Not after they've lied about just about everything else.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:31:44 -0500, DSK said:


1- to test it
2- because "the right people" stand to make a profit selling this
medication to the Army
3- all the above.

4. because likely benefits in saving lives were thought to outweigh
possible
risks?

I realize, of course, that you might find it difficult to accept the
possibility that a Republican administration might act in good faith in
making a judgment.
Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Did you defend the makers of that also?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 07:17:14 -0500, "katysails"

said:

Agent Orange does cause certain types of cancer and has been linked to
other
diseases. It's major component, dioxin, is a carcenoid.

It's been a while but if I remember correctly dioxin was not a major
component in the sense of being the active ingredient, but was simply one
of
the chemicals produced in the course of the manufacturing process--almost
a
contaminant. The major legal issue in the case, if I remember right, was
whether, if the manufacturers produced precisely what the military asked
them to produce in the product specifications, the manufacturer was
responsible for the effects of the military's use of the product.

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Dave wrote:
4. because likely benefits in saving lives were thought to outweigh possible
risks?

If that were the case, then why not rely on the anti-gas measures
already in use, with equipment already tested, and the men already
trained in it's use?




I realize, of course, that you might find it difficult to accept the
possibility that a Republican administration might act in good faith in
making a judgment.

Once in a while, sure. But in this case... no. Not even close. The whole
thing stinks... and the cover-up doesn't help.

DSK

Dave wrote:
I don't claim to be an expert in this area, but if you're talking about the
kind of protective gear I've seen in pictures, I suspect there may be
serious doubts about its effectiveness in a hot desert environment with
people needing mobility, as compared to a method that doesn't require
donning a lot of gear. Ever been in a hardhat suit and compared it to SCUBA
or Jack Brown? Each has its place, but you don't choose hardhat if you have
to move a lot.

Better than that, I've used firefighting OBA gear. Sure it's a heavy,
hot, cumbersome PITA but try doing the job without it. And it doesn't
give you cancer.

Now, if somebody were to say to me, "Here, buy these pills and give them
to your firefighting (or HAZMAT) team and they will not need all that
awful gear, plus they'll be ready on instant notice," then what would I
say? Probably, "Can you sell me some beans to grow a giant beanstalk, too?"

But then I am responsible & intelligent, and believe in accountability
for my actions & decisions.

Basically, the Army bought a fairy tale and the men who put their lives
on the line for our country are paying for it. And you want to shrug it
off. WTF, it's only a bunch of poor dumb ex-enlisted men, right?

DSK

Dave wrote:
Is the "fairy tale" that the pills (or injections or whatever) were
ineffective against gas?

As far as anybody knows, they might... or might not... be.

Guess what... conventional gas counter masures still work fine. And
don't give anybody severe health problems later on.



And you want to shrug it
off. WTF, it's only a bunch of poor dumb ex-enlisted men, right?


They didn't provide the protection to the officers in the field?

AFAIK commissioned officers had the option of not taking them.

DSK

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 08:20:29 +1100, OzOne said:

Not missing at all.
The payouts were not for cancer.
Maybe you should read about the studies

Ah, so your point was not that dioxin didn't harm those exposed to it, but
that the harm was something other than cancer.

I'm confused. I thought that Oz said that Agent Orange didn't cause
cancer.



Sorry, that wasn't clear from
the bald statement that dioxin doesn't cause cancer.

Once again, I think that Oz said that "Agent Orange" didn't cause cancer.

Regards


Donal
--

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 07:17:14 -0500, "katysails"
wrote this crap:

http://www1.va.gov/opa/fact/docs/agentorangefs.htm

Agent Orange does cause certain types of cancer and has been linked to other
diseases. It's major component, dioxin, is a carcenoid.

The major components are 2-4-D, (a common weed killer sold at all lawn
and garden stores,) and 2-4-5-T, (a common herbicide sold at all farm
stores.) Dioxin is a trace ingredient, that was included in the
manufacturing process, and was removed after 1968.





I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

Dave wrote:
So you're saying there was no basis for believing they would work?

Of *course* there is, silly. They were sold to the Army for that
purpose. Now, would the U.S. Army buy something that didn't work?

Anyway, if *you* want to throw away proven measures and be a guinea pig,
go ahead. But it makes no sense at all (unless you're profiting by the
sale of the new stuff) to do it on a large scale with our armed forces.

The soldiers signed up to defend the country, not to be test subjects
for new drugs. Or maybe this distinction is a bit blurry to you?

DSK

Dave wrote:
From what I've been able to sift from various sources, conventional
countermeasures work fine if the soldier under attack can manage to get on
his protective gear in 9 seconds

You know, in any realistic scenario, the service member in question will
already be suited up for a long time before exposure. Do you really
think the armed forces stand around with their thumbs testing the wind,
and suddenly, as a shell explodes near them, says "Wow, we better get
our anti-gas stuff ready!"

In case you have to wonder about this, the answer is: NO

In fact, a bigger problem is that by the time actual exposure begins,
the filters are at the end of their life (and while you *can* change the
filters in a Mark V holding your breath, it isn't recommended) and
especially in a hot climate everybody is sick of having their clothing
taped shut and is unbuttoning.

Same goes for armored vehicles BTW.



But hey, don't let the facts interfere with a rollicking rabid rant.

Sorry I interrupted you, then.

DSK

It sounds to me like the Republicans are so desperate to be
in charge that they have to lie through their teeth at every
opportunity.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:14:24 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

It's a disgrace that a US President would act like this.

Right. This is a serious job. Our President's aren't allowed to chide
themselves publicly.

Sounds to me like the Dems have to be really desperate to pretend they're
exercised over a self-deprecating bit performed at an annual dinner where
Presidents typically poke fun at themselves as well as the press.
Apparently
Jerry Nadler didn't even take the precaution of hiding behind the
soldiers'
families who were trotted out dutifully as front men for the Dems'
spinmeisters.

How 'bout it, Jerry, shall we have a decree that no laughing is allowed in
Washington until every American is home from Iraq?


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27