Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
One of the things I learned, from Nate Thayer to be exact, was that Dow had deliberately increased the power of AO on US military instruction, to something like ten times what was needed. Thayer is an amazing man.
First of all who exactly is Nate Thayer, and what are his qualifications to make that statement, or is he just a clever communist propagandist who has brainwashed you ?
What proof do you have of that allegation against Dow? What proof do you have that even if it was in a super-concentrated form it wasn't just to reduce the problem of transportation of the bulk liquid out to the airbases in South Vietnam and that the air-force didn't dilute it down to it's normal strength?
If you cannot show absolute proof of that statement of yours then your creditability on here drops to zero.
Last edited by green granite; 17th Jul 2012 at 20:33.
I realize the political aspect of the problem and I could answer myself the question "Why?" Still, I considered a shame that Mr. CO was not prosecuted. US sent a wrong signal with it.
For the year 2012? Perhaps. In the year 1988, not so much. Why not take yourself back to the political climate of 1988. President Reagan and his team played to internal crowd, as well as international crowd. What I find more intriguing is how his successor, GWH Bush, chose not to tidy up that loose end. That was left for Clinton to clean up. Consider why that is. The home crowd (well, a considerable portion of it) had little sympathy for much of anything Iranian at the time, except for the expats who'd been tossed out by those Ayatollah clowns.
I try to remember this matter of playing to different crowds when the current president of Iran runs off at the mouth about Israel, and other matters. Some of my friends get all up in arms over that. I don't. Some of his rhetoric is aimed explicitly at his home crowd.
I donīt like Ms. K, less her manners. But I donīt agree with you about the Malvinas and, surely, I have full rights to voice my opinion in this subject
Absolutely have the right, and I never said otherwise. By all means, speak up about the Falklands from whatever Point of View that makes the most sense to you.
Last time around the political justification was sold, and if I don't mistake it, bought by at least a portion of the Argentine population. The home crowd, or at least part of it, were on board.
Curious (and not on topic for this thread): How are Frau K's sales figures on the Falklands issue (to her and thee, Las Malvinas), in the bazaar of political ideas in Argentina?
How much of the home crowd is "on side" with her rhetoric on that score?
You could make that argument if you could show that it was deliberate. For all the noise you've made here, that is one of the more intelligent things you've posted: the Iranian government could have characterized that incident as an act of war.
More technically, it could be termed casus belli.
Strangely enough, the Iranians didn't follow through, even though our political relations at the time were abysmal.
Precipitated by Iranian forces opening fire on the Vincennes's helicopter earlier that day. Also an act of war? Perhaps if you dropped the anti-military and anti-US rhetoric, and accepted that this is not a black and white situation you would garner more support for your arguments.
I gander no support, as everything I've seen convinces me further; as every single argument against the actions of the captain is frighteningly weak. Even on a Military forum it's tough to come up with anything other than excuses for his actions based upon the supposition that he was acting with international empowerment.
He was in Iranian waters. He didn't have that right.
The only thing I absolutely agree with is the political motives alluded to by Lonewolf and others.
"that Dow had deliberately increased the power of AO" So what? It wasn't the 24-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid or 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid that caused the problem. It was the various dioxin impurities. And as has already been asked - what qualifications does that guy have to make that statement, and what does it mean anyway? There would be an effective dosage rate for spraying. Increasing the concentration would under many circumstances actually reduce the area covered because you'd be spraying in too concentrated a form. Basically the statement is invalid
Don't forget Dow were not the only manufacturers of 24-D/24,5-TCP You also had Monsanto and Diamond Shamrock making large volumes, and a number of smaller companies as well. The stuff was actually developed in the UK at Rothamstead during WWII and a number of UK companies made it. I've packed down several tonnes of it into small bottles over the years, and I'm still here to tell the tale
Its clear from your comment that you know SFA about phenoxy herbicides so by mentioning them all you do is undermine what little case you may have. For what its worth - 2,4-D is till manufactrured in the UK and is still available fro use
If you go back through the thread how many people are saying that he didn't cock-up big time? What I, and I think many others, take issue with is the use of emotive terms such as terrorism and murder. The statement that the lives of military personnel are worth less than civilians was insulting beyond belief.
Why wasn't he prosecuted? Well it would appear that politics came into play there and politics are out with the remit of the military. Those decisions are made by the elected representatives of the people.
The CO and the crew of the Vincennes were doing their jobs, he and some others did it badly and a tragedy occurred, on that we can all agree I think.