Physicians for Social ResponsibilityPosted by marie on 3/13/03 at 21:09 (112879)
Physicians for Social Responsibility are a United States affilate of international Physicians for the prevention of nuclear war.
Just another one of those copy and pastes.
Contact: James Snyder (202) 667-4260 x.215
For Immediate Release March 7, 2003
Urge Restraint in Iraq
Inspections have Saddam right where we want him – war would unleash chaos
WASHINGTON – In response to the reports delivered to the United Nations Security Council
today and the Presidential Press Conference last night, Physicians for Social Responsibility
(PSR) Executive Director and CEO Robert K. Musil, Ph.D., M.P.H, issues the following
As reported by Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei today, Iraq is cut off, isolated, surrounded,
and crawling with highly professional weapons inspectors. Saddam Hussein's means to build
and traffic in weapons of mass destruction are disrupted. His regime is prostrate before the
international community. Our ability to track, find, document and destroy illegal weapons
expands daily. Saddam Hussein is right where we want him.
It is hard to square this reality with President Bush's argument justifying war in Iraq to protect
the United States. War with Iraq, in addition to threatening the lives of our soldiers and Iraqis
pinned under a repressive regime, would make terrorist attacks far more likely. War would
massively disrupt Iraqi society. And the weapons of mass destruction – if they exist, as the
Administration has argued, in mobile truck factories – would be in the hands of hundreds or
thousands of individuals free to supply terrorists to the highest bidder.
The President's plan to invade Iraq would be like stomping in a pool of poison, splashing its
deadly effects in unpredictable directions. War would also likely cause a terrible humanitarian
disaster in a country ground down by decades of war, sanctions, and a kleptocratic regime
unconcerned with its citizens' welfare. In October last year, we released with our British
affiliate Medact a study anticipating hundreds of thousands of civilian injuries in the event of
war. And in January of this year, we sent one of our own doctors to Iraq with the Center for
Economic and Social Justice, concluding that the country is considerably worse off now than it
was when the last war ended in 1991 and completely unable to cope with more conflict. Both of
these reports are available on our web site, http://www.psr.org .
Moreover, as the FBI and CIA have warned, dispersed weapons of mass destruction and the rage
of the Arab and Muslim world could spawn yet more terror. Iraq could cleave, unleashing chaos
in a power vacuum, revenge killings, or a thousand competing ethnic or religions interests. Warcould spread across the region, engulf Israel, the Gulf States, and Turkey, committing NATO to
a war in the Middle East.
In war the unanticipated poses the greatest risk. During the 1991 war, no one anticipated the
SCUD launchings that rained on Israel and hit a U.S. military barracks, causing the single largest
casualty incident of the war. No one anticipated that Saddam Hussein would burn Kuwaiti oil
fields, causing an epic health and environmental disaster. No one knows what he could do now.
Contrary to President Bush's closely held belief, waging war in Iraq will make the United States,
the Middle East and the world a far less secure place.
It is immoral to take that risk, and we urge the President to consider its consequences. We urge
him to show his strength by supporting the inspections regime with intelligence, personnel, and
protection, to allow them to do the work that Hans Blix said must take months to complete.
Physicians for Social Responsibility is a disarmament organization dedicated to international
security and protection of the public health. It is this mission that commits us to multilateral
arms control regimes like the Security Council-sanctioned inspections in Iraq. We believe that
this is the best way to resolve a bad situation. President Bush's rush to war would only make this
bad situation worse.
We don't know how this war will go. But we do know the inspectors are making progress, that
Iraq is under the eyes of the world. If Iraq still possesses prohibited weapons, they will be found
and destroyed. Watchful waiting is better than warfare. The ultimate outcome of this measured
and methodical approach will be far better than the fantastic post-war scenarios spun by
President Bush and his advisors. This is how we will win without war.
Just thought you may want to know what some fellow doctors are up to.
Re: Physicians for Social ResponsibilityEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 21:34 (112895)
I am familiar with that group. There are also physician groups which take the opposite point of view --- I will take a cut and paste break though.
