1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I don't know about that.


Savour the moment, gentlemen.
Arny will probably never repeat the
above sentence again in his lifetime:-))

Iain

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

The executive summary - American losses in every major
war we were involved in after the Civil War have been
minimal.

Your executive summary seemed to make no mention of the
losses of your allies. :-)

We're not all that responsible for the massive losses that Stalin inflicted
on the Russian people. Of course when you have to field two independent
armies, one to shoot the deserters from the other (main) one, you are going
to have some serious losses. :-(

It is my understanding that during WW2 the British were shall we say far
more speculative with their military staff. I know that we learned a lot
from the British about running planes from aircraft carriers because the
British were more willing to tolerate the natural losses that come with
trying a lot of different things. OTOH, we did day bombing without fighter
escort, which has shall we say, fallen out of favor.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
, Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in

Mind you the use of chemical defoliants sounds a lot
like chemical and/or biological warfare.

That is a really broad brush you're weilding there.
The defoliants were mostly 2, 4D which is a household
chemical in the US.

Simply using defoliants amounts to biological warfare.

OK we killed some plants (biological entities) using
chemicals.

Did "you" (in the sense you use "we") not also kill
others with those chemicals? Partly due to factors like
starvation and loss of livelyhood.

I think you're speculating when you suggest that even happened in Vietnam.
We defoliated dense jungles. Didn't have to do that to rice patties.

Partly due to the
effects those chemicals on the population. Have you
perhaps forgotten Agent Orange and the other 'agents'
used, and for example long term cancer-causing 'side
effects' some turned out to have?

Those alleged effects are largely speculative. Our troops suffered far more
contact and at higher concentrations due to the very nature of distribution.

Or are things like these now "non history" in the USA and
have been blanked from textbooks and memories? if so, a
curious parallel with the way history was revised in the
USSR as suited the current beloved leader(s). Shades of
1984...

I see plenty of documentation of our use of defoliants in Vietnam, etc.
Google is your friend.

You seem to be conflating killing plants and killing
people.

I see a big difference!

You may see a difference.

You don't?

But you don't seem to have seen
that the chemicals may have also directly or indirectly
killed or harmed people.

I think that we harmed a lot more people with conventional munitions. By
far.

So perhaps reality doesn't
always provide the clean division your reponses assert or
presume. Maybe your scope of vision is too narrow.

I fail to see any evidence of actual research or documented facts on your
side of the argument.

I'm not trying to argue who is/was better or worse
(morally) than others when it comes to conflict. Just
pointing out that the reality was that those 'household
chemicals' may well have caused deaths and injuries -
sometimes years after the US forces abandoned the place
and helcoptered away.

There are still unexploded munitions in rural France. War is the nasty
business of doing something so painful and horrible to the other guy that he
stops even trying.

Sometimes even to those unborn when
the chemicals were sprayed. Not quite as neat and tidy as
you "see" perhaps. Perhaps you could take time to reflect
on this and not simply rush to dismiss what I've said.
The truth is rarely pure or simple.

I fail to see any evidence of actual research or documented facts on your
side of the argument.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:34:11 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I'm not trying to argue who is/was better or worse
(morally) than others when it comes to conflict. Just
pointing out that the reality was that those 'household
chemicals' may well have caused deaths and injuries -
sometimes years after the US forces abandoned the place
and helcoptered away. Sometimes even to those unborn
when the chemicals were sprayed. Not quite as neat and
tidy as you "see" perhaps. Perhaps you could take time
to reflect on this and not simply rush to dismiss what
I've said. The truth is rarely pure or simple.


I recall that it was an initiation rite for US pilots to
take a drink of Agent Orange at the start of a tour of
duty; they believed that it was harmless to humans. It
was only later back home that the birth defects in babies
became a matter of public scandal.

There's no doubt that there were birth defects among the Vietnamese.
Attribution is tougher. Correlation is not causuality.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message


Interesting that the 'Netcops' here don't rush up whining
about 'OT' threads these days! ;-)

The big difference being that its not the 1001st wasted argument about
tubes and LPs.


They are never a waste, Arny - they usually spark off a bit of a
*conflagration* every time I wheel that one in!

