on business, and vacation.
What battle have you served in? Depleted Uranium is used and is killing people. What is your brain made of mayonaise? Do you not realize that radiation kills? Are you a medical doctor or one of those 4 week course medics? | |
|
| Bush shows respect to veterans by denying them compensation
Posted: 2/16/2005 12:03:11 AM | | I asked for proof that Uranium was the cause. You don't have any. There are OTHER factors which may have caused GWS, yet you seem to have it in your head that I was saying it doesn't exist. Read more carefully. There is evidence that suggests it was chemical weapons, or even our own vaccinations. The thing about inhaled uranium is that tends to KILL people in a short amount of time. Again, I ask you to look at the letters , and string them together to form words. Understand the words, and you will surely have a better life. | |
|
| Bush shows respect to veterans by denying them compensation
Posted: 2/16/2005 12:11:44 AM | Medic,
What a stupid post. You have no experience of war, no advanced knowledge of the human body and yet you claim there is no proof that Depleted Uranium may be the cause of the new Gulf War Syndrome.
My qualifications: War Veteran (USMC), B.S. Biology, D.C. (Doctor of Chiropractic)
your qualifications: Army Medic School, Neo-con goggles, bad attitude.
I asked for proof that Uranium was the cause. You don't have any.
Evidence:
The Hazards of Low Level Radiation
by Dr. Rosalie Bertell
In the past few years the information available on the health effects of exposure to low levels of radiation has increased. We are no longer dependent on the commercial or military nuclear researchers who since 1950 have claimed that studies of the effects of low-level radiation are impossible to undertake. The new information is unsettling because it proves the critics of the industry to have been correct as to its serious potential to damage living tissue.
There have also been significant new releases of findings from the atomic bomb research in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the self-acclaimed "classical research" of radiation health effects. I will list these findings toward the end of this article, along with studies from the nuclear industry.
In reviewing these research papers one is struck by the high-dose response when the radiation is delivered slowly, with low total dose. The conventional wisdom has claimed that at low dose/slow-dose rate the body is well able to repair most of the harm caused by the radiation. Some nuclear apologists go so far as to claim such exposures are "beneficial."
Because the nuclear industry has always maintained that the effects of low-dose radiation exposure are so small that it is impossible to study them, they proposed extrapolating the effects from those observed at high dose, using a straight line to zero (zero dose, zero effect), together with "correction factors" for low dose/slow-dose rate.
The effect of this "correction" is to reduce the fatal cancer estimates calculated by D.L. Preston, then Director of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation at Hiroshima, using the new dosimetry, from seventeen fatalities per million people per rad exposure, to five fatalities per million people per rad exposure. The corresponding estimates based on actually observed rates for nuclear workers is between ten and thirty fatalities per million per rad. Obviously, for the adult healthy male, the dose-response estimate should be about twenty for fatal cancers per million per rad.
However, although we can make a strong case for increasing the "official" estimates of harm by a factor of four, this fails to deal with non-fatal cancers, depressed immune systems, localized tissue damage (especially the respiratory, digestive and urinary tracts), damage to skin, and reproductive problems. Radiation can cause brain lesions, damage to the stem cells which produce the blood and, when the radiactive material is carried in a heavy metal (uranium) it can be stored in bone, irradiating body organs and nerves within its radius.
Source: http://www.ccnr.org/bertell_book.html
"Unborn children of the region [are] being asked to pay the highest price, the integrity of their DNA."
- Ross B. Mirkarimi, The Arms Control Research Centre, from his report: ‘The Environmental and Human Health Impacts of the Gulf Region with Special Reference to Iraq.’ May 1992
Aerosol DU (Depleted Uranium) exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects. [...] Under combat conditions, the most exposed individuals are probably ground troops that re-enter a battlefield following the exchange of armour-piercing munitions. [...] We are simply highlighting the potential for levels of DU exposure to military personnel during combat that would be unacceptable during peacetime operations. [...DU is..]... a low level alpha radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage. [...] Short term effects of high doses can result in death, while long term effects of low doses have been linked to cancer. [...] Our conclusion regarding the health and environmental acceptability of DU penetrators assume both controlled use and the presence of excellent health physics management practices. Combat conditions will lead to the uncontrolled release of DU. [...] The conditions of the battlefield, and the long term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU kinetic penetrators for military applications."
