Depleted Uranium - A world-wide cost?

[Nefarious]

Just wondering... Where was the mention of DU in that quotation from your previous post? Is that article supposed to be neutral too? Is that article about the health and environmental effects of DU? And if so, why is it talking about the Guantanimo Bay Detention Centre?

As I qualified at the beginning of the post about Bruce Patterson's article:

I found this article when I was googling 'crispy critters'. It's not related to DU, but it is related to war and I found it to be a very raw and honest account of a soldier's experiences. I thought it is another perspective and something of a departure for me to post, but a story worth reading regardless.

Sadistic, Sacrilegious, sexually perverted Americans? Oh, so is this article straight from the book of Jihad, or just an Islamic extremist website?

Well, I just assumed the author was who he said he was, namely an American vet of the Vietnam war, perhaps from the state of Virigina, given he calls himself a hillbilly.

I also understood the context of his comment to be 'this must be how Iraqi kids view us', given cultural and religious differences - they have their stereotypes of American's just as American soldiers have their stereotypes of Iraqi's - and the point of what he was saying was that these stereotypes help the 'fear and dehumanization' process that enables them to shoot each other dead. We fear what we don't know.

I believe the context would have been apparent to you had you read the article for what it was worth and for what the author had to say, instead of skimming it for ammunition to support your 'Nefarious is anti-American' thesis.

[little dee]

Nefarious, learn to write succinctly.

Truth can be expressed in few words, but bullshit often requires verbosity.

Most of what you say is fiction, and the rest is fabrication.

[Nefarious]

Little Dee - I have not 'written' much at all in this thread - the verbosity you refer to comes from the length of the articles I have posted from other authors.

They are long articles, and they took me some time to read them - so I am sympathetic that long articles are annoyingly time consuming in this world of fast food info, but for those who are interested and motivated to take some time out to read them, I think they are interesting reads. It is up to motivated readers to decide for themselves whether the various author's are fabricating. The all too oft reality, however, is that people are seldom motivated to read things that disturb their convenient ignorance.

[Guest]

it's all a myth for the feeble-minded

[Nefarious]

Ok - so David Boje, a professor, just served his article up to his feeble minded university students - ok - thanks for clarifying.

[Guest]

Ok - so David Boje, a professor, just served his article up to his feeble minded university students - ok - thanks for clarifying.

How about Professor Ward Churchill?

Professors are among the most feeble-minded conspiracy theorists, divorced from reality and oblivious to truth.

[Nefarious]

Hmmm, would I rather take heed of an independent academic voice who has nothing to gain but everything to lose by speaking out?

Or do I swallow the nice pretty packages fed to me by politicians and assume that the big business' that surrounds them are entirely composed of lovely people, who would never put human life above a profit?

Do I believe that the war machine - a trillion dollar industry that needs wars to sustain itself - never acts in duplicitious ways to feed itself?

[Guest]

Hmmm, would I rather take heed of an independent academic voice who has nothing to gain but everything to lose by speaking out?

Or do I swallow the nice pretty packages fed to me by politicians and assume that the big business' that surrounds them are entirely composed of lovely people, who would never put human life above a profit?

Do I believe that the war machine - a trillion dollar industry that needs wars to sustain itself - never acts in duplicitious ways to feed itself?

It all depends on the "independent academic voice," including but not limited to that person's integrity, intelligence, fair-mindedness, political and other affiliations, reputation within the academic comminity, published work.

David Duke, former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, is now Professor David Duke and would qualify as an "independent academic voice." Does that make Duke's views credible?

[Nefarious]

Admittedly, Boje is a Professor with a strong political stance - he is part of a peace movement and is a veteran of the vietnam war.

His political stance, I would argue, is more pro-peace than aligned to democrat or republican - he seems to have contempt for the actions of presidents on both sides.

The strongest message that I take from his writing is just how f*cked up the whole system is, what we are willing to do to make money for the economy. It's that same old root of all evil. Money is valued more than humanity and when things are out of whack like that it's ultimately self-destructive for the entire human race. How do we reign this in or is it a monster with a power too great of its own to do anything but let it ultimately destroy us?

[Nefarious]

To more accurately capture the events that lead to Boje saying 'they weren't allowed to use the food they grew themselves', this is what I found about the context within which this is related:

http://www.harpers.org/CoolWar.html?pg=1

A couple of months later, a Syrian company asked the committee to approve a contract to mill flour for Iraq. Whereas Iraq ordinarily purchased food directly, in this case it was growing wheat but did not have adequate facilities to produce flour.

The Russian delegate argued that, in light of the report the committee had received from the UNICEF official, and the fact that flour was an essential element of the Iraqi diet, the committee had no choice but to approve the request on humanitarian grounds. The delegate from China agreed, as did those from France and Argentina.

