Question on ...
 

On 1/17/14, 12:57 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 12:11 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:20:38 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

In regard to Agent Orange, there may be be doubts as to who exactly was
exposed and what the results may have been, but there is no denying that
the chemical was used, that it was extremely dangerous, and that it
caused horrific damage to hundreds of thousands of people, including
U.S. military personnel. *That* it did so was denied for years, and many
who suffered from its impact received a pittance or nothing for their
problems.


I think the truth is somewhere between what the government says and
what the lawyers allege


Consider all the TV ads we see everyday featuring law firms that chase
claims for Mesothelioma. Heck, the whole ET shop and Radio Shack on
both ships I was on were wrapped in asbestos because the ship's stack
went up through the middle of them. The way the ads are written, they
make it sound like if you were within 100 feet of the stuff you have a
claim.




If it is in the air you breathe, the particles can get down into your
lungs. A lot of the problems plague those who installed and removed the
product...construction workers, shipbuilders, et cetera.

The disease is diagnosable. If you have it, it likely is because of
exposure to asbestosis.

When I was working in West Virginia, the coal companies were still
denying there was a connection between black lung disease and coal
mining. Well, of course.

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/2014 1:33 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 12:25 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:14:24 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


I never experienced the "delights" of a pre-induction physical, but a
few of my contemporaries told me about their experiences in the mid to
late 1960s. They weren't as exciting as Arlo Guthrie's saga in "Alice's
Restaurant," but I do recall them telling me the pre-induction screening
was minimalist in nature.

When I was living in West Virginia, one of my buddies was an Army
captain and physician who was the "doc" who examined potential enlistees
in Cabell County. I recall him telling me of the great numbers of
wannabes he had to turn down because the ravages of the poverty of their
youth kept them from meeting even minimal standards. It was sad, he
said, because the military would have offered them a way out of their
abject poverty and lack of educational opportunities.

You must not have been around during the 'Project 100,000' days.
Funny, being drafted and going
through the 'system', and I've never heard of the 'great numbers'
turned down because of the
'ravages of poverty' keeping them from meeting minimal standards. I
think you were had. Draftees
didn't have to meet very high educational standards. Many could speak
only minimal English.


I don't know what "Project 100,000" was.

Let's run through this again.

My friend, the military doctor examining physician in the area of West
Virginia where I lived for a while told me he turned down great numbers
of potential enlistees because the ravages of poverty kept them from
meeting even minimal standards.

Now, ask yourself, what does an examining *physician* mainly look at
recruits?

He looks mainly at their physical health. As in how healthy are they
physically? Upon observation and examination, do they appear physically
healthy enough for military service? Are there indications of problems
because of the ravages of childhood diseases, poor nutrition, et cetera?
How about their teeth?

Now, surely, if a potential recruit was otherwise acceptable but the doc
picked up on a gross mental or emotional abnormality, that might trigger
a rejection, but the doctor mainly was looking for physical conditions.

His comment about lack of educational opportunities was his way of
plugging what was available to these guys once they were in the
military, in that they certainly had few educational venues back home.
They'd likely end up unemployable or working a miserable job in the
mines or driving a coal truck or pumping gas. In the military, at least,
they might learn skills that would serve them in their futures.

I wasn't talking about "high educational standards" they weren't able to
meet.




What are the "great numbers" that your doctor friend turned away? 10?
100? 1,000?, 10,000?



Interesting statistics regarding the Vietnam era from 1963 to 1973 when
the last person was drafted:


9,087,000 Military personnel served on active duty during the Vietnam
Era. Aug. 5, 1964 - May 7, 1975.

8,744,000 GIs Were on active duty during the war. Aug. 5, 1964 - March
28, 1973

Total draftees (1965-73): 1,728,344.
Those who actually served in Vietnam 38%.

25% (648,500) Of total forces in country were draftees.
Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.

76% Of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class
backgrounds

Three fourths had family incomes above the poverty level; 50% were from
middle income backgrounds.

