The “V” Word
Bush to invoke Vietnam in defense of Iraq:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — As he awaits a crucial progress report on Iraq, President Bush will try to put a twist on comparisons of the war to Vietnam by invoking the historical lessons of that conflict to argue against pulling out.
On Wednesday in Kansas City, Missouri, Bush will tell members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that “then, as now, people argued that the real problem was America’s presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end,” according to speech excerpts released Tuesday by the White House.
“Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left,” Bush will say.
“Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like ‘boat people,’ ‘re-education camps’ and ‘killing fields,’ ” the president will say.
Just one problem. The American Left considers what it did to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos a victory. The American Left doesn’t think any dominoes fell. The American Left has already indicated it doesn’t give a damn about genocide. What the American Left does care about, is domestic politics:
On Tuesday, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “President Bush’s attempt to compare the war in Iraq to past military conflicts in East Asia ignores the fundamental difference between the two. Our nation was misled by the Bush Administration in an effort to gain support for the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, leading to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our history.
“While the President continues to stay-the-course with his failed strategy in Iraq, paid for by the taxpayers, American lives are being lost and there is still no political solution within the Iraqi government. It is time to change direction in Iraq, and Congress will again work to do so in the fall.”
I doubt Reid’s remarks are intended imply support for the Democratic decision to go heavy in Vietnam, though by suggesting a difference in Iraq of course he suggests that. But his remarks underscore the myopia of opponents of both wars. Vietnam was an entirely necessary war, though flawed in aspects of its execution and ultimately undermined politically. The 58,000 Americans who died there did not die in vain, betrayed by politicians though they were. Vietnam was just one of many hot Cold War battlefields, from Korea to Central America to Afghanistan, where purposeful communist expansion had to be forcibly contained. Iraq, while flawed in aspects of its executions, is another necessary, non-elective battlefield in the war against Islamic extremism and terrorist-supporting despotism, and has been from the moment of invasion.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:25 am on Wednesday, August 22, 2007
35 Responses to “The “V” Word”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 am
President Bush’s attempt to compare the war in Iraq to past military conflicts in East Asia ignores the fundamental difference between the two.
Harry probably needs a chat with Ted Kennedy and other leftards who have shrilled exactly the opposite. Apparently Harry didn’t see that particular talking point memo.
But if ol’ Harry did see that memo, this is evidence that the Dhimmicrats are fully disabled by terminal BDS, in that everything that Bush likes is bad, and everything that Bush hates is to be embraced with passion.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:00 am
In 1998 Osama bin Laden said the following to ABC News: “The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat.” He referred to Clinton’s hasty retreat from Somalia and described how the cowardly American response emboldened the jihadists. America cannot afford another Vietnam or another Somalia. Frankly, if the most powerful nation on earth can be chased out of the field of battle by a group of ragheads time and again, it won’t remain the most powerful nation for long.
Check out my blog where I debate a leftie: http://blogger-heads.blogspot.com
Liron
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:53 am
God, it’s tedious puncturing this myth. I do believe I have done this at least seven times here, but here goes again:
1. From 1975 onward, more Vietnamese died from American landmines and Agent Orange dispersed by Americans during the war than from the Viet Cong afterward.
2. Despite predictions that if Vietnam fell, so to would the rest of Asia like dominoes, the dominoes never fell.
2. The Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge was a result of the American bombing in Cambodia and subsequent right-wing coup. The genocide in Cambodia was actually brought to a halt by the communist Vietnamese.
Liron of Sydney seems to think that we should make our foreign policy decisions based on Osama bin Laden’s taunts, instead of cool-headed assessments of whether American forces are placed in defensible positions considering the objectives they were supposed to accomplish (both Republicans and Pres. Clinton concluded they were not and so made the prudent decision). This helps explain why Australia is not much of a world power.
Jeffy seems to think that it’s “shrill” to compare Iraq to Vietnam. No doubt he will think the same thing when Bush makes the comparison.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:03 am
Corndog:
Your recitation of non fact is very telling. Those, like you, who choose to adhere to the bullshit spun by our enemy, in wars past or present, are no different than the enemy.
You are wrong on every count. You present nothing of actual true fact. Your recitations are straight up, 100%, black propaganda.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:49 am
Grimmy,
If I’m wrong, please state your version of the “actual true fact” so we can see.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:52 am
Corndog, I guess you missed the part where approximately a million people took their children’s hands and jumped into the ocean to get away from the guys you thought were just “progressive peasants”.
