See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Idiocy in D.C., Progress in Baghdad
Source:
www.weeklystandard.com
URL Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte ... icles/000/000/013/416urcoa.asp
Published: Mar 17, 2007
Author: William Kristol
Post Date: 2007-03-17 20:20:21 by BeAChooser
Keywords: None
Views: 3433
Comments: 224
Idiocy in D.C., Progress in Baghdad The surge is working--that's what matters. by William Kristol 03/26/2007, Volume 012, Issue 27 In order to preserve the cosmic harmony, it seems the gods insist that good news in one place be offset by misfortune elsewhere. It may well be that Gen. David Petraeus is going to lead us to victory in Iraq. He is certainly off to a good start. If the karmic price of success in Iraq is utter embarrassment for senior Bush officials in Washington, D.C.--well, in our judgment, the trade-off is worth it. The world will surely note our success or failure in Iraq. It will not long remember the gang that couldn't shoot straight at the Justice Department--or, for that matter, the antics of congressional Democrats--unless either so weakens the administration as to undercut our mission in Iraq. Obviously, it's too early to say anything more definitive than that there are real signs of progress in Baghdad. The cocksure defeatism of war critics of two months ago, when the surge was announced, does seem to have been misplaced. The latest Iraq Update (pdf) by Kimberly Kagan summarizes the early effects of the new strategy backed up by, as yet, just one additional U.S. brigade deployed in theater (with more to be added in the coming weeks): This "rolling surge" focuses forces on a handful of neighborhoods in Baghdad, and attempts to expand security out from those neighborhoods. . . . A big advantage of a "rolling surge" is that the population and the enemy sense the continuous pressure of ever-increasing forces. Iraqis have not seen such a prolonged and continuous planned increase of U.S. forces before. . . . The continued, increasing presence of U.S. forces appears to be having an important psychological, as well as practical, effect on the enemy and the people of Iraq. . . . [Meanwhile] in Ramadi, in the belt south of Baghdad stretching from Yusifiyah to Salman Pak, and northeast in Diyala Province, . . . U.S. and Iraqi forces have deprived al Qaeda of the initiative. This sense of momentum is confirmed by many other reports in the media, and from Americans and Iraqis on the ground. But back in Washington, congressional Democrats are still mired in the fall of 2006 and seem determined to be as irresponsible as ever. They're being beaten back--in part thanks to the fighting spirit of stalwart congressional Republicans. Last week, the Senate defeated a resolution that would have restricted the use of U.S. troops in Iraq and set March 31, 2008, as a target date for removing U.S. forces from combat. On the same day, on a mostly party-line vote, the House Appropriations Committee reported out the Democratic version of a supplemental appropriations bill for the war. It was an odd piece of legislation--an appropriation to fight a war replete with provisions intended to ensure we lose it. Here's what the Democratic legislation does, according to the Washington Post: "Under the House bill, the Iraqi government would have to meet strict benchmarks. . . . If by July 1 the president could not certify any progress, U.S. troops would begin leaving Iraq, to be out before the end of this year. If Bush did certify progress, the Iraqi government would have until Oct. 1 to meet the benchmarks, or troops would begin withdrawing then. In any case, withdrawals would have to begin by March 1, 2008, and conclude by the end of that summer." Got that? Oh yes, in addition to the arbitrary timelines for the removal of troops, there's pork. As the Post explains, "Included in the legislation is a lot of money to help win support. The price tag exceeds the president's war request by $24 billion." Some of the extra money goes to bail out spinach farmers hurt by E. coli, to pay for peanut storage, and to provide additional office space for the lawmakers themselves. So much for an emergency war appropriations bill. The legislation may collapse on the floor of the House this week. It certainly deserves to. Republicans can insist on a clean supplemental--no timelines to reassure the enemy that if they just hang on, we'll be gone before long, and no pork. They can win this fight--and if they do, combined with progress in Iraq, the lasting news from March 2007 will not be Bush administration haplessness; it will be that we are on the way to success in Iraq.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-107) not displayed.
.
.
.
#108. To: Diana, ALL (#89)
Just in case you don't know, Diana is on a kick of misrepresenting what I say (and what she has said).
No, what I said is that Dr Rokke LIED about being a health physicist ... because he and the folks who asked him to speak at various BAN DU meetings thought that would make him more credible to the rubes that attended those meetings. Is that it? Just "never mind" that he lied to folks like you ... about his credentials, about his activities in Iraq, about the claimed death of those he worked with? Funny that not one health physicist ... the folks whose specialty is that topic ... agrees with *Dr* Rokke or you about he dangers posed by DU. Not true. What I posted to FormerLurker about Rokke's Army career has been posted numerous times ... even here at 4um. In contrast, all we have to support his claims about his career in the Army is HIS WORD. The word of a man who has openly LIED about being a "health physicist". One should laugh at anyone gullible enough to still believe Rokke after learning that.
He didn't. He LIED about that. Rokke was a First Lieutenant assigned to the 12th Preventative Medical Detachment of the 330th Medical Brigade prior to and during the war. There were 66 people assigned to the unit; he was the most junior of 14 officers. He didn't originate anything. He LIED about being a health physicist. His degree was in EDUCATION. He lied about 30 of his associates dying from DU.
