SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (20617)6/18/2003 12:34:11 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
The loss of those 50,000 is a national tragedy...the vietnam war is a national shame... Nixon took us off the gold standard in 71...74 was a big downturn in the stock market...drugs became prevalent as a direct result of our involvement in Viet Nam...Our men serving in Vietnam were most often killed by the enemy. Today's servicemen have mostly died due to incompetence, accidents and helicopters dropping out of the sky, although the irate citizens of occupied Iraq are picking off soldiers more frequently...Because of exposure to depleted uranium, many more who serve will succumb to death and disease, for which the govt will deny any correlation.
Depleted Uranium Debated
Maggie Farley
Los Angeles Times
Posted 6/16/2003 8:35:35 PM

June 14, 2003
New York, NY — Some people call depleted-uranium weapons the Army's "silver bullet." Others call them "America's dirty bomb." The Pentagon says that exposure to the munitions causes absolutely no ill health effects, while some Iraqi pediatricians and 1991 Persian Gulf War veterans blame it for causing birth defects and cancer.

At a symposium at the New York Academy of Medicine on Saturday, a group of scientists had differing interpretations on how dangerous exposure to depleted-uranium weapons is. But they all agreed on a few things: Every armed forces member returning from Iraq should be tested for exposure, Iraqi people should be warned of potential contamination and the coalition army should clean up the hazardous mess they left behind.

"There is controversy over the science," said Charles Sheehan-Miles, executive director of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, which organized the gathering. "But if there's a substantial chance that there's a health risk, we have a moral obligation — and perhaps a legal one — to clean it up."

Depleted uranium, a byproduct of the enrichment of uranium, is valued by the military because it slices easily through tanks and provides nearly pierce-proof armor for U.S. tanks and vehicles. Heavier than lead, it not only holds its shape better than any other material, but sharpens itself on impact, instead of breaking up.

"Nobody goes into a war and wants to be even with the enemy," said Col. James Naughton of the Army Materiel Command in a briefing for reporters days before the invasion of Iraq began. "We want to be ahead, and DU gives us that advantage. We can hit, and they can't hit us."

On impact, some of the round turns into aerosol that if inhaled or ingested, the Pentagon has acknowledged, can lead to lung cancer, kidney damage and other health problems. Soldiers who were hit with DU shrapnel in Desert Storm still had elevated uranium levels in their urine and semen a decade later, according to some studies. But the Pentagon insists that no serious medical consequences have been found in the 90 individuals it has tracked from among about 900 who were exposed in the Persian Gulf War.

"We're not seeing any abnormalities in individuals," said Michael E. Kilpatrick of the Pentagon's Deployment Health Support Directorate. "About 20 of these people still have DU in their bodies, but their kidney function is normal. They have fathered some 23 children among them without any birth defects." [VCS Editor's Note: DoD surveyed only about 70 people to make this claim, knowing that up to 1,000 had potentially high levels of exposure.]

And that is where the political battle was joined. Advocates for veterans' health said that internal Department of Defense memos and reports obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that one of the study participants has cancer, and that the Department of Veterans Affairs acknowledged that the study sample was too small to draw any conclusions. One study showed that the Pentagon knew in 1990 that DU had dire health effects that could become a cause for public backlash.

"Following combat, the condition of the battlefield and the long-term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU kinetic energy perpetrators for military applications," a July 1990 Army study read.

The issue of depleted-uranium munitions has become so politicized, it's hard to tell where the science stops and the science fiction begins, said Daniel Fahey, an independent analyst who obtained the study and has made a career of debunking extreme claims on both sides of the issue. "You're not going to resolve this until you do health studies of people who are exposed. We should let science dictate the policy, not politics."

Experts at the United Nations and independent analysts have estimated that 1,100 to 2,200 tons of depleted uranium were used by U.S.-led coalition forces during their attack on Iraq in March and April, but the Pentagon has not yet released an official assessment. The U.S. fired about 320 tons in the 1991 Gulf War, and about 11 tons were used during the 1999 war against Serbia over Kosovo.