You should’ve been there, it might have had a profound effect on you.
Pol Pot was a right winger whose genocial urges were brought to a halt by communist Vietnamese? You better run that past the boys at “The Nation”, cuz I’m not sure even the Stalinists there will get onboard with that whopper.
I do agree that communist Vietnam conducted an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation in 1979. Sounds like that sort of activity is suddenly OK with you in certain cases (ie when conducted by the Left)?
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Vanguard,
I guessed I must have missed the part where the boat people were slaughtered. We were talking about deaths, not people who fled to California and Texas.
“Pol Pot was a rightwinger”? Where did you get that? He was a Mao-ist who overthrew a right-wing coup. Check your history books.
Very strange to hear you argue that the Viet Cong’s invasion was illegal. If you really think that, you have to think the Iraq invasion was illegal. In this case, though, Vietnam reacted after the Khmer Rouge invaded Vietnam. Thus, the Vietnam invasion was legitimate. Again, just check the history books.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Didn’t say they were slaughtered. (In fact my shipmates and I rescued quite a few, apparently cuz we couldn’t get better jobs, eh?) Said they jumped into the ocean to get away from the kind of people it sounds like you hold in high esteem. If Bushco is so bad, it seems like that would have happened here in the US.
Absent any moral context, I guess you are correct about Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia. Its just I thought you folks were reflexively “anti war”. Turns out the smell of cordite apparently arouses your warlike impulses like the worst right wing reactionary imaginable!
I’m going to go check out a copy of Howard Zinn’s “People’s History” so I can keep up with you more nuanced folks. Thanks for the enlightenment!
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
“Didn’t say they were slaughtered.”
Then it’s not an issue, VC, since I’m talking about deaths.
“It’s just I thought you folks were reflexively “anti war”.”
Then maybe you should stop thinking so reflexively, VC.
“I’m going to go check out a copy of Howard Zinn’s “People’s History” ”
Go ahead and check any book you have confidence in.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
2. Despite predictions that if Vietnam fell, so to would the rest of Asia like dominoes, the dominoes never fell.
You just proved what Jules said, that “the American Left considers what it did to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos a victory”. You should be ashamed. You should be. But I don’t think you’re capable of it.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I know cause and effect is tough for some folks, but the dominoes of Malaysia, Indonesia, and South Korea did not fall because free people took a stand, not in spite of it. All those places have their problems, but they are nothing like the murderous, respressive dominoes that did fall, North Korea and Vietnam, and which are oddly considered “victories” by the very people who profess caring and sharing as virtues above all others .
Oh and “Domino theory”. Wonder what political party came up with that? Same one that took us to Vietnam to begin with I wager.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Becca,
Where do you see anything that I wrote that claims that Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were a “Victory”? Cite please. And see Vanguard in the post below yours, who agrees that the dominoes did not fall. Should he be ashamed, too?
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Corndog, I am being polite and respectful. For one thing that is how I am. For another, I know I am not going to change your mind. I would only offer that I witnessed those folks swimming in the open ocean. And there was a reason they were out there treading water hoping for a ride to Califiornia and Texas, instead of walking to Hanoi or Beijing. Yes, you are talking about deaths. I am talking about lives.
Contextually we are agreed. The dominoes did not fall. The reasons they did not fall appears to be our point of departure. I am proud the dominoes did not fall and the evidence compels me to believe that it was because of the intervention of free people. Had we been allowed to prevail, I submit fewer dominoes would have fallen. The successful political stance of the American Left in 1975 condemned millions of people to lives of communist slavery and worse, and that is what honest liberals should be ashamed of. And I will go further and say that they are attempting to repeat that very mistake again with regards to Iraq, not in the service of humanity, but of ideology.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I guessed I must have missed the part where the boat people were slaughtered. We were talking about deaths, not people who fled to California and Texas.
I guess you are ignoring the estimates that hundreds of thousands of people died trying to escape Vietnam….estiimates based on multiple sources. You might ask VotC, for example.
But, hey, they could of stayed, and enjoyed the peaceful enlightenment of the Communist regime, eh, corndog? I suppose that makes all the difference to you.
Where do you see anything that I wrote that claims that Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were a “Victory”? Cite please. And see Vanguard in the post below yours, who agrees that the dominoes did not fall. Should he be ashamed, too?
Because you are ignoring the fact that enough people were terrified of the Vietnamese Communist government to take a dangerous ocean journey to freedom. (At least, I consider it freedom…..I suppose you see it as the North American Gulag.)