You only embarrass yourself when you do, Diana. You do that instead of face the fact that you've been deceived by the likes of Rokke, Jones, Roberts ... and the folks at 4um who support their allegations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/340944.stm Sci/Tech As debate intensifies over the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons in the Balkan conflict, a former Pentagon adviser has come out against them. He is Dr Doug Rokke, a US health physicist who led the DU clean-up in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq immediately after the Gulf War. In 1994, Dr Rokke, an Army Reserve captain, was appointed director of the Pentagon's DU project, a job he left in 1997. He helped develop an education and training programme, and conducted tests on DU explosives in the Nevada desert. The Pentagon has confirmed that A-10 aircraft are using DU rounds in the war with Serbia. They are extremely heavy, and are used for their armour-piercing capability. Veterans from the 1991 conflict believe DU, which is both radioactive and toxic, may help to explain the existence of Gulf War Syndrome. Levels of radioactivity They point to reports from southern Iraq of much higher levels of stillbirths, birth defects, leukaemia and other child cancers. And the Rand Corporation says its study of DU "found little documented evidence of adverse effects", from either radiation or toxicity. It points out that DU is much less radioactive than natural uranium. 'Burning dust' But Dr Rokke told BBC News Online it had been mislead by Major Baggio. Dr Rokke says the force of the impact of a DU round converts much of it into a spray of burning uranium dust. "Consequently, we have DU dust which is a radioactive, heavy, metal poison on or within the equipment", and it is scattered up to 25 or 50 metres away. He says anyone who has inhaled or ingested this dust, or who has let it enter a wound, will need immediate medical treatment. A senior officer of the US Defense Nuclear Agency said in 1991 that radiation from fragments and intact DU rounds was "a serious health threat". He said there was "a possible exposure rate of 200 millirems per hour on contact". "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's maximum limit ... is 100 millirems per year." "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12 KJV
You're the one that brought up Rokke, not I. My original post was well sourced material indicating that the DU used in munitions is contaminated with highly radioactive transuranic elements, including plutonium, neptunium, U-239, U-236, and others. My post had nothing to do with Rokke, it is you that used him as a straw man. Additionally, I'm not so sure if your "sources" are credible as much of what you posted is based on anonymous sources, or people that are not speaking officially for the US Army. And BTW, there is no such rank in the Army as a "junior lieutenant", as one of your sources claimed Rokke to be. It is either 2nd lieutenant or 1st lieutenant. So what's all that say about YOU, eh?
Oh, so it's FIRST lieutenant now and not JUNIOR lieutenant, eh? Get your story straight.
They're not the "best" weapons when they poison the people that use them.
The facts do not depend on Dr. Rokke for their validity; the facts are the facts, regardless. And again, I did not even mention Rokke in my original posts on the topic, it is you that pulled him out of your straw hat to divert attention from the facts I had posted.
So you're telling me that there isn't one "health physicist" that finds U-239 and Plutonium to be harmful to human life?
I often wonder if Dr. Rokke is a deliberate plant that is out there making these sorts of statements for the sole purpose of discrediting the facts concerning DU, where disinfo artists such as you can later say, "see, this guy is a liar, so everything he says must be a lie". It might work on those unaware of the level of deception used by people like you, but it doesn't fool those that ARE aware. It simply validates the idea that there is an active campaign in place to discredit any real info on the topic.
In 1994, Dr Rokke, an Army Reserve captain, was appointed director of the Pentagon's DU project, a job he left in 1997. So the BBC reported him to be a health physicist for the US Army having a rank of captain. Well, you'd think the BBC would comfirm that info before reporting it, and if untrue, there would be an official US Army statement rebutting the assertions. Seems like BAC's source that claimed Rokke was a "junior lieutenant" is a bit off.. :)
Here's something for you to ponder BAC.. From Pentagon stance on DU a moving target 4/30/99 Scott Peterson Amid official attempts to nail down 'protection guidelines' for those confronting depleted uranium, Gulf War veterans press for clarity. And the prospect of DU's use in Kosovo raises the stakes. A soldier's boots are often treated with sacred regard, once they carry a warrior safely through combat. But for one US soldier, who volunteered for his Gulf War tour, Mark Panzera, his boots were the first sign that something was very wrong. He was an Army mechanic in the 144th Service and Supply Company of New Jersey, which in 1991 prepared US tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles that had been hit by "friendly fire" for shipment home. This front-line equipment had been inadvertently hit by American gunners shooting radioactive depleted-uranium (DU) bullets at what they thought were Iraqi tanks. For weeks after the mistake, the 144th worked at a salvage site in Saudi Arabia, getting into every corner of every vehicle to recycle equipment, wearing T-shirts and shorts, eating on and sleeping beside the vehicles. Suddenly one morning, Mr. Panzera recalls, before his team began work, two experts arrived looking like astronauts, wearing hooded masks and suits - and carrying radiation detectors. Before the two unexpected visitors approached the vehicles, they first ran their instruments over the awestruck mechanics. Their clothes were contaminated, but Panzera's boots especially set the detectors crackling. The dust left over from the impact of DU bullets hitting the tanks had clung to the cleanup crew. "'You're hot,' they told us, and I asked: 'What do you mean?' " Panzera remembers. "I was angry. Nobody tells you nothing, and the next day you are contaminated." Later, Panzera received an official letter confirming