- Excerpts from the July 1990 Science and Applications International Corporation report: ' Kinetic Energy Penetrator Environment and Health Considerations', as included in Appenix D - US Army Armaments, Munitions and Chemical Command report: 'Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, July 1990'
The US was also well aware of the long-term dangers of DU contamination, and played it down, as the following memo and document make clear:
"There has been and continues to be a concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment. Therefore, if no-one makes a case for the effectiveness of DU on the battlefield, DU rounds may become politically unacceptable and thus be deleted from the a***nal. I believe we should keep this sensitive issue in mind when action reports are written."
- Lt. Col. M.V. Ziehmn, Los Alamos National Laboratory memorandum, March 1st 1991
"Soldiers may be incidentally exposed to DU from dust and smoke on the battlefield. The Army Surgeon General has determined that it is unlikely that these soldiers will receive a significant internal DU exposure. Medical follow-up is not warranted for soldiers who experience incidental exposure from dust or smoke. [...] Since DU weapons are openly available on the world arms market, DU weapons will be used in future conflicts. The number of DU patients on future battlefields probably will be significantly higher because other countries will use systems containing DU. [...] DU is a low-level radioactive waste, and, therefore, must be disposed of in a licensed repository. [...] No international law, treaty, regulation, or custom requires the United States to remediate the Persian Gulf war battlefields."
- Report by the US Army Environmental Policy Institute: 'Health and Consequences of Depleted Uranium use in the US army', June 1995
DU ammunition is now possessed by more than 12 countries, and was used during the NATO led bombing of the former Yugoslavia. Western forces stationed in the region have recently been advised not to drink the local water or eat locally produced food. Yet the British MoD continues to deny any potential risks, stating: "We have not seen any peer-reviewed epidemiological research data to support these claims [that DU is dangerous.] [...] There are no plans to remove DU-based ammunition from service." (Source: Two letters to me from Simon Wren, Overseas Secretariat, Ministry of Defence, Whitehall, London - 20th May 1999, and 22nd March 2000)
On a more personal level, I have heard stories of visitors to Iraq who spoke with mid-wives there. These mid-wives are purported to have said they no longer look forward to births as.... "We don't know what's going to come out."
Source: http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html | |
|
| Bush shows respect to veterans by denying them compensation
Posted: 2/16/2005 12:20:40 AM | Calming down. Sorry, I almost never go off like that. The GWS stuff gets to me. I serve 5 years in the USMC in Gulf War I, come back sick, and the friggin' government denies it exists as first, then does very little (except dump 1/2 billion in research) and no real benefits to those sick. More money to beaurocracy, not to service people's families.
DU rounds are a sick sick evolution in today's warfare and reflect the administrations attitude of indifference toward service people and veterans welfare. | |
|
| Bush shows respect to veterans by denying them compensation
Posted: 2/16/2005 12:28:06 AM | "What a stupid post. You have no experience of war, no advanced knowledge of the human body and yet you claim there is no proof that Depleted Uranium may be the cause of the new Gulf War Syndrome."
I see. Well, what follows will show that you are still not providing any proof of the cause of GWS. You merely threw up a link about radiation and DU. Are you aware of what constitutes proof? I think not.
"My qualifications: War Veteran (USMC), B.S. Biology, D.C. (Doctor of Chiropractic)"
Chiropractor? *laughs* Sorry, that pputs you up around "psychic" in terms of credibility.
"your qualifications: Army Medic School, Neo-con goggles, bad attitude."
Aww. :( My attitude is "bad." What a slam.
[quote]"Evidence:
The Hazards of Low Level Radiation
by Dr. Rosalie Bertell
In the past few years the information available on the health effects of exposure to low levels of radiation has increased. We are no longer dependent on the commercial or military nuclear researchers who since 1950 have claimed that studies of the effects of low-level radiation are impossible to undertake. The new information is unsettling because it proves the critics of the industry to have been correct as to its serious potential to damage living tissue.
There have also been significant new releases of findings from the atomic bomb research in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the self-acclaimed "classical research" of radiation health effects. I will list these findings toward the end of this article, along with studies from the nuclear industry.
In reviewing these research papers one is struck by the high-dose response when the radiation is delivered slowly, with low total dose. The conventional wisdom has claimed that at low dose/slow-dose rate the body is well able to repair most of the harm caused by the radiation. Some nuclear apologists go so far as to claim such exposures are "beneficial."
Because the nuclear industry has always maintained that the effects of low-dose radiation exposure are so small that it is impossible to study them, they proposed extrapolating the effects from those observed at high dose, using a straight line to zero (zero dose, zero effect), together with "correction factors" for low dose/slow-dose rate.