They saw the choice as being between freedom or death. Death if they stayed in Vietnam or on the high seas, freedom if they made it to America. There were pretty long odds against them.
And that’s immaterial to you. Since you seem to think they bought a ticket on a cruise ship to get here.
So, yeah, shame on you, corndog.
Jeffy seems to think that it’s “shrill” to compare Iraq to Vietnam. No doubt he will think the same thing when Bush makes the comparison.
*SNORT*
Nice demonstration of your reading and comprehension skills, corndog. Specifically, I said:
Harry probably needs a chat with Ted Kennedy and other leftards who have shrilled exactly the opposite.
Note the last three words in that sentence, which refer to this entire sentence from Harry “White Flag” Reid:
President Bush’s attempt to compare the war in Iraq to past military conflicts in East Asia ignores the fundamental difference between the two.
I agree with President Bush on this particular point. I don’t see him as being shrill.
Reid is being shrill, because his counterpoint is hysterical, in terms of both humor (i.e., he’s hysterically funny) and his reaction (i.e., he’s nearly in full panic mode).
Hope that ’splains things for you.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
No, Jeffy, your post makes me far more confused.
First, your Vietnam bit: I pointed out that more people died from the American landmines and Agent Orange than died from the communist takeover, and you somehow construe that as a claim of “victory”? That makes no sense at all.
Second, your Reid v. Bush bit, I just don’t understand. You said earlier that, despite Reid’s statement that Iraq and Vietnam are different, “Ted Kennedy and other leftards who have shrilled exactly the opposite.he same point.” That would mean that “Ted Kennedy and other leftards” have shrilled that Iraq and Vietnam are the same. This is what Bush is saying. Therefore, you are saying that Bush is shrill.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Vanguard says, “For another, I know I am not going to change your mind.”
Van, I’m not sure what you think you’re going to change. Do you think I disagree that the communist takeover caused people to flee? It’s not what I’m saying. But I think you also have to consider the millions who fled during the Vietnam War. And, if Jeffy is right that Vietnam and Iraq are the same, we also have to consider the millions who have fled Iraq now.
For your second paragraph, we wil just have to agree to disagree. But the march of history is critical to the points. The Khmer Rouge was allied with Maoist China. The VietCong hated China. As soon as we left, the Khmer Rouge, China and Vietnam began fighting each other. (Remember that China invaded Vietnam?) We had totally ignored the underlying rivalries and failed to understand how that hatred would actually keep the dominoes from falling.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
No, corndog Kennedy and his cronies shrilled that Iraq is another Vietnam, i.e., “We’re gonna lose! Withdraw!!”.
Now Reid is saying that there is no comparision. Bush says there is……if you look at the results of withdrawal, i.e., the loss of lives. Which you have a difference perspective on, so mayhaps your bias is blocking your understanding.
But it’s funny how you patently ignore the deaths of people who died fleeing Vietnam after the fall of Saigon, while focusing on the deaths of people inside Vietnam.
Perhaps it’s because any deaths due to landmines and Agent Orange could be laid* at the feet of America, while the deaths of Vietnamese on the high seas can be laid at the feet of the Vietnamese Communist government.
Or perhaps not. Could be your BDS is kicking in again, and you’re being contrary ‘cuz Emperor McChimpy said so.
==============================
*: Two points.
First, got any citations for that? Even today, identifying deaths due to Agent Orange on American vets is difficult enough…….how would a third world country go about doing that?
Second, just a comment: landmines and boobytraps were not the exclusive domain of the US forces. The North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong were well versed in both. Just so, y’know, we all keep in mind that North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam; the US didn’t invade anyone.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Yes Corndog, Vietnam invaded Cambodia. China invaded Vietnam. The USSR invaded Afghanistan. In 1979. All of these were offensive operations, by hard left governments. So I am still trying to validate the “anti war” bonafieds of the Left! Where were the “human shields”? Where were the giant paper mache heads of Mao and Breshnev? Where were the nude sit ins and the Ho=Hitler signs? Help me out here.
I have heard that inexorable march of history line before. It always seems to be used to justify gulags and mass graves. My point is that selfless free people changed history, or at least half of us did. The world, thank goodness, looks nothing like it did in 1979. And thank America. And if you don’t believe that, how do you tolerate living here, if indeed you do?
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Jeffy,
For your first * point, I really don’t have time to look up where I fist saw this, but you could check the Report to the Secretary of
the Department of Veterans Affairs (“Zumwalt Report”),6 May 5, 1990.