his exposure to DU radiation. He has been seeking government compensation for what he says is DU- related illness. Mixed messages from the top By the Pentagon's own admission, its policy toward use of DU weapons has been inconsistent. Several military and independent reports describe the potential danger of DU particles trapped inside the body, though most deem the overall risk to be "acceptable." Strict federal and military rules govern every aspect of DU use and decontamination. But the Pentagon today calls its own regulations - based on US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidelines, which require masks and suits when dealing with DU contamination - "total overkill." In 1993, a report from the US General Accounting Office, the government's investigative arm, found that Army officials "believe that DU protective means can be ignored during battle." Then, in 1995, all four branches of the US military approved a multimedia DU training kit. In January 1998 it was endorsed as "impressive" by the deputy secretary of defense, John Hamre. The kit, obtained by the Monitor through the Freedom of Information Act, said "the greatest threat is during open-air, live-fire testing. We can call combat a great big open-air, live-fire test." An area hit by DU "remains contaminated, and will not decontaminate itself." The kit was never issued, and it is now under review. "They [the NRC] have their own standards. The military's [standards] are under review," says Bernard Rostker, the Pentagon's special assistant for Gulf War illnesses. He first raised doubts publicly only last August. He said the "extremely restrictive" NRC rules are "poorly suited" to war, and "need to be rewritten." Reasons for backing DU Critics say the Pentagon has reasons for its apparent downgrading of DU dangers: The bullet pierces enemy armor like no other, it's cheap, and any confirmed link with health problems could trigger a flood of compensation and reparations claims. And the cost of cleaning up DU residue in the Gulf would be prohibitive, as well. The price tag for removing 152,000 pounds of DU in the now-closed, 500- acre Jefferson Proving Ground in Indiana has been estimated to be $4 billion to $5 billion. More than four times that amount of DU was spread during the Gulf War, over a significantly larger area. "The government is institutionally incapable of telling the truth on this matter," says Bill Arkin, a former military intelligence analyst and columnist for The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. His analysis: DU is too troublesome for the Pentagon to keep in its arsenal. In January 1998, Rostker reported that "failure" to alert troops to DU hazards "may have resulted in thousands of unnecessary exposures," but said those exposures "had not produced any medically detectable effects." Angry veterans say that DU could be a reason that an estimated 1 in 7 of them report a set of symptoms known as Gulf War Syndrome, and have pushed their case on Capitol Hill. They estimate that hundreds of thousands of troops were exposed to DU during the fighting or on post-battle tours of the front line. Climbing on destroyed Iraqi tanks was a favorite activity, along with collecting war souvenirs. Among other sources, the veterans point to a 1990 report commissioned by the US Army that links DU to cancer and also makes clear that "there is no dose so low that the probability of effect is zero." They also remember Pentagon reluctance to divulge health hazards in the Vietnam War. "This [DU] is the Agent Orange of the 1990s - absolutely," says Doug Rokke, a former Army health physicist who was part of the DU assessment team in the Gulf War, and DU project director for the training package. Underscoring the official inconsistencies, Sen. Russell Feingold (D) of Wisconsin said in September that the Pentagon's "assertion that no Gulf War veterans could be ill from exposure to DU ... contradicts numerous pre- and postwar reports, some from the US Army itself." As much politics as science In a sign of the Pentagon's own confusion, Rostker told a White House oversight panel last November that he was "misguided" to issue so strong a statement - that ruled out DU as a cause of Gulf War Syndrome - in an August report. "I stand corrected," he stated. The problem seems as political as it is scientific: "Misinformation disseminated by both the Iraqi government and the US Department of Defense has made analysis of DU impacts difficult," notes Dan Fahey, Gulf War veteran and author of an extensive DU report for veterans' groups published last year. Protection guidelines for handling DU are as difficult to establish as a single speed limit for every American road, says Ron Kathren, director of the US Transuranium and Uranium Registries in Richland, Wash. But NRC guidelines "are in fact adequate" for DU, he says, and "if they are 'overkill,' that's OK, too. I'd rather err on the side of safety." Col. Eric Daxon, a senior Pentagon radiation expert with the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, said in an interview that the military needs to come up with its own "acceptable risks" of DU, compared to the other threats of combat. Protecting soldiers from DU can also put them at risk during battle, he said. Gas masks and suits can overheat a soldier and impair vision. The goal today is to keep exposures "as low as reasonably achievable," he adds. "Reducing the total risk ... of getting shot, of getting wounded, of getting long-term cancers" is the new aim, he says. "We are really trying to balance all of those things." As the Pentagon now weighs the use of DU munitions in NATO's war against Yugoslavia, the debate about the risks of DU is certain to escalate. "I think we have been inconsistent," says the Pentagon's Rostker in the interview. "We published a standard ... that is inconsistent with the hazards of DU." Disillusioned As those arguments continue, Panzera has had several operations and health problems that he attributes to his DU exposure. Worried about taking contamination home before he left the Gulf, Panzera cut holes in his uniform and exchanged it for a new one. He left his soldier's boots "in the middle of the desert." "I guess they are waiting until half of us are dead before they give in," he says, echoing the view of many US veterans whose patriotism has long since given way to cynicism. "My volunteering days are over."