The effect of this "correction" is to reduce the fatal cancer estimates calculated by D.L. Preston, then Director of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation at Hiroshima, using the new dosimetry, from seventeen fatalities per million people per rad exposure, to five fatalities per million people per rad exposure. The corresponding estimates based on actually observed rates for nuclear workers is between ten and thirty fatalities per million per rad. Obviously, for the adult healthy male, the dose-response estimate should be about twenty for fatal cancers per million per rad.
However, although we can make a strong case for increasing the "official" estimates of harm by a factor of four, this fails to deal with non-fatal cancers, depressed immune systems, localized tissue damage (especially the respiratory, digestive and urinary tracts), damage to skin, and reproductive problems. Radiation can cause brain lesions, damage to the stem cells which produce the blood and, when the radiactive material is carried in a heavy metal (uranium) it can be stored in bone, irradiating body organs and nerves within its radius."[/quote]
While interesting, this article proves NOTHING as correlational between GWS and DU. It's merely an article about radiation and potential effects. You are missing the whole point. I'm not impressed.
[quote]"Source: http://www.ccnr.org/bertell_book.html
"Unborn children of the region [are] being asked to pay the highest price, the integrity of their DNA."
- Ross B. Mirkarimi, The Arms Control Research Centre, from his report: ‘The Environmental and Human Health Impacts of the Gulf Region with Special Reference to Iraq.’ May 1992
Aerosol DU (Depleted Uranium) exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects. [...] Under combat conditions, the most exposed individuals are probably ground troops that re-enter a battlefield following the exchange of armour-piercing munitions. [...] We are simply highlighting the potential for levels of DU exposure to military personnel during combat that would be unacceptable during peacetime operations. [...DU is..]... a low level alpha radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage. [...] Short term effects of high doses can result in death, while long term effects of low doses have been linked to cancer. [...] Our conclusion regarding the health and environmental acceptability of DU penetrators assume both controlled use and the presence of excellent health physics management practices. Combat conditions will lead to the uncontrolled release of DU. [...] The conditions of the battlefield, and the long term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU kinetic penetrators for military applications."
- Excerpts from the July 1990 Science and Applications International Corporation report: ' Kinetic Energy Penetrator Environment and Health Considerations', as included in Appenix D - US Army Armaments, Munitions and Chemical Command report: 'Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, July 1990'
The US was also well aware of the long-term dangers of DU contamination, and played it down, as the following memo and document make clear:
"There has been and continues to be a concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment. Therefore, if no-one makes a case for the effectiveness of DU on the battlefield, DU rounds may become politically unacceptable and thus be deleted from the a***nal. I believe we should keep this sensitive issue in mind when action reports are written."
- Lt. Col. M.V. Ziehmn, Los Alamos National Laboratory memorandum, March 1st 1991
"Soldiers may be incidentally exposed to DU from dust and smoke on the battlefield. The Army Surgeon General has determined that it is unlikely that these soldiers will receive a significant internal DU exposure. Medical follow-up is not warranted for soldiers who experience incidental exposure from dust or smoke. [...] Since DU weapons are openly available on the world arms market, DU weapons will be used in future conflicts. The number of DU patients on future battlefields probably will be significantly higher because other countries will use systems containing DU. [...] DU is a low-level radioactive waste, and, therefore, must be disposed of in a licensed repository. [...] No international law, treaty, regulation, or custom requires the United States to remediate the Persian Gulf war battlefields."
- Report by the US Army Environmental Policy Institute: 'Health and Consequences of Depleted Uranium use in the US army', June 1995
DU ammunition is now possessed by more than 12 countries, and was used during the NATO led bombing of the former Yugoslavia. Western forces stationed in the region have recently been advised not to drink the local water or eat locally produced food. Yet the British MoD continues to deny any potential risks, stating: "We have not seen any peer-reviewed epidemiological research data to support these claims [that DU is dangerous.] [...] There are no plans to remove DU-based ammunition from service." (Source: Two letters to me from Simon Wren, Overseas Secretariat, Ministry of Defence, Whitehall, London - 20th May 1999, and 22nd March 2000)
On a more personal level, I have heard stories of visitors to Iraq who spoke with mid-wives there. These mid-wives are purported to have said they no longer look forward to births as.... "We don't know what's going to come out."