Under Saddam Hussein's regime, comprehensive investigations of Iraqi doctors' claims of spikes in birth defects after the Gulf War ended in 1991 were difficult to undertake. Hari Sharma, a retired chemistry professor from the University of Waterloo in Canada, smuggled urine samples out of Iraq in soda bottles, and had to obtain lung tissue samples clandestinely. Now that a new Iraqi government will soon be in place, Sharma and other scientists voiced hope they can start fresh studies in Iraq and the United States on the radioactive and chemical effects of the material on the lungs, kidneys, lymph systems and other organs.

Kilpatrick, the Pentagon health support spokesman, said that all armed forces members will be asked about possible exposure to DU when they return, and that urinalysis will be available for any GIs who ask for it. But possible exposure won't trigger an automatic test and there are no plans for a systematic study, he said.

"The Pentagon is its own worst enemy," said Steve Fetter, vice chairman of the board of the Federation of American Scientists and an expert on nuclear weapons.

"If they collected data, it would probably show relatively low exposures to DU. But because they didn't, it leaves open speculation that DU is responsible for a variety of illnesses."

Fetter and others at the symposium urged mandatory urinalysis — a simple test for elevated uranium levels — for every GI returning from Iraq.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (20617)6/18/2003 12:41:21 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
vvaw.org



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (20617)6/18/2003 12:44:15 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
<<...this country's foreign war record since WW2 is utterly absymal and worthy of deep shame...>>

I totally agree...I have an uncle who fought in VietNam and he is reluctant to discuss it...He thinks Bush & Co. are NOT honest and trustworthy --> they seem to be using 'Enron style management' -- The ends justify the means...This country has a management team trying to justify a war AFTER the fact...How would you feel IF you had a son or a daughter who died in Iraq? Where's the real accountability...?

It's time for the serious investigative journalists to get busy...We need 'a deep throat' to come forward and lets tell the country what really may be going on...It's possible we should impeach Bush and Cheney for manipulating evidence relating to the justifications for the war in Iraq...Lets see if CONgress can really do their job (or will they let politics get in the way of doing what's right for the country..??).

-s2



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (20617)6/18/2003 12:53:58 PM
From: Kip518  Respond to of 89467
 
Finding currency in gold price
Forecast sees looming rally in metal, mining stocks

By Thom Calandra, cbs.marketwatch.com
Last Update: 11:30 AM ET Jun 18, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) - Gold's price is on the verge of staging a powerful summer rally in all currencies, boosting bullion producers and their more risky counterparts, exploration companies.

At a $360 U.S. dollar gold price, the metal, since hitting a February high of almost $390, has disappointed investors the world over. What's more, most gold mining stocks have failed to match their formidable gains of 2002.

That's all about to change. "I think if you look around, all of a sudden, you're seeing more than a few mining stocks hit new highs," said Richard Sacks of Phoenix Advisory Management in Chicago. Sacks is a large shareholder in a number of mining companies, both explorers and producers.

This week's money flow into gold companies has taken large and small companies near their highest values since February 1998. These include the largest, Newmont Mining (NEM), and the smallest, virtually unknown exploration companies such as Radius Explorations (RDU), which trades only in Canada.

On May 28, in subscription service The Calandra Report, I detailed exactly why gold is headed for a stunning summer and autumn rally, one that could double the level of the most widely followed gold index, the so-called XAU (XAU), to 140 or more. Such a gain for mining stocks would go hand in hand with a roughly 20 percent to 25 percent gain in the gold price.