He LIED about being a health physicist. His degree was in EDUCATION. Rokke was an officer, correct? How did he get to be an officer, BAC - did he pin badges on his chest all by his own lonesome? You know I looked up more info about the hallowed profession of health physicists that you refer to and by golly I discovered that the biggest and best paying employers of this particular profession are government ( Department of Defense)and national laboratories, as well as government contractors. Now if I'm not mistaken that presents a bit of a conflict for the profession - ie. biting the hands that feed them. http://hps.org/docume nts/2006_hps_salary_survey.pdf Also, "If you desire national recognition as a health physics professional, you may seek certification at either of two educational and experience levels. Certification may be obtained from the American Board of Health Physics (ABHP) and, for technicians, through the National Registry of Radiation Protection Technologists (NRRPT)." http://hps.org/publicinfo rmation/hpcareers.html Major Rokke may not have received official accreditation but experiencially he was a health physicist based on his employment with the US military and likely could have been accredited if he chose to pursue it. Btw, I checked into Rokke's official military records - he has them posted on various sites - and as of 86/06/05 under the "Principal Duty" column, the US Military refers to him as NUC Med Sc Off and then on 91/03/25 he is referred to as "Theatre Health Physicist" and as of 92/09/15 he was referred to as EXECUTIVE OFFICER and as of 94/08/01 he is referred to as Project Director ( USACMLS) and from 95/11/30 to 98/11/20 he is referred to again as NUC MED SCIENCE OFF. So go figure Dr. Rokke must have been held in high regard by the US Military - he got promotions. Also I read an official letter of introduction of 1LT Rokke to CPT's Armstrong, Brannon and Carter dated 12 Dec 90 and the letter seems to be quite flattering about specifically "the technical expertise" of 1 LT. Rokke, a 68B with the 12th PVNTMED. Once again - go figure - the US Military evidently didn't believe Dr. Rokke was a "liar" BAC as you are in the habit of referring to him, and of yes, in the same breath you pretend "to support our troops." HAHAHA - Mr. ooozer ( it is Mister, yes? not 1st lieutenant or any other military designation, yes?)- anyways MISTER BAC, you have a strange way of showing support for our military when you name call one of them "liar." Nice. P.S. Rokke's PhD thesis is entitled "Perceived Physics Concepts needed to teach Secondary Technology Education as General Education" - his thesis was over 350 pages long - I guess Rokke can't be too stupid about physics concepts. And your PhD, BAC, is in what field?
You're really stretching it. I was defending the credibility of scientists you were attempting to riducule, kind of like you do with DU and "health physicists". That's kind of different than talking about bombs, as my technical knowledge in that area is not very good, that's why that topic skips over my head. It's like accusing me of talking in Chinese about something when I don't speak Chinese. Defending scientists is different than talking about bombs, though I suspect you already know that.
Are you serious?
You know Diana ... I really am trying to be civil with you. But you are making that hard. I was only kidding about you being a David Ickes lizard person, but sometimes you make it hard to be civil when you are so rude.
Everyone. Nazi Germany would have been destroyed regardless, and the Soviet Union would not have become strengthened, and millions of Eastern Europeans, Baltics peoples and additional Russians would not have died. IMO. Japan would have imploded in time as well.
Where'd he gooooooooooooo
diana: Everyone. Nazi Germany would have been destroyed regardless, and the Soviet Union would not have become strengthened, and millions of Eastern Europeans, Baltics peoples and additional Russians would not have died. IMO. Japan would have imploded in time as well. Exactly, diana. Thanks for pitching in - I had lost track of BAC challenging me on this. Russia lost 17-20 Million soldiers ( prodded onwards by the NKVD) fighting the Germans. In the course of battles, Russia ended up destroying 3/4 of the German ground forces. We stepped in after Hitler made his strategic error - Hitler's defeat was determined as soon as he decided to attack Russia. The Brits survived the Battle of Britain. The Brits were winning on the African front. America came in for clean up duty and to fight the Japanese. We lost approx. 300,000 men in WW II. Britain lost 600,000. Russia lost 17-20 Million. Can you imagine such numbers of losses? There's no doubt that Stalin and his communist government would have fallen right after the Russian-Eastern European fighters changed their focus from defeating the Germans to bringing down Uncle Joe and hanging him in Red Square along with his NKVD officers. Churchill and FDR gave communism an extension on life. Nothing much is written about the Eastern European lives that were condemned to servitude under communism generally or immediate death in the Soviet gulag camps. Oh well...
ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Doug Rokke is NOT a health physicist. His claim that he was is a LIE. As is most everything he told your source, robin. But I guess since you bozo'd yourself, you shall remain clueless. And now you want Diana to join you in that state.
finally! a thread that allows you to show off your expertise. you are a genius BAC. Everything you say is right. I read everything you write. thank-you BAC.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
See information in my message #121. Btw, I checked into Rokke's official military records - he has them posted on various sites - and as of 86/06/05 under the "Principal Duty" column, the US Military refers to him as NUC Med Sc Off and then on 91/03/25 he is referred to as "Theatre Health Physicist" and as of 92/09/15 he was referred to as EXECUTIVE OFFICER and as of 94/08/01 he is referred to as Project Director ( USACMLS) and from 95/11/30 to 98/11/20 he is referred to again as NUC MED SCIENCE OFF. So go figure Dr. Rokke must have been held in high regard by the US Military - he got promotions. Also I read an official letter of introduction of 1LT Rokke to CPT's Armstrong, Brannon and Carter dated 12 Dec 90 and the letter seems to be quite flattering about specifically "the technical expertise" of 1 LT. Rokke, a 68B with the 12th PVNTMED.
