USA Image problem?

Legislation is the product of political factors that influence the legislators. Are you proposing that politics equates to science? There has been lots of legislation in the past based on ignorance and bias. At one time it was legal to enslave other humans. At one time there were laws that prohibited women from voting or runing for office. The fact that legislators make a decision on a prticular subject has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

I would not need to forget about anything(as you suggest) to acknowledge that the federal government and the VA in particular provides compensation for veterans exposed to Agent Orange. I have not denied it. I have every reason to know about it as a US veteran of the Vietnam era who has had many dealing with the VA in the past. I receive almost monthly mailings from the VA on various veterans issues.

Probability theory has little to do with it. If you base your probability conclusion on inaccurate data then your conclusion is inaccurate also.
That has been called the GIGO( for garbage in, garbage out) principle.

If you really want to talk about science and not pseudoscience then you should be aware of the basic logical principle that correlation does not imply causation.
By blithely accepting the reverse proposition; that correlation implies causation you have fallen prey to one of the most basic logical fallacies that one must avoid in science if you want your conclusions to be accepted as valid.( Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the latin name)

ps There is a strong correlation between my brushing my teeth in the morning and the sun rising. Every morning I brush my teeth and soon after that the sun rises ergo brushing my teeth causes the sun to rise.
If you keep belaboring the same point ( regarding the VA) I just might decide to skip brushing my teeth tomorrow. Then where will you be.
Better think about it.

 

Well if ever there was a distortion of a topic, this is it... How about we focus on useful discussion about a causative link between Agent Orange and deformation, instead of the philosophical analysis of human reasoning?

Unlike the deformities of the Vietnamese population, the sun has been rising for billions of years... These deformitius are unnatural Grieg, and have only been occuring for 30 years, since the end of the Vietnam war... Now, tell me if you disagree with any of the following points...

- Agent Orange was used in Vietnam as a defoliant
- Agent Orange leaves a Dioxin residue
- Dioxin is toxic to humans
- Dioxin is known to cause skin, muscle and bone complications
- Dioxin is know to cause birth defects in animals
- Dioxin is known to cause at least one birth defect in humans, 'spina bifida'
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunke ... fida1.html
- US Law acknowleges that Dioxin is harmful to humans
- US law provides compensation for Veterans with disabled children, who have been exposed to agent orange
- US law accepts that Agent Orange may cause birth defects
- Many Vietnamese children born since the war suffer birth defects
- Many Vietnamese suffer spina bifida
- Many Vietnamese were exposed to Agent Orange

Surely you agree that the above points are enough to establish a causative link... I am not trying to proove that agent orange causes birth defects, which is what you seem to be confusing my argument for, I am talking about causation. Causation is a necessary element of proof, but it does not consitute it entirely... And as far as it is concerned, any fool could see the link in the facts given above, even if you omit half of them the connection between Agent Orange and deformities is VERY apparent...

Like all matters af legal intepretation, causation is relative to the details of the case, and is often dealt with by the courts as a method of narrowing probabilities down so that something is sufficiently certain... Absolute objective truth is unattainable, but then, that is why absolute objective truth is not required for a causative link to be established... Legal causation merely requires that one demonstrate that something is a reasonably forseeable conseqence of the action in question...

In this case, we are asking whether birth defects are a reasonable forseeable consequence of exposure to Agent Orange... Given the points I have listed above, it seems reasonable forseeable that dumping Agent Orange in such quantites would cause deformities in Vietnamese population, whether or not that is the case... It certainly comes as no suprise... Even though there is no hard scientific proof that Agent Orange causes Birth Defects, the extremely harmful properties of dioxin coupled with its widespread use in Vietnam and the malady suffered thereafter, establishes a causative link ... If you disagree with this please say so...

 

how about birth defects per 100000 in viet nam prior to a orange and then cases per 100000 after a.o..........do we have any data?? of course one problem of these stats would lack of reliable data on defects being reported from rural areas in the 50s and early sixties before it became cause celeb......whereas defects post a.o. are all prolly carefully tabulated given various political activists intrests....is there a ratio given?

 

sinissa, the point is this:

Pictures:

Pictures portray a scene accurately. However, the caption can distort that. Or the scene could be entirely faked. Or we could simply be seeing what we expect to see.

The woman with the gun to her head, for example. Firstly, it is not a war crime anyway, but we'll gloss over that.

1) She might have been involved with the North-Vietnamise in some way, making her an enemy combatant. And therefore somebody who needs closely guarding

2) She might be a random woman who was being terrorised for no reason by US soldiers

3) She might be a random woman who was being terrorised for no good reason by ARVN troops

4) She might be a random woman who was being terrorised for no good reason by North Vietnamise troops using a captured weapon for propaganda purposes

5) She might be an actress who was faking being terrorised by North Vietnamise troops using a captured weapon for propaganda purposes


We need to know a little more about the back-story of the picture before we can say what is going on in it. I am quite sceptical about all of those pictures for the reason that they appear to be on a site that is quite heavy on propaganda (the classic example being the soldier 'laughing' :roll: This is also a good example of the caption distorting the facts of the picture).