82% Of Veterans who saw heavy combat strongly believe the war was lost
because of lack of political will.

Nearly 75% Of the public agrees it was a failure of political will not
of arms.

Source: U.S. Government (VA Web Site Stats)

It is interesting to me that most who served during the Vietnam War era
did so voluntarily and were not drafted. I am sure there were many who,
like me, received a draft notice but chose to join a service of choice
instead.

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/14, 2:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 1:33 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 12:25 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:14:24 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


I never experienced the "delights" of a pre-induction physical, but a
few of my contemporaries told me about their experiences in the mid to
late 1960s. They weren't as exciting as Arlo Guthrie's saga in "Alice's
Restaurant," but I do recall them telling me the pre-induction
screening
was minimalist in nature.

When I was living in West Virginia, one of my buddies was an Army
captain and physician who was the "doc" who examined potential
enlistees
in Cabell County. I recall him telling me of the great numbers of
wannabes he had to turn down because the ravages of the poverty of
their
youth kept them from meeting even minimal standards. It was sad, he
said, because the military would have offered them a way out of their
abject poverty and lack of educational opportunities.

You must not have been around during the 'Project 100,000' days.
Funny, being drafted and going
through the 'system', and I've never heard of the 'great numbers'
turned down because of the
'ravages of poverty' keeping them from meeting minimal standards. I
think you were had. Draftees
didn't have to meet very high educational standards. Many could speak
only minimal English.


I don't know what "Project 100,000" was.

Let's run through this again.

My friend, the military doctor examining physician in the area of West
Virginia where I lived for a while told me he turned down great numbers
of potential enlistees because the ravages of poverty kept them from
meeting even minimal standards.

Now, ask yourself, what does an examining *physician* mainly look at
recruits?

He looks mainly at their physical health. As in how healthy are they
physically? Upon observation and examination, do they appear physically
healthy enough for military service? Are there indications of problems
because of the ravages of childhood diseases, poor nutrition, et cetera?
How about their teeth?

Now, surely, if a potential recruit was otherwise acceptable but the doc
picked up on a gross mental or emotional abnormality, that might trigger
a rejection, but the doctor mainly was looking for physical conditions.

His comment about lack of educational opportunities was his way of
plugging what was available to these guys once they were in the
military, in that they certainly had few educational venues back home.
They'd likely end up unemployable or working a miserable job in the
mines or driving a coal truck or pumping gas. In the military, at least,
they might learn skills that would serve them in their futures.

I wasn't talking about "high educational standards" they weren't able to
meet.




What are the "great numbers" that your doctor friend turned away? 10?
100? 1,000?, 10,000?



Interesting statistics regarding the Vietnam era from 1963 to 1973 when
the last person was drafted:


9,087,000 Military personnel served on active duty during the Vietnam
Era. Aug. 5, 1964 - May 7, 1975.

8,744,000 GIs Were on active duty during the war. Aug. 5, 1964 - March
28, 1973

Total draftees (1965-73): 1,728,344.
Those who actually served in Vietnam 38%.

25% (648,500) Of total forces in country were draftees.
Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.

76% Of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class
backgrounds

Three fourths had family incomes above the poverty level; 50% were from
middle income backgrounds.

82% Of Veterans who saw heavy combat strongly believe the war was lost
because of lack of political will.

Nearly 75% Of the public agrees it was a failure of political will not
of arms.

Source: U.S. Government (VA Web Site Stats)

It is interesting to me that most who served during the Vietnam War era
did so voluntarily and were not drafted. I am sure there were many who,
like me, received a draft notice but chose to join a service of choice
instead.





I don't have any recollection of the numbers or percentages he turned
down because of physical problems, other than his telling me the number
was large.

The towns around where I lived were huge pockets of real poverty. It
wasn't surprising to learn there were lots of young men living in them
who had serious problems relating to that poverty,

I suppose you could call "enlisting" after you received a notice to
report for your physical was "voluntary." :)

It has never bothered me that my draft board never contacted me, even
though I made damned sure it always had my current mailing address.