Source: http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html"[/quote]
this second aticle actually identifies DU as a harmful agent. Which I've never denied. Uranium is not something you want to breath in. However, I'm still waiting for you to provide PROOF that GWS is caused by DU. To save you the trouble, you CAN'T, because there is no proof. You would have to prove that Saddam didn't release chemical or radioactive agebts into the air. Or a myriad of other scenarios. I may be a "neo-con, with a bad attitude" but I know the difference between a googled article on depleted uranium, and proof that it causes GWS.
 | |
|
| Bush shows respect to veterans by denying them compensation
Posted: 2/16/2005 12:39:23 AM | Medic:
You ignorance knows no bounds does it? Let me explain this - and I'll use small words for you OK? Are you assuming I am my credibility is in question because you state it so. You have no formal education, you support the idiotic neo-con dogma (torture, indefinite detentions, anti-Bill or Rights, Pro-war and DU supporter), and have no experience actually having to put the DU rounds down range - as some of my patients have. You have no friggin' clue.
Whatever. If proof to you demands so much more evidence than that which is presented, then there can be no reaching you. That is why they call it a syndrome meatbag! Because it is not one particular pathogenic factor (BTW do you want me to explain what that means?).
I spent 8 years in college learning the same medical courses that MD's learn (minus pharmacology), specializing in Kinesiology and Neurology, and in fact my college hours were 400 more hours than your average medical school. I think we can rule out the uneducated "psychic" like credibility. Speaking of credibility, do you have any what-so-ever? | |
|
| Bush shows respect to veterans by denying them compensation
Posted: 2/16/2005 1:17:52 AM |   NEWS FLESH
 If you are between the ages of 18 and 34 and you live through your future visit to the Middle East in the company of The United States Armed Forces,then you too will become a vet,and you too will have the pleasure of fending for your self,because according to bushco your Vetrans Administration ain't going to pay for a friggin thing...(-;
So if your 29 sport'n Long Hair and you sound like a commie pinko,I hope you love olive drab,because your going to be wearing it very soon...
 Enjoy | |
|
| |
| Bush shows respect to veterans by denying them compensation
Posted: 2/16/2005 1:30:44 AM | Torture is as torture does. Torture is a Godless, sick, anti-humanist thing to do no matter who does it. Why does the Pentagon and Alberto (new Attorney General) want pre-authorized torture anyways? It is against the US code of regulations and the Geneva conventions (designed to protect service people in case they are caught too).
Who trained Saddam Hussein? CIA and paramilitary forces of the US of Course. | |
|
| |
MikeJ
|
Joined: 1/30/2005
Msg: 21 | |
| Bush shows respect to veterans by denying them compensation
Posted: 2/16/2005 1:50:33 AM | The mere fact that the UN does not authorize an activity does not mean that it is illegal.
The UN charter states that any use of force between member states not authorized by a UNSC resolution is illegal. I should also point out that congress ratified the UN charter and is obligated to honour its international agreements as per the constitution. Basically, the US took the UN charter into US law (under the constitution) when became a UN member state. Not all nations have explicit legislation that does so, but the US is one of the ones that does.
This is where the argument of international law comes from. I am not advocating that we obey the UN Charter to the letter and all the time for a variety of reasons, but from an academic point of view it does exist (for the signatory nations) and technically the no-fly zones were illegal. Then again, so was intervention in Kosovo.
In any case, the real question is whether or not Saddam's internal war against the rebels justified outside intervention. If such humanitarian concerns do justify outside intervention, then we can justify the no-fly zones. If such humanitarian concerns do not justify outside intervention, then we can not justify the no-fly zones. Since about every nation in the world has been on both sides of that issue in recent history, I'm not even going to dwell any further into it.
France, for example, sees fit to tromp all around its African colonies doing whatever it pleases.
If you are referring to the Ivory Coast, I believe France intervened at the invitation of both the government and the rebels. That neither side was happy after the fact is not relevent. I am going by memory here though, so I might be wrong.
Well, yeah.... It's kinda hard to stand idly by and watch 5,000 people being slaughtered by mustard-gas.
He didn't gas them after the Gulf War. When he gassed civilians the US was giving him political protection (because the US hated Iran more) and resisting tabled UNSC resolutions to condemn Iraq for the use of gas.
The US protected Saddam for a while, then the international pressure and the evidence of the act became so strong that the US caved in and Iraq was reprimanded.
Back to the Gulf War - he brutally crushed the rebellion, but it was a rebellion after all. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't have done anything for the reasons I mentioned earlier. | |
|
| Bush shows respect to veterans by denying them compensation
Posted: 2/16/2005 2:51:19 AM | | whatever happened to Saddam anyways? i heard Richard Hoaglands website claimed that Bush and Saddam share the same bloodline and that qualifies them to run countries through their secret society-hmmm well,they both look goofy and kinda inbred | |
|
|
|
Home
login 