(My credo is that any action is better than stony silence in a forum - no?
:-)

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message


[snip]

So perhaps reality doesn't always provide the clean division your
reponses assert or presume. Maybe your scope of vision is too narrow.

I fail to see any evidence of actual research or documented facts on
your side of the argument.

Yes, it does seem clear you have failed to see this. I'm not a historian,
but your 'lack of sight' here does seem strange. Maybe the situation is as
I speculated. i.e. That for some/many in the US these matters are simply
'non history'.


I'm not trying to argue who is/was better or worse (morally) than
others when it comes to conflict. Just pointing out that the reality
was that those 'household chemicals' may well have caused deaths and
injuries - sometimes years after the US forces abandoned the place and
helcoptered away.

There are still unexploded munitions in rural France. War is the nasty
business of doing something so painful and horrible to the other guy
that he stops even trying.

I agree. Note my comment about not arguing the relative morality. But
that isn't the same as simply not noticing when it may have happened and
thus dismissing the issue with comments about "household chemicals", etc.

Sometimes even to those unborn when the chemicals were sprayed. Not
quite as neat and tidy as you "see" perhaps. Perhaps you could take
time to reflect on this and not simply rush to dismiss what I've said.
The truth is rarely pure or simple.

I fail to see any evidence of actual research or documented facts on
your side of the argument.

I'm not actually putting an 'argument'. Just surprised to discover your
apparent 'blind spot'.

Looks like Nelson wasn't the only person who had selective vision, albeit
in a somewhat different context. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 08:28:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:34:11 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I'm not trying to argue who is/was better or worse
(morally) than others when it comes to conflict. Just
pointing out that the reality was that those 'household
chemicals' may well have caused deaths and injuries -
sometimes years after the US forces abandoned the place
and helcoptered away. Sometimes even to those unborn
when the chemicals were sprayed. Not quite as neat and
tidy as you "see" perhaps. Perhaps you could take time
to reflect on this and not simply rush to dismiss what
I've said. The truth is rarely pure or simple.


I recall that it was an initiation rite for US pilots to
take a drink of Agent Orange at the start of a tour of
duty; they believed that it was harmless to humans. It
was only later back home that the birth defects in babies
became a matter of public scandal.

There's no doubt that there were birth defects among the Vietnamese.
Attribution is tougher. Correlation is not causuality.


I'm talking about the startling increase in birth defects among the
children of pilots who had returned home.

d

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 08:28:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


There's no doubt that there were birth defects among the Vietnamese.
Attribution is tougher. Correlation is not causuality.


I'm talking about the startling increase in birth defects among the
children of pilots who had returned home.

I'm certainly no historian. So I'm curious to know if his 'blind spot'
(typified by his wordings) about these matters is due to the US media and
history books simply omitting such things as uncomfortable.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 08:28:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:34:11 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I'm not trying to argue who is/was better or worse
(morally) than others when it comes to conflict. Just
pointing out that the reality was that those 'household
chemicals' may well have caused deaths and injuries -
sometimes years after the US forces abandoned the place
and helcoptered away. Sometimes even to those unborn
when the chemicals were sprayed. Not quite as neat and
tidy as you "see" perhaps. Perhaps you could take time
to reflect on this and not simply rush to dismiss what
I've said. The truth is rarely pure or simple.


I recall that it was an initiation rite for US pilots to
take a drink of Agent Orange at the start of a tour of
duty; they believed that it was harmless to humans. It
was only later back home that the birth defects in
babies became a matter of public scandal.

There's no doubt that there were birth defects among the
Vietnamese. Attribution is tougher. Correlation is not
causuality.


I'm talking about the startling increase in birth defects
among the children of pilots who had returned home.

Same argument.

I suspect that the number of birth defects could have other causes. Older
aged mothers for example.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote

You seem to be conflating killing plants and killing people.

I see a big difference!

Destroying crops has been part of warfare for a long, long time. When it
leads to starvation it is equivalent to killing people. Given that the
chemicals used in Vietnam were also harmful to humans when used in the
manner and quantities there were there I see no reason to withdraw my
criticism of US use of defoliants.

David.