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.

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.

On 1/17/14, 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.


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.

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?

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.

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.

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 02:37:38 -0500, wrote:

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

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.

From what I understand the US use of land mines is almost exclusively
in the DMZ between N and S Korea. It is the only way they think 50,000
troops would have a chance of slowing an invasion of foot soldiers.
I doubt it would buy them an hour. By then the NK bodies would be
piled up high enough to blunt the force of the mines and they would
come on down the peninsula

I've been to the DMZ, where our division is located. Don't recall anything about minefields. Also
developed a study simulating an NK attack. I had a very extensive listing of all the offensive and
defensive forces and weapons - no minefields were included.

On 1/18/14, 10:17 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 02:37:38 -0500, wrote:

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

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.

From what I understand the US use of land mines is almost exclusively
in the DMZ between N and S Korea. It is the only way they think 50,000
troops would have a chance of slowing an invasion of foot soldiers.
I doubt it would buy them an hour. By then the NK bodies would be
piled up high enough to blunt the force of the mines and they would
come on down the peninsula

I've been to the DMZ, where our division is located. Don't recall anything about minefields. Also
developed a study simulating an NK attack. I had a very extensive listing of all the offensive and
defensive forces and weapons - no minefields were included.


Infantry: Minding The World's Largest Minefield


January 31, 2009: While landmines are technically "banned" weapons,
there are still plenty in use, and one of the most mined areas is Korea.
The Mine Ban Treaty came into force in 1999, but 42 countries did not
agree to the ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of
antipersonnel mines. Countries who opted out include China, India,
Pakistan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. This includes the
major producers of landmines, as well as many of those still using
landmines.

South Korea has about a million landmines emplaced along the DMZ
(DeMilitarized Zone) between north and south Korea. The U.S. and South
Korea have another two million or so mines in storage, in case North
Korea tries to invade again (as it last did in 1950.) North Korea won't
say how many mines it has planted, but it's probably at least several
hundred thousand.

South Korea has to replace mines as they get too old to still work, and
they are starting to do this with a new generation of command (by wire
or wireless) detonated mines. Many of the more recent mines South Korea
has stockpiled are of the self-destruct (a certain amount of time after
planted) variety. South Korea has been making plans for clearing all the
mines it has planted over the years, largely because it appears that the
communist government of North Korea will collapse soon, eliminating the
need for the DMZ, and all those

http://tinyurl.com/kll4beh


Must be those pesky stealth mines, since our military doesn’t know about
them. Or maybe we just don't know about them because they are South
Korea's mines. What?

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?

I understand our mines triggers, at least for close to 50 years will
degrade and be inert after a not long time. Other countries mines, will
work for a long, long, long time.

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.