Zumwalt reviewed the numerous data relevant to the statistical association between exposure to Agent Orange and adverse health effects. He also reviewed and
evaluated the work of the Scientific Council of the Veterans’ Advisory Committee
on Environmental Hazards and commissioned independent scientific experts to assist
him in evaluating the validity of numerous human and animal studies on the effects
of exposure to Agent Orange and/or exposure to herbicides containing TCDD. He determined that exposure to Agent Orange caused a 30 percent increase in the risk of death. Given that there were an estimated 9 million people originally exposed to Agent Orange (see Vietnam Association of Victims v. Dow Chemical et al (SDNY 2005), you can do the math or just do as I did and instantly guess that since the number of post-takeover VietCong killings were in the tens of thousands, the Agent Orange deaths were greater.
As to landmines, a Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund study determined there were 2,540 deaths from landmines left over from the war.
You are correct that other forces are also responsible. China, for instance, laid landmines inside the Vietnam border. But that doesn’t change my point, unfortunately.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
It’s an Apples and Agent Oranges point, isn’t it?
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Corndog,
Please explain what number you come up with based on “a 30% increased risk of death”. If someone was exposed to Agent Orange but died stepping on a landmine which category do they fall into? What if they drowned trying to flee the country? A 30% increased risk doesn’t mean that 30% of those exposed died.
Unlike you I’ll provide a link to my stats of post war deaths:
-Vietnam: 430,000 including 200,000 who died fleeing
-Cambodia: 225,000 (after the war with Vietnam and not counted in the killing fields total fo 1.6 million
-Laos: 200,000-300,000
http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/080207/thedanishplan.html
Those are large numbers in my book.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 am
Roach,
The letter to the editor you cite to refers to the 20th Century Atlas. This source states that “My intention here is not to dictate that you believe one chosen number; instead, I’m more interested in letting you see the limits of the debate — the upper and lower estimates and the spectrum that runs between them.” Even so, the executions by the Vietcong are at about 65,000. The number of boat people who died fleeing are at about 250,000, half of which were due to the Vietnamese government. A grisly number, but that still gets us to 315,000, well below the land mine and Agent Orange figure.
Your point about the probabilities of exposure is a good one. But given the size of the numbers we are considering here, it makes no difference. It will always come out larger than 315,000 deaths.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Corndog,
How does it always get to more then 315K (and nice to see you drop out the reeducation camp deaths)? So far the only number you can reference is the roughly 2540 deaths from landmines but you have no claim that these people only died from mines placed by US or South Vietnamese troops. In fact even if 30% of all cancer deaths since 1975 (using the numbers in articles below) were caused by Agent Orange (a huge leap based on data studies of US servicemen) the number still comes under 400k.
In fact, cancer rates in Vietnam appear to be in line with rates elsewhere and cancer types seem to be similar to what you see in other developing countries. Smoking and lung cancer looks to be the main problem and many of the forms of cancer listed are not those identified primarily identified with Agent Orange:
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/suppl_1/S92
http://www.who.int/cancer/modules/Viet%20Nam.pdf
Which government is responsible for half the deaths of the boat people? Since the flow started after the fall of the South Vietnamese government that would mean they all died fleeing the communists. Do you deny that? Do you deny that the communists bear responsibility for these deaths as well as those in the reeducation camps and the executions?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Roach,
Your citations are totally symptomatic of someone who is just trying to win an argument rather than get to the truth.
The first report is from data from Hanoi and Saigan. Agent Orange wasn’t sprayed there. The second report is about what Vietnam plans to do to reduce its cancer rate. There’s nothing Vietnam can do about the Agent Orange spraying, and it has asked for the United States’ assistance.
Next, you say, “you have no claim that these people only died from mines placed by US or South Vietnamese troops”. Well, yes, that’s right. I have not claimed that. That’s why I said above: “You are correct that other forces are also responsible. China, for instance, laid landmines inside the Vietnam border.”
Your best point is: “Do you deny that the communists bear responsibility for these deaths as well as those in the reeducation camps and the executions?”
Of course the Vietcong are responsible for deaths in the reeducation camps and executions. That’s why they are part of the math. Are they responsible for those who flee, and what happens to them in the act of fleeing? That’s a much tougher question. Is Mexico responsible for immigrants who die as they cross the desert into the U.S.?