Question on ...
 

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:35:05 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Please. There is much documentation available on how and why Agent
Orange was used. It was chemical warfare. And my reference to landmines
was to our country's willingness to sell them.


By golly, you're right. Agent Orange, although not used to kill people, was used to kill crops
forcing farmers to move to urban areas and not support the NVA or Viet Cong. I would agree that
constitutes a form of 'chemical warfare'.

If we ever have to clear a minefield in Somalia, or elsewhere, I'd rather we clear our mines than
Russian or Chinese. Wouldn't you?

Question on ...
 

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:12:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


From Wikipedia, for your reading enjoyment:

Project 100,000 was initiated by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in October 1966 during American
involvement in the Vietnam War and ended in December 1971.[2] Considered part of Johnson's Great
Society by giving training and opportunity to the uneducated and poor, the recruited men were
classified as "New Standards Men" (or pejoratively the Moron Corps) and had scored in Category IV of
the Armed Forces Qualification Test, which placed them in the 10-30 percentile range.[3] The number
of soldiers reportedly recruited through the program varies, from more than 320,000[3] to 354,000,
which included both volunteers and conscripts (54% to 46%).[2] Although entrance requirements were
loosened, all the Project 100,000 men were sent through the normal training processes with other
recruits, and performance standards were thus the same for everyone.[4]

Project 100,000 soldiers included those unable to speak English, of low aptitude, with physical
impairments, and those who were too short or too tall, among other categories. They also included a
special category - a control group of acceptable soldiers. Each of the different categories was
identified in their official personnel records with a large red letter stamped on the first page of
their enlistment contract. Human resources offices had to prepare reports on them, to be submitted
monthly to Department of the Army. The monthly reports did not include the identity of the
soldiers.[5]

At one time, while serving as a Company Commander in Germany, almost half of my new arrivals would
be those folks. This would make training and maintenance very hard, as most could not read manuals.

When you talk about the medical conditions of all those poor folks which prevented their induction,
I really wonder what medical conditions were in play...black lung disease, cancer, heart conditions?
I don't remember taking an X-ray during my induction physical in Kansas City with about 500 other
kids going through the line. There was certainly no EKG.

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/14, 2:37 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:35:05 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Please. There is much documentation available on how and why Agent
Orange was used. It was chemical warfare. And my reference to landmines
was to our country's willingness to sell them.


By golly, you're right. Agent Orange, although not used to kill people, was used to kill crops
forcing farmers to move to urban areas and not support the NVA or Viet Cong. I would agree that
constitutes a form of 'chemical warfare'.

If we ever have to clear a minefield in Somalia, or elsewhere, I'd rather we clear our mines than
Russian or Chinese. Wouldn't you?


Whatever you wish to call it, it was in fact chemical warfare. As for
the mines, my reference was to selling them. The USA has been a big-time
marketer of land mines. Some 155 countries have signed onto a treaty not
to use land mines. The United States is not a signatory.

A problem with minefields is that those who establish them many times
are not around to clear them.

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/2014 12:45 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:20:38 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/17/14, 11:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 1/17/14, 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You introduced the "point" that "Officialdom" has a history of *grossly*
understating the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary folks and
workers are exposed" .... with no statistics, or proof offered. Your
"point" really has nothing to do with the discussion, but rather an
attempt to slant the flavor of the discussion.




There are tons of examples of instances in which "officialdom" has
grossly understated or misrepresented or hidden the impact of its
actions in areas "environmental." As of two years ago, for example, the
U.S. VA was *still* denying some aspects of the health impact on
airplanes crews of Agent Orange used in Vietnam. Has the military
resolved PTSD cases in favor of those suffering them? If so, how long
has it taken? And in West Virginia, horrific pollution has been taking
place for generations, and public and corporate officialdom there many
times has been in deep denial and is so to this very day. The Gulf of
Mexico rig disaster resulted in the perp corporations lying about the
size of the leaks and their impact, and they are still lying.