Yet you've tried to defend him, even having been previously posted everything I've posted on this thread about him ... and more. That leads me to suspect the veracity of any source you might offer. If you'd have at least acknowledged that your first source, Rokke, was a liar about his credentials and other claims, we might be able to begin a rational discussion. But a rational discussion to find the truth about any subject cannot be built on a foundation of lies and misinformation. That's what I've been trying to tell you 4umers. False. The sources I've offered who have made statements about Rokke have been named. HON FRANK HOUGH called him a "junior lieutenant". But the official reply from the US government he read before insulting Rokke in that way said he was a FIRST Lieutenant and the JUNIOR OFFICER of the 14 officers in the unit. And ALL you have to support his claim he was anything else is HIS WORD ... the word of a man who LIED about his education ... his credentials.
Yet on DU site after site, we find Dr Rokke being prominently quoted as an expert. Yet, clearly Dr Rokke has lied about his credentials and anyone doing even a modest internet search will discover this. So why don't those sites correct the misinformation and stop using him as an expert? Because the truth doesn't matter to them. Only the agenda. And the facts aren't the facts they cite. Otherwise there'd be a few REAL health physicists to support their claims.
I haven't said or implied that at all. Strawman. Is that all your side of this debate has? That and running being a bozo filter ...
Logic of last resort ...
Doug Rokke has a PhD in health physics and was originally trained as a forensic scientist. When the Gulf War started, he was assigned to prepare soldiers to respond to nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare, and sent to the Gulf. What he experienced has made him a passionate voice for peace, travelling the country to speak out. The following interview was conducted by the director of the Traprock Peace Center, Sunny Miller, supplemented with questions from YES! editors All right, asshole; show us that Rokke is anything else, than advertised - or is this another of your famous LIES?
Guess they didn't. Wouldn't be the first time the mainstream media got it wrong. ************ From another Australian Government Document HON FRANK HOUGH (Agricultural) [4.44 pm]: On Wednesday night I asked Hon Dee Margetts for an apology for the rubbish she released around Lancelin about Dr Rokke and depleted uranium. Hon Dee Margetts put out a brochure that states - It went on to say that - It also says that Dr Rokke was a former head of the Pentagon etc. On the other page it states - Hon Dee Margetts: I did not say he was a former head of the Pentagon. Hon FRANK HOUGH: The brochure states - Hon Dee Margetts: Right! Thank you! I did not say - Hon FRANK HOUGH: The member should not get so excited. In the brochure it states that Dee Margetts - It then refers to the recent visit and the sea swap trial. The Greens (WA) have an apparent hatred for the American Navy, farmers, miners and small business. I would like to get to the bottom of it and the matter of the member’s friend, Dr Rokke, the expert. As the honourable member says in the uncorrected proof of Hansard of 13 August - In Dr Rokke’s address on depleted uranium in the The San Francisco Times he states - He goes on about destroying uranium and states - Who is Dr Rokke? We find out that Dr Rokke is a schoolteacher. A letter to me from the Consul General of the United States, Oscar De Soto - sounds like the name of a motor car - states - The people of Lancelin are very upset about what is going on. The honourable member has raced into Lancelin and the bullpen, thrown in a red rag, and run like buggery. I am left to sort it out with the residents in my home town, who are worried about the depleted uranium etc. Let us go on about Dr Rokke and his boss. Who is his boss? It is Robert Cherry, PhD, certified health physicist, and a retired US Army colonel. What does he say about Dr Rokke? In a letter of his to The Age he states - It could have been Dr Joke - Dr Rokke had been saying how sad it was that he had lost friends in Desert Storm, but apparently they are all alive and well! The letter continues - There is a letter from another boss to the editor, which reads - ************* Too bad robin will remain clueless about the above...
By all means, link us to those records he's supposedly posted. By all means.
But I do that to support a position on the topic being discussed. You mean to say you don't have a position on the topic being discussed? You just join in to defend the credibility of the scientists? Why don't you do that with structural engineers when RickyJ calls them ALL morons?
Who would have destroyed Nazi Germany, Diana? Because of what?
So go figure Dr. Rokke must have been held in high regard by the US Military - he got promotions. Also I read an official letter of introduction of 1LT Rokke to CPT's Armstrong, Brannon and Carter dated 12 Dec 90 and the letter seems to be quite flattering about specifically "the technical expertise" of 1 LT. Rokke, a 68B with the 12th PVNTMED. very good Smear tactics are all that's left, the facts are plain.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12 KJV
BAC - you asshole - you consistently cherry-pick out-of-context statements to "allude" to the possibility that the facts might not be the facts; then leap as though you actually discovered something. The rest of the world knows Rokke's credentials - YOU prove otherwise - as in factual evidence, not in terms of, "Can you prove your wife isn't cheating on you?" You're a total fuck-head, BAC!