Maybe some of them do show US atrocities. However, given that photographic proof exists, and at least one witness (the photographer) I would be amazed if any of them did not result in legal action against the offending soldiers. And this is a point that is often ignored about US 'atrocities' - occaisionally individuals within every army commit atrocities during wartime, because sometimes people just do. The USA does not encourage, permit or condone such actions. When they are suspected, they are rigorously investigated, and when they can be proved to have happened the offending soldiers get into big trouble.


Agent Orange:

Reading the posts above, and from what I know myself, I will say this.

The US sprayed Agent Orange to defoliate jungles, not to cause deformed children.

I am not even convinced that they were entirely aware of just how harmful it would be. Maybe they knew and did it anyway (bad!) maybe they did not (excusable). Given that they were still endorsing the use of DDT on domestic crops within the USA I doubt that they really had much of a clue...


Be that as it may, those who believe that they (or their children) have suffered as a direct result of Agent Orange are able to take it to the American courts, and where they have a strong case they win (or get a healthy cash settlement). Admittedly, that is small comfort, but at least they can do that.

 

Interesting how you dismiss my discussion of logic as irrelevant(which naturally enough includes logical fallacies) and then attempt to use logical
analysis to support your argument.

Your discussion of causation in the legal sense is interesting but has little relevance to causation as it is used in the scientific sense.
That being said let's look at it from a more legalistic viewpoint.
First we need to establish some facts.
Before we can go farther we need to establish a few things.

Firstly you are making the assumption that there has been a significant increase in certian types of birth defects in Vietnam since the war. As majorwoody points out we should first ask; do we have good data to support that assumption? Because if not the argument fails there before it is begun. Have you a source for that data?

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/sto ... 20,00.html

 

I win...49% to 26%..a landslide

 

If you can call this a win of hearts and minds. As you pointed out after the removal of bloody dictator most should be more than happy, not a mesly 49%. It's a far cry from "we'll be greated as liberators".

But then again Bush was outpolled by Satan in AP poll asking who was the biggest villan in 2006:results:
Bush jr. 25%
Osama bin Laden 8%
Saddam Husein 6%
Ahmedinajad 5%
Kim Jong Il 2%
Satan 1%
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scarborough-AP-Villain.wmv

 

I don't find it all that surprising. Infidels are never too warmly received in Muslim countries. Actually considering we are all unbelievers in their eyes I'm surprised the numbers are so high.


I think that poll is unfair to satan , What has he done in 2006 to deserve being included with such a bunch of villains?

 

i just wish bush could get american forces to stop planting car bombs on crowded blvds ...this alone would do alot to improve the us image....

 

I do... Read the part about ""Environmentally Induced Diseases in Children in Asia"" about half way down the page.

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2000/108p ... -full.html

and look at the 2 charts...
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2000/108p ... ertab1.GIF
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2000/108p ... ertab2.GIF

As you can see, birth defects as a percentage of total births rises by at least 3% during and after the vitnam war, essentially it is somewhere between double and triple what it was beforehand... A similar ratio applies to 'reproductive failures', which I assume is abortions and stillborn...

The charts are taken from a published Medical Journal, and the March 12 2007 TIME magazine had small article on Agent Orange and seems to agree about birth defects in Vietnam having risen since the war... As you can see, I'm trying to use the most 'credible' evidence I can find, and so far I have seen no evidence to the contrary whatsoever, even among the less credible sources...

 

Ahh yes. this is pretty much what one would expect. One of the poorest nations in the world (with an authoritatrian government, thus no academic freedom)commissions a study by the Hanoi:National Committee for Investigation of the Chemicals Use during the Vietnam War (10-80 Committee), 2000. Said poor nation would dearly love to receive billions of dollars in "compensation" from the richest nation in the world.
Of course there is no access to the data or to methods and procedures used to collect the data or to analyze it. Instead we are given the conclusions in the form of a table. A not too surprising conclusion for the
National Committee for Investigation of the Chemicals Use during the Vietnam War to reach. Would they dare reach another conclusion?

Keep in mind that we are talking about poor villages that had never seen a doctor in their lives until American military doctors showed up to help treat some of their worst affliction, yet there is data from 1930 onward recording the details of every birth including any adverse outcome. People who have never been inside a hospital and are all born in huts.

No, that isn't science. If we can find some WHO studies or UN studies they might be worth at least considering but this is nothing more than just an assertion by the government of Vietnam that they deserve to be compensated. About as unbiased and scientific as the US atrocity photo gallery posted by sinissa.

We haven't even surmounted the first hurdle yet; determining if there has actually been a significant increase in birth defects in Vietnam.

I won't go over again the "lack of contrary evidence" spiel since it is apparent on it's face that one cannot readily prove a negative proposition.

ps..Having published several articles in medical journals I am familiar with the type citation used and I see no evidence in that list of references that the "study" in question was from a peer reviewed journal.

 

I see, and I suppose all the photographs of deformed vietnamese kids are just midgets in suits...