Remember TMI? I had a small subcontract from an NRC contractor to do
some copy editing on sections of the recommendations of what to do if it
happened again. The contractor was recommending that people in the area
leave "in an orderly fashion" in directions to avoid wind blowing from a
nuclear site. I kid you not. One of my margin notes said, "What if the
wind changes direction?" Never heard back on that one.


I don't doubt that coverups have happened and reports of impacts under-
reported. I think there's almost always two sides of a story though and
the details have to be sorted out.

Example: The Agent Orange claims by Vietnam vets can be difficult to
determine physically or medically. I've actually been encouraged to
file for benefits simply because I "could" have been exposed even though
I have no physical or medical indications of such. Again, as much as I
hate to admit it, many military claims are bogus, just like many injury
claims resulting from a car accident are bogus.

To those who truly have been injured or affected, they should receive
every financial and/or medical benefit available. But unfortunately too
many jump on the bandwagon in pursuit of benefits they don't qualify for.


In regard to Agent Orange, there may be be doubts as to who exactly was
exposed and what the results may have been, but there is no denying that
the chemical was used, that it was extremely dangerous, and that it
caused horrific damage to hundreds of thousands of people, including
U.S. military personnel. *That* it did so was denied for years, and many
who suffered from its impact received a pittance or nothing for their
problems.

I find it interesting that when *we* use chemical warfare or sell
landmines, it apparently is "ok," but when other nations do it, why,
it's just an abomination.


Agent Orange was never used as a chemical warfare agent. It was used as a land clearing measure. We
sprayed around the Cu Chi base camp to kill the vegetation which the Viet Cong would use to hide in
prior to an attack on the facility.

The only 'landmines' I know that we used were used as a defensive measure around camps or positions.
The most used was the claymore, which was picked up when the unit moved on. I've not heard of the
indiscriminate emplacement of mines by our military since I've been associated therewith.

But, there may have been some of which I'm not aware. Usually, Engineers lay minefields. We had very
strict rules about recording the emplacement of each and every mine, so they could be recovered when
no longer needed.

But, you may know a lot more about US mine laying then I do.

Of course he does. And he has the hearsay and anecdotal evidence to back
him up.

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/14, 2:49 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:12:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


From Wikipedia, for your reading enjoyment:

Project 100,000 was initiated by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in October 1966 during American
involvement in the Vietnam War and ended in December 1971.[2] Considered part of Johnson's Great
Society by giving training and opportunity to the uneducated and poor, the recruited men were
classified as "New Standards Men" (or pejoratively the Moron Corps) and had scored in Category IV of
the Armed Forces Qualification Test, which placed them in the 10-30 percentile range.[3] The number
of soldiers reportedly recruited through the program varies, from more than 320,000[3] to 354,000,
which included both volunteers and conscripts (54% to 46%).[2] Although entrance requirements were
loosened, all the Project 100,000 men were sent through the normal training processes with other
recruits, and performance standards were thus the same for everyone.[4]

Project 100,000 soldiers included those unable to speak English, of low aptitude, with physical
impairments, and those who were too short or too tall, among other categories. They also included a
special category - a control group of acceptable soldiers. Each of the different categories was
identified in their official personnel records with a large red letter stamped on the first page of
their enlistment contract. Human resources offices had to prepare reports on them, to be submitted
monthly to Department of the Army. The monthly reports did not include the identity of the
soldiers.[5]

At one time, while serving as a Company Commander in Germany, almost half of my new arrivals would
be those folks. This would make training and maintenance very hard, as most could not read manuals.

When you talk about the medical conditions of all those poor folks which prevented their induction,
I really wonder what medical conditions were in play...black lung disease, cancer, heart conditions?
I don't remember taking an X-ray during my induction physical in Kansas City with about 500 other
kids going through the line. There was certainly no EKG.



Project 100,000 explains a lot.