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Corndog,
You’ll have to explain to me how one wins an argument without the truth especially when it involves clarifying the historical record. You claim unsubstantiated statements as fact yet you accuse me of avoiding the truth? Point out one item I’ve listed that is not true.
“Of course the Vietcong are responsible for the deaths in the reeducation camp” However you referenced 315K deaths (composed of 65K executions and 250K deaths to people fleeing) so you appear to have left out the deaths in the reeducation camps (which were run by the NVA not the Vietcong) from your math.
The documents I linked to were the most detailed docs on cancer in Vietnam that I could find and happen to be far more detailed then anything you have posted to support your claims. If you read them in detail you will notice reference to differences in rates and types between North and South not just cities.
As for your last question I would say yes the government of Mexico is responsible for those deaths. From a legal perspective you could (I believe) make an argument that it constitutes negligent homicide.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
“The documents I linked to were the most detailed docs on cancer in Vietnam that I could find and happen to be far more detailed then anything you have posted to support your claims. If you read them in detail you will notice reference to differences in rates and types between North and South not just cities.”
I’ll just address this paragraph because it goes to the point you make the first paragraph as well: You and I are not public health experts (at least I’m not, and it sounds like you’re not, either.) Citing the docs that you do may be detailed, but they don’t prove the point you’re making, and you’re just misleading yourself. I told Jeffy at the beginning that I don’t have time to go back and find the book where I read the original statistic, so in lieu of that, I quickly gathered some internet docs that I cited. Now you’re slamming me for not having more detailed docs. Sorry, bub, I’m not near an academic library any longer, so you’re either going to have to go with my pretty good and very profitable memory, or with the internet docs that I cited.
As to your point about camp deaths, I believe the 65k includes the camp deaths. If it doesn’t, then go ahead and add them in. They’ll still come in under the Agent Orange figure.
As to your last paragraph, I just can’t wait to hear you make an argument that Mexico commits negligent homicide when an illegal immigrant crosses the desert into the U.S. This will be fun….
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Corndog,
Lets make this simple as it is getting boring and you prove your lack of basic research skills on the NYT Barnum thread (two minutes on google works, you don’t need a research library).
Your first claim:
“1. From 1975 onward, more Vietnamese died from American landmines and Agent Orange dispersed by Americans during the war than from the Viet Cong afterward.”
I have shown that 450K people died due to the actions of the communists after the fall of South Vietnam. You, on the other hand have not made any claim to total number killed by landmines and Agent Orange just that “it always come out larger”. Give us a number, even a general ballpark. There has to be something in that “pretty good and profitable memory” you reference.
Regarding Mexico: One could argue that the government of Mexico, through its lack of economic development, etc creates the reasons these people feel they need to cross the border. It then does little or nothing to stop them (in fact you can find many who would argue they actually encourage it) even though the risks are know and is hence negligent in it duty to care for its people. I’ve seen cases go to trail with far less then that.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 pm
“I have shown that 450K people died due to the actions of the communists after the fall of South Vietnam. ”
Well, no, no you haven’t. You have shown that some estimates put 450k as an upward figure, but let’s accept that for the sake of argument.
“You, on the other hand have not made any claim to total number killed by landmines and Agent Orange just that “it always come out larger”. Give us a number, even a general ballpark.”
I did it, but I guess you couldn’t be bothered to do the math, so now I’ll do it for you: If there are 9 million exposed and 30 percent increased risk of death, that would be 2.7 million. That’s a lot of deaths. So let’s knock back some of your objections, and say, ok, a lot of people died also from landmines and smoking and other people’s chemicals. So let’s give your argument a whole lot of credence and say we’ll knock the figure back to 10%. Still comes out to 900k, even before adding in the landmine fatalities.
Your argument about negligent homicide is pretty funny. Can’t believe you’ve seen cases go to trial with less than that, because it doesn’t add up anywhere near to negligent homicide. To do that, you’d have to show that Mexico has a legal duty to provide for the economic sustenance of all of its citizens. Dude - you’re supposed to be a conservative!
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Here you go, Roach, from the Feb. 27, 2004 Asia Times: “Vietnam’s government has put the number of Agent Orange victims nationwide at more than 3 million, but a Columbia University study published last year suggested that the figure is closer to 5 million and that the contamination is much worse than previously thought. “
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 pm
How can you stand to live around all of us heartless bastards ‘Dog? I mean really. If I lived in a country that did all the terrible things you ascribe to it, full of people like everyone here who wrongly and criminally thought it was a force for good, I would be off to find the best place I could, and the best people I could, to live and work among them, and be inspired by them.
