Gulf War Syndrome stats withheld

[JBrown72073 at cs.com]

>From: Yoshie Furuhashi <yoshie_furuhashi at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: Gulf War Syndrome stats withheld
>
>> >- --- jbrown72073 at cs.com wrote:
>> Yes, there's a lot of good stuff out there on GulfWar Syndrome, as well as 
>> plenty that's questionable.  I meant that the anti-war movement is not 
using 
>> U.S. casualties in the last war as an argument against a new all-out war 
with 
>> Iraq.  In other words, we're letting the myth of the 'war without U.S. 
>> casualties' stand.
>
>I disagree.  The Gulf War Syndrome studies (of various
>qualities, as you note) have been out there and made
>use of by activists against the sanction and the
>proposed war on Iraq.  If you do see a shortcoming in
>this regard around you in your town or among the
>activists you know, however, it's up to you to take an
>initiative in correcting the problem.  You, being in
>the Labor Party, are rather well placed to begin
>making the correction soon, among one segment of
>activists.  Bring it up at the convention!  

Yes, true. I also co-edit a 5,000 circulation local monthly and the current 
front page does  mention this issue in passing.  While working on our 
September issue, I read a numbing quantity of left articles opposing a U.S. 
attack on Iraq, and noticed that none of them mentioned Gulf War Syndrome.  
Searching further, I found no mention of it since March or so in any article 
on Common Dreams or Z-net.  Ah, sez I, there must be some resistance to using 
this as an argument against the New War, even though polls show a dropoff in 
the U.S. public's support for 'regime-change' in Iraq if significant U.S. 
casualties are predicted.  I'd be happy to be proven wrong. 


>> Of course, if the main cause is depleted uranium
>> weaponry, these people would 
>> be victims of what the military calls 'friendly
>> fire.'  Guess they're not 
>> referring to the class war.
>
>I'm not sure if I get your drift here.  In my opinion,
>that war affects poorer workers -- disproportionately
>of color in the USA -- more harshly than the better
>off has been a staple of anti-war and anti-imperialist
>arguments, as it is poorer workers who join the
>military and become foot soldiers (rather than career
>officers).

Sorry, that was a bit cryptic.  When U.S. military employment of depleted 
uranium weapons sickens U.S. troops, it could be regarded as friendly 
fire--in the sense of your own side firing on you by mistake--but only if you 
think weapons manufacturers are on your side, and you think it's a mistake.  
It's enemy fire if you look at it from a class war perspective.  That's my 
point, who's the bigger threat if you're a regular GI, Saddam, or your 
employer?


>Yoshie

Jenny Brown