But the U.S. representative, Eugene Young, argued that “there should be no hurry” to move on this request: the flour requirement under Security Council Resolution 986 had been met, he said; the number of holds on contracts for milling equipment was “relatively low”; and the committee should wait for the results of a study being conducted by the World Food Programme first. Ironically, he also argued against the flour—milling contract on the grounds that “the focus should be on capacity—building within the country”—even though that represented a stark reversal of U.S. policy, which consistently opposed any form of economic development within Iraq.

The British delegate stalled as well, saying that he would need to see “how the request would fit into the Iraqi food programme,” and that there were still questions about transport and insurance. In the end, despite the extreme malnutrition of which the committee was aware, the U.S. delegate insisted it would be “premature” to grant the request for flour production, and the U.K. representative joined him, blocking the project from going forward.

[Guest]

Admittedly, Boje is a Professor with a strong political stance - he is part of a peace movement and is a veteran of the vietnam war.

His political stance, I would argue, is more pro-peace than aligned to democrat or republican - he seems to have contempt for the actions of presidents on both sides.

The strongest message that I take from his writing is just how f*cked up the whole system is, what we are willing to do to make money for the economy. It's that same old root of all evil. Money is valued more than humanity and when things are out of whack like that it's ultimately self-destructive for the entire human race. How do we reign this in or is it a monster with a power too great of its own to do anything but let it ultimately destroy us?

Being a professor doesn't mean S***.

The threshhold fact is the the subject in which someone is a professor.

For example, a professor in English Literature has no greater expertise in the sciences by virtue of his academic qualifications than anyone else.

David Boje is a Professor of Management at New Mexico State University (NMSU).

Boje's academic qualifications are unrelated to the subject on which he is opining in the article you posted.

Boje may be an expert on depleted uranium (DU), but that expertise would have nothing to do with his professorship. On the other hand, Boje may be talking complete bullshit about DU. There's no way to know based on his professorship in management.

Boje is also a leader of a left-wing pacifist group at NMSU called PeaceAware, a particularly relevant political affilaition vis-a-vis the subject on which he is opining because it suggests he is biased.

In sum, Professor Boje is academically unqualified to hold himself out as an expert on DU and he has a clear pre-determined agenda based on his politcal affiliation.

Boje's opinions on DU are unworthy of any respect.

[Nefarious]

Let's consider Boje a little more fully:

David M. Boje holds theBank of America Endowed Professorship of Management (awarded Sept 2006), and is past Arthur Owens Professorship in Business Administration (June 2003-June 2006) in the Management Department at New Mexico State University. His reputation in academia and industry is widely known and respected in the United States and internationally. Professor Boje is described by his peers as an international scholar in the areas of narrative, storytelling, postmodern theory & critical ethics of answerability. He has published nearly 100 articles in journals, including the top-tier journals such as Management Science, Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Manage Review and the international Journal of Organization Studies. His output continues to be prolific.

You are right that he does not have a scientific background in matters of uranium, however, any scholar who has made it to the level of professor should possess the research skills to accurately assess the legitimacy of data from other disciplines (and even if his research skills are primarily qualitative, being connected to a university, he will have access to qualitative expertise if necessary, as well as various science faculty members). At the core of academia is the research skills that are developed, then extensive knowledge tends to come from studying any particular area. Some people prefer to the analyze one small area to death, but others can and are broader in their scope - it depends on the interests of the individual.

I think that business management has a high degree of relevance to the article that Boje wrote. In management you are concerned with things like marketing your organisation in a way that inspires goodwill and freedom to operate, making a profit, organizing people to achieve certain ends, disposing of things that are no longer required or are not cost efficient.

The government, and the industries surrounding it, are very business orientated - economy orientated. Consider the war machine - how do we justify a war or create a demand for weapons somewhere so that we can make money out of supply? How can we do so in such a way that we will retain goodwill with the public? Who will be our scapegoats if things don't go to plan? If we have massive amounts of nuclear waste (DU, etc) from our nuclear power plants and it costs us a lot of money to store it, how do we dispose of it?

I like his analogy of war these days being marketed like the Superbowl, because damn if that ain't so!

[Guest]

Let's consider Boje a little more fully:

David M. Boje holds theBank of America Endowed Professorship of Management (awarded Sept 2006), and is past Arthur Owens Professorship in Business Administration (June 2003-June 2006) in the Management Department at New Mexico State University. His reputation in academia and industry is widely known and respected in the United States and internationally. Professor Boje is described by his peers as an international scholar in the areas of narrative, storytelling, postmodern theory & critical ethics of answerability. He has published nearly 100 articles in journals, including the top-tier journals such as Management Science, Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Manage Review and the international Journal of Organization Studies. His output continues to be prolific.