After the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4508901.stm ): (1) unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union, (2) the large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement, and (3) the success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy. Consider this. During the war the US supplied the Soviets with 450,000 lorries. And that's just one category of support. "After the collapse of the Soviet system, Russian historians were able to look into the archival files and total up the real figures. One study, by M.N. Suprin, calculates the caloric content of Lend-Lease foodstuffs sent to the USSR, divides the total by the caloric needs of the Red Army and arrives at a stunning conclusion: "The foodstuffs provided by Lend-Lease to the USSR would have sufficed to feed an army of ten million men for 1,688 days, that is, for the course of the entire war." Another study, by Boris Sokolov, which translates as THE TRUTH ABOUT THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR, estimates that the US supplied 92.7% of the USSR's railroad equipment, including locomotives and rails, and from 15% to 90% of production in all other categories. Weeks, who reads Russian, surveys these recent studies and cites them to show that Lend-Lease was indeed "Russia's Life-Saver." (http://www.amazon.com/Russias-Life-Saver-Lend-Lease-U-S-S-R-World/dp/0739107364 ) "Bombing diverted a lot of manpower and military equipment from the front in Russia, while it restricted the expansion of the German war economy." To suggest they, on their own, could have beaten Nazi Germany is highly optimistic. Especially since in technology, Germany was far ahead of the Soviets. A time would have come when that advantage in technology was decisive. The reality is that Britain is a island, and it was completely dependent on the US help to provide the materials needed to battle the Axis and to get those materials to the island. Without the US taking sides to make sure that materials were available and arrived, Britain would have been starved out in no time. Prior to our entry in the war, the US provided huge quantities of arms and other materials. The US turned over destroyers to Britain to fight the submarine menance. US ships were involved in prewar shooting incidents to protect the British supply line. The ONLY thing keeping Britain afloat was US assistance. Had we sued for peace, the Axis would have starved them out and eventually unleashed weapons that were far ahead of everyone else on them. The Second Battle of Britain would have been a far different engagement. ROTFLOL! There you have it folks ... scrapper's view of our role in WW2. But we weren't going to fight the Japanese. Under your presidency, we were going to apologize to Japan after they attacked Pearl Harbor (after all, we forced them to do it) and sue for peace to avoid hundreds of thousands of dead and the economic costs of fighting such a war. The media would make sure of it. Right?
Provide links to what you CLAIM.
robin ... listening to only one side of a debate yet thinking she has the whole story. ROTFLOL! Say robin ... be sure to ask scrapper to a link for what he CLAIMS.
BAC, do your own research. I did my research to satisfy my own curiosity. It doesn't take much finger power, BAC. For instance, I found these directions/options right off wikipedia. Go from here, BAC. Tah tah. "Rokke's actual military records and doctoral thesis have been posted to theveteran2@yahoogroups.com and teachnonviolence@yahoogroups.com. Anyone can also request the military records using the Standard Form 180 and the process detailed at the Department of Veterans Affairs website http://www.archives.gov/veterans/military-service-records/. This site gives instructions to submit a SF 180 - Request Pertaining to Military Records. Rokke's doctoral thesis is available in the University of Illinois Library at Champaign-Urbana." I don't have Dr. Rokke's permission to post links to the pdfs in their entirety. But you can read the identical formal documents I read by following the instructions given in wikipedia...that is, if you want to learn the truth. I suspect you'd rather keep to the smear-untruths posted on the web per weekly standard/newsmax military desk jockey warriors. Weren't you blubbering all over yourself a day ago telling Hammerdown how much you respected his son for serving in the military? But somehow you find it soooo easy to diminish the service of Dr. Rokke, who also served in the military - and why is that BAC? You respect only some military but not all military or you respect military all except whose last name begins with "R" or maybe you respect military only if they don't speak out against the instances when the DOD knowingly puts soldiers' health at risk re: DU exposure? What are your exceptions to the rule for "respect" you show the US military? Btw, I'm not sure if you read this article - some cut and paste: http://ww w.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/17/1050172706047.html "Scientists reject line on depleted uranium April 19 2003 By Paul Brown London Hundreds of tonnes of depleted uranium used by Britain and the US in Iraq should be removed to protect the civilian population, the Royal Society - Britain's premier scientific institution - says, contradicting Pentagon claims it is not necessary. The society's statement fuels the controversy over the use of depleted uranium, which is an effective tank destroyer and bunker-buster but is believed by many scientists to cause cancers and other severe illnesses. The society was incensed because the Pentagon had claimed it had the backing of the society in saying depleted uranium was not dangerous. In fact, the society said, both soldiers and civilians were in short and long- term danger. Depleted uranium is left over after uranium is enriched for use in nuclear reactors and after reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Thousands of tonnes of it are stored in the US and Britain. Because it is effectively free and 20 per cent heavier than steel, the military experimented with it and discovered it could penetrate steel and concrete much more easily than convential weapons. It was adopted as a standard weapon in the first Gulf War despite its radioactive content and toxic effects. It was used again in the Balkans and Afghanistan by the US. Depleted uranium has been suspected by many campaigners of causing the unexplained cancers among Iraqis, particularly children, since the previous Gulf War. Chemicals released in the atmosphere during bombing could equally be to blame. The UN Environment Program has been tracking the use of depleted uranium in the Balkans and found it leaching into the water table. It has recommended the decontamination of buildings where depleted uranium dust is present. Professor Brian Spratt, chairman of the Royal Society working group on depleted uranium, said a recent study by the society had found that the soil around the impact sites of depleted uranium penetrators might be heavily contaminated. "We recommend that fragments of depleted uranium penetrators should be removed, and areas of contamination should be identified and, where necessary, made safe," he said.
'you folks' who? what polls? only polls on this thread are sited by you, cheerleading enabler.
"Why not. Lies are all you folks have been grasping at all along."
since when was the topic of this thread DU and Doug Rokke? Says someone who accepts the lies when it comes to bombs in the WTC, no Flight 77, John Hopkins' claiming 655,000 Iraqi dead and DU is the scourge of the millennium. yeah, just couldn't help yourself, right?