Re: marie, what on earth !!!Carole C in NOLA on 3/13/03 at 21:37 (112897)
Marie, that's FIVE political threads you have started in a row this evening and it's only 9:30. Nobody else has had a chance to start a thread in between. Don't you think maybe you are getting to be a LITTLE out of hand???
Gee. I can't think of anything that would make me feel LESS likely to agree with your views than your swamping the board like this. Say what you wish; but not one of the conservatives on the board has behaved like this.
I don't mean to be nasty, but think about it. This is really not adding to the board.
Re: marie, what on earth !!!Ed Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 21:52 (112900)
I think I got her revved up and going.
Re: Carole, what on earth !!!mason on 3/13/03 at 21:54 (112901)
Carole C, have you been away? If you think there has been a balanced perspective on this board politically lately, and that no over-posting on the part of conservatives has taken place, then pigs can fly.
Re: Carole, what on earth !!!Suzanne D on 3/13/03 at 22:03 (112902)
Not to put words in her mouth, but perhaps Carole, like me, is longing for more balance on this social board - which before recent weeks was a positive and encouraging place to visit. Not necessarily more viewpoints on either the conservative or the liberal side of politics, but a balance of light-hearted conversation and interest in one another's lives along with opinions on issues.
Of course our world situation is of grave concern to me as well as any thinking person, but a place which has been so helpful to many is becoming less so, in my humble opinion.
I have a feeling that it is this to which Carole refers. At any rate, she has been a strong and eloquent poster who has given to many on this site - well after her own healing from PF. I appreciate her efforts.
Re: Carole, what on earth !!!Ed Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 22:26 (112907)
Carole has been posting very regularly here. Would you like to introduce yourself?
Re: marie, what on earth !!!marie on 3/14/03 at 06:35 (112914)
Ed challenged me so I responded.
I won't do that again. The Hiroshima post wasn't political just thought I'd share.
Re: Physicians for Social ResponsibilitySteve P on 3/14/03 at 08:54 (112923)
'As reported by Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei today, Iraq is cut off, isolated, surrounded,'
and crawling with highly professional weapons inspectors.'
Cut off? The border with Syria is uncontrolled. Millions of dollars in illegal trafficing & revenues go across that border. Terrorists are at work on both sides of it. The statement is completely false.
'and crawling with highly professional weapons inspectors.'
Crawling? 100 people trying to cover an area the size of Texas?
'Saddam Hussein's means to build
and traffic in weapons of mass destruction are disrupted.'
Unaccounted for: mobile weapons labs, thousands of liters of Anthrax, tons of VX nerve gas, numerous chemical, biological & nuclear materials.....documented in the UN 1998 report & still at large.
'Our ability to track, find, document and destroy illegal weapons
They can't be serious.
'Saddam Hussein is right where we want him.'
Do we 'want him' continuing to torture, rape & behead his victims? To continue killing his own people, including children in torture chambers?
Well......I could go on but the whole writeup is so fundamentally incorrect that there's no point. The writers should have done a little basic research.
Re: For Edmarie on 3/14/03 at 09:18 (112926)
Ed, What is the intent of your question? Are only people who have been here a long time allowed to post? or Are you just curious as to who Mason is? I think I have seen him post before. I'm not trying to be mean spirited just would like a little clarification. There seems to be at times a sense of ownership of this board by some who have been here a while. I very much enjoy engaging in conversation with you so please don't be offended. I just think some that have been here a while are conservatives and are not use to new ideas. Peace to all.
Re: For EdEd Davis, DPM on 3/14/03 at 09:57 (112937)
This was the first post for Mason with respect to this discussion. He did not enter the discussion and post his views about the subject, but instead, was critical about one of our regular posters. As you know, I have made a regular distinction between discussing issues and bringing in personalities. It was not a big thing but feel that an introduction would be appropriate.
Re: For Edmarie on 3/14/03 at 10:45 (112947)
Thanks for responding. Is this an open forum or is it closed to new people? Don't you think that is a bit clickish? It is on the world wide web for all to see and respond to. Mason responded to Carole because she was out of line. There are daily political articles posted on this board and I don't see Carole criticizing anyone else. I've never criticized you or the things you post. His words may have been a bit harsh but with all due respect Carole wasn't part of the discussion between you and I either. Actually we were just having a copy and paste war....and you gave me permission to post whatever I like. I would never have made those posts but like Suzanne, I am tired of the all the political posts and discussions. I thought I'd give a taste of your own medicine, Doctor. Maybe you could consider exchanging email addresses with everyone that agrees with you and carry on your discussions there.