It may be a Vietnamese study, but it is from a published medical journal; the article I've provided is reproduced from the printed issue... It says at the top of the page it is taken from Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 108, Number 10, October 2000 ... Also, and I quote

I mean, its right there at the top of the page... :roll: How much easier would you like them to make it for you? Surely you admit that its just a bit more credible than your "war crimes" photos...

(sigh) As far as evidence is concerned you're impossible to please Besides, it does not matter what you or I think about the credibility of a source, the question is whether a US, UN or Vietnamese court/parliament/doctor would accept it... That is if the issue of whether the US should pay compensation ever comes up again...

 

There is a significant difference, you see. That article was published in a peer reviewed journal however the study cited was just listed as a reference. It was not submitted to a reputable journal for publication. I wonder why?

What do the photographs of deformed children prove? There are deformed children in every country in the world and there always has been. Are you suggesting that the fact that children are born deformed and they are photographed somehow proves the cause of their deformity?

ps..Impossible to please? hardly. Only one study has been cited and it isn't available for scientific peer review and was conducted by the state controlled committee of the country attempting to receive compensation? Please. :roll:

 

If they stopped droping 1000pound bombs into populated area it would be helpfull

 

The US doesn't carelessly drop bombs on populated areas. Only the most accurate smart bombs are used in areas close to population centers.
Even as we speak US researchers are developing even more accurate, smaller bombs that are accurate to within 6 feet so that collateral damage can be reduced. GBU-39 SDB II small diameter bombs.
Every reasonable effort is made to avoid collateral damage.

 

the us , no doubt dropped 1000 lb bombs in populated areas in ww2 ...even then , we were usually TRYING to hit industrial or military targets ...is this what you are refering to , tiso?...of course we did also late in the war intentionaly fire bomb the wooden cities of japan...

 

I'll take your word for it, I don't know enough about the process of publiciation in a medical journal.

Is the idea that the US should be required to pay compensation by international law so unfair? If not for the health problems that may have been caused by Agent Orange, then by the damage that the defoilant has done to the environment and economy... Consider this

Agent Orange was sprayed up until 1971... The Biological Weapons Convention 1972 was signed by America in 1972... That means that the use of Agent Orange was NOT illegal according to internationl law at the time of use...

However, If it can be proven that American-owned-poisions were responsible for suffering AFTER the Biological Weapons Convention was signed in 1972, then the US may be in breach of international Law, and be required to compensate

Below I have included Article II of the convention

US stocks of Agent Orange were left in vietnam along with many other weapons... The US only now has recently offered to clean up some of these abandoned storage sites. We should assume that the US government retained ownership in these stores, since there is no evidence that the Vietnamese government tried to obtain the defoilant stores for themselves... All Agent Orange left behind at the end of the war was US property; an illegal biological posion (since 1972); and the US had a responsibility to destroy its biological weapons within nine months of the Convention's signature, as per Article II... They did not do so...


Ergo the US may be in breach of international law in regard to all cases of exposure to Agent Orange
- Suffered nine months after the Conventions' signature, and
- Suffered through exposure to the abandoned Stores ONLY, and not due to direct spray (which was stopped in 1971)

Since US law is willing to compensate Vietnam Veterans suffering "agent Orange related disabilities" suffered up until 1975 (read the Act i provided below) the US legally acknowleges that exposure to Agent Orange may have occured after cessation of its use, i.e. through improper storage...

In Summation,
- Agent Orange was kept in Vietnam, it remained US property at least until 1975, and at most indefinately
- The US had a responsibillity to destroy all stores of Agent Orange in their possession, effective from 1972 onwards
- They failed to meet this responsibility, instead they abandoned them
- The stores survive to this day
- The US implicitly acknowleges that exposure to Agent Orange may cause health problems
- The US implicitly acknowleges that exposure to Agent Orange may have occured after cessation of its use
- The US will compensate her Veterans for exposure to Agent Orange

Does it not follow naturally then, that where Vietnamese show symptoms that US statute recognises to be symptoms of Agent Orange, and who can provide evidence of their own contact with Agent Orange after 1972... Then they may have a right to sue in tort for negligence in regard to the American Government's breach of international law... And that the US owed a responsibility to destroy her biological weapons, but failed to do so... And as a consequence they suffer their ailments



TITLE 38 - VETERANS' BENEFITS - 38 USC Sec. 1116
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fast ... 0%20%20%20

UN Biological Weapons Convention
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b50 ... 1e00527e39

 

I decline to make any remarks about freshmen law students as that might be construed improperly as ad hominem

Interesting legal memo you prepared however you have some big hurdles to clear before you can get a hearing much less prevail. The biggest being that herbicides like Agent Orange are not chemical weapons much less biological weapons. The 1972 convention did not deal with chemical weapons BTW. Note this line from the preamble part (prior to art. 1)

Even if it did deal with chemical weapons an herbicide is intended to kill plant life not human life. By your definition the UN could swoop down on Kansas and Nebraska and drag every farmer to the Haque for warcrimes prosecution - genocide against broadleaf weeds.
Heck I'm a war criminal myself being guilty of brutal and unprovoked attacks on crabgrass in my yard. The horror...