Comments (149 - 224) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Just in case you don't know, BAC is on this kick that only "health physicists" are capable of knowing the effects of DU on humans.
#109. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#90)
He's trying to say that Dr. Rokke is not a health physicist, so that makes anything that Dr. Rokke says less than credible.
Regardless of Dr. Rokke's background,
it doesn't change the fact that DU is in itself a radioactive material that can inflict DNA and celluar damage if inhaled, along with various other insidious effects due to its chemical toxicity.
As far as Dr. Rokke, BAC has never demonstrated that he did NOT serve as a health physicist for the US Army.
#110. To: hammerdown, Diana, ALL (#91)
He was good enough for the U.S.Army to originate their decontamination procedure
#111. To: Diana, ALL (#94)
He's like a 3 year old in that he thinks he can get away with his lies and distortions which are very obvious to all.
He gets angry when I point that out which I do from time to time.
#112. To: Diana (#95)
Pentagon's man in uranium warning
A-10 tankbuster: They are now firing DU weapons over Kosovo
By Environment Correspondent Alex Kirby 
But Nato says DU is no more dangerous than any other heavy metal. Its spokesman, Major Dan Baggio, says a DU round contained about as much uranium as would go into "a glow-in-the-dark type of watch". ![[ image: DU munitions are
highly effective armour penetrators]](/olmedia/340000/images/_340944_tank.jpg)
DU munitions are highly effective armour penetrators
He believes that Pentagon officials have made "a political decision and are totally unwilling to recognise that there are health consequences of the use of DU". ![[ image: What sort of
Kosovo will the refugees return to?]](/olmedia/340000/images/_340944_people.jpg)
What sort of Kosovo will the refugees return to?
#113. To: BeAChooser (#106)
What does that say about you?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#114. To: BeAChooser (#110)
Rokke was a First Lieutenant assigned to the 12th Preventative Medical Detachment of the 330th Medical Brigade prior to and during the war.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#115. To: BeAChooser (#106)
Rokke's stated purpose is to get the U.S. to stop using some of our best field weapons that employ DU projectiles.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#116. To: BeAChooser (#109)
Is that it? Just "never mind" that he lied to folks like you ... about his credentials, about his activities in Iraq, about the claimed death of those he worked with?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#117. To: BeAChooser (#109)
Funny that not one health physicist ... the folks whose specialty is that topic ... agrees with *Dr* Rokke or you about he dangers posed by DU.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#118. To: BeAChooser (#109)
No, what I said is that Dr Rokke LIED about being a health physicist ... because he and the folks who asked him to speak at various BAN DU meetings thought that would make him more credible to the rubes that attended those meetings.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#119. To: robin, BeAChooser (#112)
He is Dr Doug Rokke, a US health physicist who led the DU clean-up in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq immediately after the Gulf War.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#120. To: BeAChooser, robin, Diana (#111)
Christian Science Monitor Pentagon stance on DU a moving target
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#121. To: BeAChooser, robin, diana, SKYWALKER, HOUNDDAWG, former lurker (#110)
(Edited)
he was the most junior of 14 officers
#122. To: BeAChooser (#97)
Diana to BeAChooser in response to that statement - Of course they don't, they don't want to lose their funding!
#123. To: BeAChooser, hammerdown, All (#98)
Why not. Polls are all you folks have been grasping at all along.
#124. To: BeAChooser (#102)
maybe he is one of those lizard people David Ickes talks about.
#125. To: BeAChooser (#103)
And I'm curious. If we'd not gotten involved in WW2, who do you two think would have walked away the big winners?
#126. To: BeAChooser, All (#125)
#127. To: Diana, BeAChooser (#125)
BeAChooser: And I'm curious. If we'd not gotten involved in WW2, who do you two think would have walked away the big winners?
#128. To: robin, Diana, ALL (#112)
He is Dr Doug Rokke, a US health physicist
#129. To: BeAChooser (#128)
Idiocy
#130. To: BeAChooser, robin, diana (#128)
ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Doug Rokke is NOT a health physicist. His claim that he was is a LIE. As is most everything he told your source, robin.
#131. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#113)
You're the one that brought up Rokke, not I.
I'm not so sure if your "sources" are credible as much of what you posted is based on anonymous sources
And BTW, there is no such rank in the Army as a "junior lieutenant", as one of your sources claimed Rokke to be. It is either 2nd lieutenant or 1st lieutenant.
#132. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#116)
The facts do not depend on Dr. Rokke for their validity; the facts are the facts, regardless.
#133. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#117)
So you're telling me that there isn't one "health physicist" that finds U-239 and Plutonium to be harmful to human life?
#134. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#118)
I often wonder if Dr. Rokke is a deliberate plant
#135. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#128)
#136. To: FormerLurker, robin, ALL (#119)
So the BBC reported him to be a health physicist for the US Army having a rank of captain. Well, you'd think the BBC would comfirm that info before reporting it,
and if untrue, there would be an official US Army statement rebutting the assertions.
Dr Rokke, a US expert on DEPLETED uranium . . . spoke to a meeting of concerned residents . . .
. . . the US was planning much more intensive use of the Lancelin Range.