I won't give away the store to non-subscribers of The Calandra Report, but here is how I worked through part of my bullion forecast:

I never read Arthur Conan Doyle as a child. The only room I had for Sherlock Holmes was Basil Rathbone on the boob tube. These days, after spending a lot of the past two years mixing it up with the gold crowd, I have a lot more respect for Holmes and the art of ferreting out plausible scenarios. I'm not talking about conspiracy theories, derivatives, short sales, lawsuits or central banks. I'll leave that, for now, in the capable hands of those with far more insight. My sherlocking has to do with gold and its relationship with currencies. Here's what's been getting under my skin. The spot gold price, since early February, has sunk in dollars. Combined with the strength of the euro, rand, Swiss franc, Aussie dollar and so on, unhedged non-dollar buyers of gold have gotten crushed this spring. So what's going on there? The way I see it -- and I'll state this right up front -- gold's price will soon revisit its pre-February trend of rising against most, if not all, of the world's currencies. But the way I want to take you through this is the same way I got through it: by putting on my Sherlock hat, asking some questions, then throwing my biases (far higher gold, the XAU doubling in the next four months) against a group of people I consider among the best gold thinkers in the business.

Let's start here. I am trying to get a sense of what it takes for a rand buyer of gold, or an Aussie dollar, Canadian dollar, Swiss franc or euro buyer of gold, to do the deed. What goes through those heads on the value proposition of owning gold, either physically or through a closed-end fund or via one of the exchange-traded funds headed our way? After all, I hear so much about the purchasing power of gold, how the benefit of gold is increased purchasing power for those who prefer not to own a given currency, or at least prefer to keep some of their wealth unlinked to a currency. Let's say gold sold for about $380 an ounce on Feb. 5, which it did. (As high as $389 spot). Now, the euro was worth about $1.08 U.S. that day. Someone not living in the United States, someone looking for greater purchasing power, goes out and buys an ounce of gold using, let's say, euros. So that investor has to pay $380 divided by 1.08, or 352 euros. Since then, the euro has kept piling on the gains, to $1.18-plus against the dollar. Gold, alas, has declined to $370 spot on the dollar (that was in late May - it's now $360 an ounce). So now, that investor, shall we call him Watson, sells the ounce of gold, gets $370 worth of American dollars, but that's worth just 313 euros. The European buyer of gold (or anyone not on American shores) lost on the value proposition, right?

This means that gold right now -- at least since early February -- is not rising in all currencies, which is what ordinary folks are told is the sign of a bull market for bullion. (And to be fair, during that span, the gold price was not rising in dollars, either. But the losses for non-dollar buyers of gold have far outpaced those who used dollars for their gold purchases.) So what happens to the euro or Australian dollar or rand buyer of gold? When will a gold purchase give them the greater purchasing power they desire, especially presuming the dollar keeps slipping? (Feel free to substitute the Federal Reserve's dollar index for more of a basket-of-currencies approach to this model.) My answer, simply, is only when gold really makes big moves. The $1.18 euro buyer of gold today pays 313 euros for an ounce, of gold. So let's say six months from now, we get the all-currency gold rally, and an ounce of gold is worth 10 percent more in euros, or about 345 euros an ounce . . . and the euro itself has gained another, let's say, 5 percent against the dollar in that span, to $1.24. Gold then, in that scenario, will have risen in euros and presumably most currencies. A 345-euro price of gold, multiplied by the projected $1.24 worth of a euro, translates into $427 an ounce in U.S. dollars. My point here is that gold must rise everywhere, and not just at Wal-Mart in the states, to make it a true generator of greater purchasing power. In my six-month scenario, another 5 percent drop for the dollar is reasonable, given the state of America's trade gap and government spending deficit. Gold must rise significantly, or at least outpace by a decent margin the dollar decline, for the euro (or Canadian, Australian, Swiss) buyer to have had a "winning" trade.

I think that winning trade is just around the corner, and helping it along will be the North American introduction of new trading vehicles for gold, including a New York Stock Exchange-traded fund (expected in July) that will allow investors ownership of physical gold via a real-time electronic trade. See: Paper gold to spark demand.

The Calandra Report



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (20617)6/18/2003 2:10:29 PM
From: re3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Galbraith's Culture of Contentment might be a good read/re-read now...
amazon.com

at the end, he muses about what might shake things up for america and not in a good way and one of the thoughts was a military situation that didn't work out the way it was intended...