Re: For EdEd Davis, DPM on 3/14/03 at 11:10 (112950)
I have been very consistent in my views. We did go back and forth but I did not consider it a two person discussion, everything posted here is for the benefit and potential participation of all. Those interested in politics can post, those who are not can skip over such items. I welcome all new people to post but if they are going to lead off their post with a personal criticism instead of simply expressing their views on a subject, I will respond accordingly.
Re: For Edmarie on 3/14/03 at 11:23 (112954)
Yes, you are so right. I suppose this would apply to Carole too? or anyone. I still enjoy our discussions. I didn't think it was a two person discussion but you did specifically use my name at the start of your posts so did I upon occasion so it probably came across that way. No anger here I'm still just as upbeat as I was yesterday.
Re: For EdEd Davis, DPM on 3/14/03 at 11:30 (112956)
I realized Carole was upset so I tried to take the blame for getting you riled up. I think we all want to give 'regulars' a bit more leeway.
Some readers consider these discussions to be a source of stress and others including myself, and I beleive yourself, view them as purgative as well as informative. 'Heavy' discussions have always been a form of relaxation for myself and my friends but realize that others don't share that perspective. I remember sitting in a room in college having a good discussion with my liberal roomate, with whom I am still good friends. People would come by and ask why we were fighting. We told them that we were just having a good time.
Re: For Edmarie on 3/14/03 at 11:53 (112961)
It has been my experience in working with young adolescents that men and women fight differently. Men can actually be in a knock down drag out fight but they'll give each other a ride home at the end of the day. The women well they hold grudges forever...and I can tell you the fights the girls have are much worse than I have seen any of they guys participate in. I do enjoy our conversations and at no time did I fell angry with you. But understand Mason was upset as well just like Carole. Sure you are attached to the long time posters, I hope to be one some day, but they don't have to answer to you. Gotta go.
Re: For Edmarie on 3/14/03 at 12:12 (112964)
Sorry had to go. Had some kids helping me on my brake. One male student put the whole puncher the girls hair....19 years old...what a mess. Are you sure you think they are ready defend our country. I'm not mad at Carole or anyone. Thanks for the discussion I enjoyed it.
Re: For Edmarie on 3/14/03 at 12:26 (112968)
Yikes I must be having a brain fart. Please excuse my spelling....break and hole.
Re: Physicians for Social ResponsibilityBGCPed on 3/14/03 at 13:41 (112975)
Hans Blix also said today that he fears global warming more than war. See it at http://www.drudgereport.com
Re: For EdEd Davis, DPM on 3/14/03 at 14:33 (112980)
18 and 19 year olds -- old enough to defend out country but not old enough to behave in class, drink alcohol or start a family (my personal opinion).
As enlisted men they are very trainable and come out of the military a whole lot more mature.
Re: Physicians for Social Responsibilitymarie on 3/14/03 at 14:34 (112981)
Do you know alot about global warming?
Re: Physicians for Social ResponsibilityBGCPed on 3/14/03 at 15:59 (112989)
I know a bit. I also know that we have had one of the coldest winters in many years.
Re: For Edmarie on 3/14/03 at 16:27 (112994)
How many years did you serve in the military? What branch?
Re: Physicians for Social Responsibilitymarie on 3/14/03 at 18:33 (113013)
We didn't have a cold one here just a lot of little snows, every day. Last year was one of the warmest. We had a drought here last summer....I thought we were all going to have to put our hoses in the lake to fill them.
Re: For EdEd Davis, DPM on 3/14/03 at 18:44 (113015)
I did not serve in the military. I probably would have if I was about 2 years older as my draft number was low enough for induction but our involvement in Vietnam ended about 2 years before my time.
I, later, was in the National Health Service Corps. during my medical education and three years thereafter and that obligation would take the place of military service (if a draft was restarted).