Dr Rokke was a major in the US Army and former head of the Pentagon’s Depleted Uranium Project -
. . . has expressed her condemnation in the strongest terms . . .
. . . I will first point out that I have sighted Dr Rokke’s citations and can only assume that the member who has just spoken has not. . . . Unfortunately, the United States military has no record of cleaning up its mess . . .
. . . I was the U.S. Army health physicist assigned to the 12th Preventative Medicine AM theatre command staff . . .
I immediately contacted unit and the theatre medical command staff to recommend medical care for all exposed individuals.
. . . Dr Rokke has made exaggerated and untrue claims during his visit to Australia. Dr Rokke has exaggerated his background. He is not, and never has been “the foremost U.S. military expert on DU,” as he was described in the . . . Canberra Times. He is not a medical doctor. His Ph.D. is in education.
Dr Rokke apparently misled you on several points as you prepared your article.
He was never a US military researcher.
He was never a scientific expert on depleted uranium, much less the Pentagon’s senior expert.
While I cannot tell you why he was sacked (US Privacy Act), I can tell it was not for his “public views.” His first presented these views only after he lost his job.
Scientists are not divided and much pertinent research has been done to show that Rokke’s allegations about the DU’s health effects are false.
Damaged vehicles were left behind and buried because their recovery was uneconomical, not because they were “too dangerous to move.”
He was not recalled to head a “depleted uranium project in Nevada.” He inserted himself, but the US Department of Energy only allowed him there as an observer.
In the past he has named friends he has “lost” who are still very much alive and well.
While uranium can cause harm internally, it must exceed a threshold well above natural levels. Rokke and soldiers in the Gulf War never exceeded that threshold except for friendly fire survivors. Those survivors have never shown ill health attributable to uranium still in their bodies.
Robert Cherry, Ph.D.
Certified Health Physicist. You reporter. . . has just published . . . an article on Doug Rokke, with the highest count of errors per paragraph ever recorded to my knowledge. It is embarrassing to read such tripe knowing Doug Rokke so well and experiencing the ease with which even a cub reporter on a high school paper could trip him up. In a nutshell, not one of his “facts” could be verified if you even bothered a perfunctory check. I was his supervisor at Fort McClellan, AL where he was called to duty to work under me while I was the Director of the Bradley Radiation Laboratories at the U.S. Army Chemical School. It would take too much space to detail the lies he told your reporter, but here is a minuscule sample: he is not a Health Physicist, he was not “put in charge” of anything, he did NOT loose his job from speaking out: that came later, . . .
Disappointedly, Ed L. Battle, PhD (in Physics, not education like Dr. Rokke’s), COL, USAF (Ret)
#137. To: scrapper2, ALL (#121)
Btw, I checked into Rokke's official military records - he has them posted on various sites - and as of 86/06/05 under the "Principal Duty" column, the US Military refers to him as NUC Med Sc Off and then on 91/03/25 he is referred to as "Theatre Health Physicist" and as of 92/09/15 he was referred to as EXECUTIVE OFFICER and as of 94/08/01 he is referred to as Project Director ( USACMLS) and from 95/11/30 to 98/11/20 he is referred to again as NUC MED SCIENCE OFF.
#138. To: Diana, ALL (#122)
I was defending the credibility of scientists you were attempting to riducule, kind of like you do with DU and "health physicists".
#139. To: Diana, ALL (#125)
"And I'm curious. If we'd not gotten involved in WW2, who do you two think would have walked away the big winners?"
Everyone.
Nazi Germany would have been destroyed regardless, and the Soviet Union would not have become strengthened
Japan would have imploded in time as well.
#140. To: scrapper2 (#130)
Btw, I checked into Rokke's official military records - he has them posted on various sites - and as of 86/06/05 under the "Principal Duty" column, the US Military refers to him as NUC Med Sc Off and then on 91/03/25 he is referred to as "Theatre Health Physicist" and as of 92/09/15 he was referred to as EXECUTIVE OFFICER and as of 94/08/01 he is referred to as Project Director ( USACMLS) and from 95/11/30 to 98/11/20 he is referred to again as NUC MED SCIENCE OFF.
#141. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#136)
#142. To: scrapper2, Diana, ALL (#127)
Russia lost 17-20 Million soldiers ( prodded onwards by the NKVD) fighting the Germans. In the course of battles, Russia ended up destroying 3/4 of the German ground forces. We stepped in after Hitler made his strategic error - Hitler's defeat was determined as soon as he decided to attack Russia.
The Brits survived the Battle of Britain. The Brits were winning on the African front.
America came in for clean up duty
and to fight the Japanese.
#143. To: scrapper2, ALL (#130)
See information in my message #121.
#144. To: robin, scrapper2, ALL (#140)
Smear tactics are all that's left, the facts are plain
#145. To: BeAChooser, diana, robin, HOUNDDAWG, Hammerdown, former lurker, AGAviator, Fred Mertz, SKYWALKER (#137)
(Edited)
By all means, link us to those records he's supposedly posted. By all means.
#146. To: BeAChooser (#98)
Why not. Polls are all you folks have been grasping at all along.
#147. To: BeAChooser (#110)
He didn't. He LIED about that.
try again, strawman.
#148. To: BeAChooser (#138)
But I do that to support a position on the topic being discussed.
#20. To: Diana, ALL (#16)
A truth and a lie make little difference, only agenda matters.
you're not even a capable amateur strawman, 'loser.
.
.
.