You are right that he does not have a scientific background in matters of uranium, however, any scholar who has made it to the level of professor should possess the research skills to accurately assess the legitimacy of data from other disciplines (and even if his research skills are primarily qualitative, being connected to a university, he will have access to qualitative expertise if necessary, as well as various science faculty members). At the core of academia is the research skills that are developed, then extensive knowledge tends to come from studying any particular area. Some people prefer to the analyze one small area to death, but others can and are broader in their scope - it depends on the interests of the individual.

I think that business management has a high degree of relevance to the article that Boje wrote. In management you are concerned with things like marketing your organisation in a way that inspires goodwill and freedom to operate, making a profit, organizing people to achieve certain ends, disposing of things that are no longer required or are not cost efficient.

The government, and the industries surrounding it, are very business orientated - economy orientated. Consider the war machine - how do we justify a war or create a demand for weapons somewhere so that we can make money out of supply? How can we do so in such a way that we will retain goodwill with the public? Who will be our scapegoats if things don't go to plan? If we have massive amounts of nuclear waste (DU, etc) from our nuclear power plants and it costs us a lot of money to store it, how do we dispose of it?

I like his analogy of war these days being marketed like the Superbowl, because damn if that ain't so!

Management is wholly irrelevant to any aspect of the DU issue.

I have a doctorate as well, the same degree Boje has but in a different field, and mine is also not in the sciences.

I am no more qualified academically than you or anyone else to hold myself out as an expert in a science.

Following your logic, a professor of Chinese Folklore or Theology or Art History can hold himself out as an expert in Astrophysics or Biology or Chemistry just because he is a professor in something.

As I said before, Boje may well be an expert in DU, but his professorship does not evidence that expertise.

I recall working with a sought after naval architect who had designed numerous commercial barges and tugboats of substantial size and value. I was stunned when he nonchalantly revealed -- and it was no secret -- that he had no formal schooling past high school and had taught himself naval architecture. This guy was unquestionably an expert, but his expertise was based on what he had done rather than what he studied formally.

If Boje had written dozens of papers on DU or other weapons and if those papers had been peer-reviewed and published in the leading academic journals of the respective disciplines, I would accept his expertise even though he is not a professor in those sciences. But that's not the case with Boje and DU. That dog won't hunt.

By the way, the term "war machine" is not only unscientific, but it also betrays a political bias that discredits the person who uses it.

[Nefarious]

Boje's reference to DU was one of many Q&A and facts that he went through. The body of his argument was primarily a discourse about how the administrative 'machine' operates in contemporary society - he makes frequent analogies and although his article was long, it was enjoyable enough to read. It was written in an acessible style - not for a peer reviewed journal - but for a wider audience. I tend to find this is a good strategic move if you want to get your message across. Dumb it down a bit, make it simple, crack some jokes here and there.

No doubt he uses emotive language - such as daddy's war, or evocative and visual terms such as 'the war machine' - but to me saying that using the term 'war machine' is unscientific is a weak attack. In short, his article was a synthesis of multiple points, a literature review if you will - not an article dedicated to DU - but it serves to paint a bigger picture. Boje's feelings about the Bush administration is clear, so are mine- so what? Bush is a politician. If you don't like poo thrown at you, don't get into the game.

To discredit Boje's 'facts' we would have to systematically go through and research each one. He presents a lot of facts, so that's a lot of validating. Some of his sources, such as CIA reports, make for convincing evidence. Others are linked to one particular anti-war site, which you would then have to cross-reference to check where they were getting their 'facts' from. However, to come out, as a professional person with a reputation to uphold, and put the label 'fact' on something makes me inclined to think that he and/or those he cites, have done their homework - because if he states something as 'fact' that can be proved not to be a fact then he is open to being charged for slander/libel. Sure, the guy could be an idiot, I just doubt he's that much of an idiot.

Separate his opinion from his facts and focus on the facts and if you dispute a fact, look into it further. I looked further into his claim that they did not allow Iraq to eat their own wheat produce. He stated it more simply and evocatively than going into the detail of 'refused to sanction a contract with Syria for milling the wheat', it was interesting to understand the finer detail of the circumstances - that it was not that they were not allowed to eat their wheat, but they were not supported to have the means to convert it to an edible state. Water treatment plants, sewerage plants, basically infrastructure to maintain life, were targeted during the earlier wars - that crippled Iraq on an ongoing basis and it was the everyday people that suffered and continue to suffer from that.

I find it interesting that the combined world population represented by the delegates from Russia, France, China and Argentina is 1.5 billion, compared to the combined population of Britian and USA at approx 363 million, yet the former four countries' concern for a humanitarian ease in the sanctions in the case of the milling contract was blocked by those representing a far smaller part of the world's population. Whose attitudes were more admirable? Call me anti this or that or whatever, but come on, this is going astray - it's forgetting humanity. I don't want to be part of that sort of attitude - no more than the MASSES of people who have turned out to protest the war in both USA and England - they don't want to be part of this kind of thing either.