I don't know what medical conditions were keeping these kids out, other
than the aftermath of untreated childhood diseases, malnutrition, no
visits to doctors or dentists.

Wasn't the pre-induction physical facility in KC somewhere near Union
Station? Did you ever get a chance to look at the bullet holes on the
exterior of the station? Someone at the paper was always writing a piece
about it and the "massacre."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_massacre

Question on ...
 

On 1/17/2014 2:49 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:12:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


From Wikipedia, for your reading enjoyment:

Project 100,000 was initiated by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in October 1966 during American
involvement in the Vietnam War and ended in December 1971.[2] Considered part of Johnson's Great
Society by giving training and opportunity to the uneducated and poor, the recruited men were
classified as "New Standards Men" (or pejoratively the Moron Corps) and had scored in Category IV of
the Armed Forces Qualification Test, which placed them in the 10-30 percentile range.[3] The number
of soldiers reportedly recruited through the program varies, from more than 320,000[3] to 354,000,
which included both volunteers and conscripts (54% to 46%).[2] Although entrance requirements were
loosened, all the Project 100,000 men were sent through the normal training processes with other
recruits, and performance standards were thus the same for everyone.[4]

Project 100,000 soldiers included those unable to speak English, of low aptitude, with physical
impairments, and those who were too short or too tall, among other categories. They also included a
special category - a control group of acceptable soldiers. Each of the different categories was
identified in their official personnel records with a large red letter stamped on the first page of
their enlistment contract. Human resources offices had to prepare reports on them, to be submitted
monthly to Department of the Army. The monthly reports did not include the identity of the
soldiers.[5]

At one time, while serving as a Company Commander in Germany, almost half of my new arrivals would
be those folks. This would make training and maintenance very hard, as most could not read manuals.

When you talk about the medical conditions of all those poor folks which prevented their induction,
I really wonder what medical conditions were in play...black lung disease, cancer, heart conditions?
I don't remember taking an X-ray during my induction physical in Kansas City with about 500 other
kids going through the line. There was certainly no EKG.



For me, no EKG but they did do X-Rays. I remember a complete dental
exam was done also but any problems didn't result in disqualification.
The Navy dentists (usually just out of dental school and needing
practice) either fixed 'em or pulled 'em. I had resisted having my
wisdom teeth removed before joining. The Navy decided I didn't need
them and out they came.

I don't remember the Project 100,000 thing but I *do* remember having
one guy in my boot camp company who probably was a participant of the
program. He was a true hillbilly and had little knowledge or experience
with the world outside of the small Appalachian community he grew up in.
He could barely read or write and nobody could understand a word he said.
He was well liked but he didn't make it through boot camp.

Question on ...
 

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:53:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/17/14, 2:37 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:35:05 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Please. There is much documentation available on how and why Agent
Orange was used. It was chemical warfare. And my reference to landmines
was to our country's willingness to sell them.


By golly, you're right. Agent Orange, although not used to kill people, was used to kill crops
forcing farmers to move to urban areas and not support the NVA or Viet Cong. I would agree that
constitutes a form of 'chemical warfare'.

If we ever have to clear a minefield in Somalia, or elsewhere, I'd rather we clear our mines than
Russian or Chinese. Wouldn't you?


Whatever you wish to call it, it was in fact chemical warfare.

I believe I used the words 'chemical warfare' to describe it, didn't I?

As for
the mines, my reference was to selling them.

I know. But I'd rather clear mines that *we* sold than those that another country sold.

The USA has been a big-time
marketer of land mines. Some 155 countries have signed onto a treaty not
to use land mines. The United States is not a signatory.

A problem with minefields is that those who establish them many times
are not around to clear them.

Agreed. Clearing them is a bitch, especially if no records were kept and the mines were of
questionable origin. Disarming can be a bitch in that case. Blowing in place becomes the only
alternative. The Viet Cong were geniuses at building their own 'mines' - IEDs which tore up a lot of
tanks, bulldozers, APCs and other vehicles.