You know, sort of like the boat people.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Corndog,
Remember the 30% increased risk of death you sited earlier doesn’t mean a 30% mortality rate. Similarly victim does not equal dead.
The 2003 Columbia study (AP article about it below) says 4.5 million people were exposed but not that they died and the Vietnamese government number is also for victims not deaths. The same article states that 1 million Vietnamese require some sort of disability.
http://home.att.net/~vet_updates/moreagentorange.htm
This Asia Times article (earlier article) also references 1m total exposed:
http://www.atimes.com/se-asia/DC19Ae01.html
If anything these articles are hurting your case since you started with 9 million exposed and not it looks like 3-5m at the top end.
As for Mexico, yes I believe that a government has a responsibility to its people to create a framework that allows for the individual to better themselves. This included a functional education system, a stable infrastructure, and yes solid economic factors such as money supply, inflation, taxes structure etc. If the government doesn’t provide this foundation their are negligent in their responsibilities to their citizens.
As a conservative (like thats a big ugly word or something) I believe it is still up to the individual to take advantage of that via their own hard work.
August 24th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Roach,
You’re wasting my time: “Researchers have found that during the spraying of Agent Orange in southern Vietnam, dioxin levels in human tissues were as high as 900 times greater in Vietnamese living in South Vietnam than those living in North Vietnam where Agent Orange was not used…citizens in southern Vietnam may be at a greater risk of cancers, adverse reproductive and development effects, and immune deficiency” (Arison, 1995).
In laboratory studies, tests using 2 parts of dioxin per trillion (ppt) in lab animals would cause stillbirths and death. In comparison, US servicemen returning from Vietnam had 50 ppt or more in their bloodstream (www.community-net.com). Although research on the effects of Agent Orange have been inconclusive because of inherent biases in sampling, a 1986 study conducted by the National Cancer Institute showed that “farmers who were exposed to 2,4-D an ingredient in Agent Orange, showed…six times more non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas than farmers not exposed” (Ibid). Additionally, Marines who were on active duty during the defoliation program had a 110% higher rate of the same disorder (Ibid).”
As to your Mexico argument, negligent homicide requires that a person die while under the accused’s “care”. If you’re saying that a country has this level of “care” for its citizens, you really need to find a nanny state. Saying that it’s the individual’s responsiblity, but the country’s legal duty is a total contradiction. But that’s par for the course in conservativeland these days.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:12 am
You know what’s funniest about your “negligent homicide” argument, Roach? You’re saying the US is guilty of negligent homicide for any Iraqis who die while fleeing the mess. Why do you hate America, Roach?
August 24th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Corndog,
I’m getting dizzy watching you chase your tail in futility so this will be my last post on this. If I really wanted to be a pain I might question why you would reference a quote that includes the following “Although research on the effects of Agent Orange have been inconclusive because of inherent biases in sampling” in support of your claim.
You keep equating increased risk of cancer (which I haven’t seen anyone argue about) with a specific death toll. Why not just admit you (nor anyone else it seems) don’t know now many people died from Agent Orange exposure (I’m nor arguing the number is zero) but you feel that it is a greater number then died from other causes.
How is saying a government is responsible for providing a stable, secure environment for its people equal to calling for a nanny state? Don’t forget that I also included the Mexican governments support of and failure to stop illegal immigration as contributing to their responsibility. Look at the difference in their actions on their southern and northern borders for my point. The funny part of all this is I understand their side of the equation and in a purely economic model it makes sense. Anyway, this all started with you asking me my opinion (you know feeling, belief, etc) and there you have it, yes I think the Mexican government bears a leve of responsibility for these deaths.
News flash, Iraq has its own government (warts and all) but nice try there in getting in one of your anti american digs.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
“You keep equating increased risk of cancer (which I haven’t seen anyone argue about) with a specific death toll. Why not just admit you (nor anyone else it seems) don’t know now many people died from Agent Orange exposure”
I told you at the outset that neither you nor I are public health experts, but you keep insisting on a report. I am not going to spend any more time on google because, frankly, I just don’t care. I can either rely on my memory or the references I have shown, which put the fatalities well over any toll you have put up.
“News flash, Iraq has its own government (warts and all)” Oh, my God that is funny. Be sure to repeat this sentence on September 1, after Maliki has been tossed out. Oh, that’s right, almost forgot. In the Roach world, the coup won’t at all be U.S.-engineered, and we will in no way be responsible for the leader who takes his place.