Re: For Edmarie on 3/14/03 at 21:12 (113032)
So why didn't you enlist on your own accord? You are my age. When I was 14 I got a call from my older brother. He wasn't as lucky as you. He enlisted because it was his moral duty, he wasn't drafted. I didn't know it at the time but his best freind just got his head blown off by a sniper. He was a leuitenant. His division did clean up. They went into villages and buried or burned the dead. Sometimes they would encounter a sniper. The hardest thing he did was bury the children after the bombs. What a fun job. He needed to talk to his little sister I guess. I could hear napaum (not sure how to spell that) going off in the background during the call. I asked him if he was close to the bombing. He lied to me and said those bombs were way off in the distance. We cried a minute together. So there we were for this small tiny moment, him in the middle of a war and me in my kitchen. That was Veit Nam. He was exposed to a great deal of agent orange. He has progressive MS amongst many other things. It won't stop. Do me a favor Dr. Ed. The next time they have an MS walk will you please take the time to walk. We could use your help.
Re: Agent OrangeSharon W on 3/14/03 at 21:51 (113034)
It sounds like you know a lot about Agent Orange! Maybe you can tell me --what can it do to nerves??! ...How about to the liver? ...And how long can it take for the damage to show up?
Re: For EdEd Davis, DPM on 3/14/03 at 22:01 (113039)
I really did not want to go to Viet Nam or be involved in a similar conflict. I would have gone if drafted. I was not against our involvement in principle, supported our troops but was against the manner in which the war was conducted. The concept of no-win wars was deeply flawed and I believe we will not go down that road again. I would have volunteered to go to Viet Nam if our goal was victory.
Re: For Edmarie on 3/14/03 at 22:25 (113044)
I didn't protest the war I felt that our guys needed all our support even though I really wanted it to just be over. I volunteered for the Red Cross. Kinda like a candy striper. My job was to decorate the main hall in the VA hospital. Every week they held a party for the amputees. Families and freinds would come. The goal was to reintroduce the young men with their new bodies to their families. I did my best to make it look festive but it was never a joyous occasion.
My sister worked in the mental health wing with the shell shocked patients. She helped in the art dpartment. I was mad because I wanted that job. I wasn't old enough to work with the mental health patients. She got her desire to be a nurse from that experience. I'd like to say I became a professional party giver, but that would be a lie. Ok I do like to give parties.
Re: Agent Orangemarie on 3/14/03 at 22:31 (113045)
All I know is that it has been shown to affect the central nervous system. The VA didn't challenge my brother when he applied for benefits. I'm not so sure that it caused his MS but they think it has it may be the cause of the non stop progression. You may try looking on some of the VA websites. There's alot of info there.
Re: Agent OrangeSharon W on 3/15/03 at 01:37 (113054)
Re: Agent Orangejohn h on 3/15/03 at 08:44 (113068)
I flew missions directly behind C-130 dispensing agent orange. My good riend was Squadron Commander of the C-130 unit dispensing this product. No one has really been able to scientifally prove what agen orange might have done to those exposed. I certaily must have had some exposure. I can sure tell you where it fell the earth was bare. Sort of like a stronger product of Roundup full strength. I also have people who I know who have been cropdusters. One actuall had his skin turn a bright yellow and he developed all sorts of illnesses. these pilots not only flew the plane but loaded the product day in and day out.
Re: Agent Orangemarie on 3/15/03 at 09:23 (113070)
Your right again John. No one has been able to find the exact link between agent orange and health issues, however the VA does not deny anyone exposed to agent orange benefits. There has been a great deal of research. My brother and his troops were on the ground when agent orange was released on top of them. He too has described the devestating affects it had on the countryside. He rarely talks about VeitNam or his MS. He's a macho guy, doesn't like for anyone to have a pityparty in his honor.
Re: Agent OrangeSharon W on 3/15/03 at 11:39 (113078)
Agent orange was developed and tested before it was used in Viet Nam. They did make some changes to try to make the stuff safer and more effective. Even so, I think noone really began to realize the full extent of the effects it could have on people until long afterward...