Hundreds of thousands of servicemen were exposed to asbestos over decades, especially during the period from 1940 to 1980. Asbestos was used in construction of naval vessels as well as shore facilities. All branches of the military used asbestos, which was also widely used in civilian applications. Asbestos can cause mesothelioma. Because this cancer has a particularly long latency period, many servicemen who were exposed years ago are now developing this disease.
- Mesothelioma Patient & Family Resources: Mesotheliomahelp is provided by Belluck & Fox, LLP as a comprehensive resource for mesothelioma victims and their families. The site provides up-to-date information on the latest news and treatment options as well as an easy to use search feature to find local mesothelioma doctors and health care clinics.
We fight for veterans harmed by asbestos: Veterans with mesothelioma or asbestos-related lung cancer should know they have options: the opportunity to bring a suit against manufacturers and sellers of the asbestos that caused their illness. If you were harmed by asbestos exposure, for example, in ships or military housing, contact Weitz & Luxenberg to get a free case review.
Important Information for Veterans: Asbestos products were often used on military ships and within military housing, and Veterans may have been exposed. Previous exposure to asbestos is the only known cause of mesothelioma, a fatal cancer that has no cure and affects countless Veterans and loved ones. For more information regarding military asbestos exposure visit Mesothelioma.com
HELLO
Opinion: OBAMA HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ESCALATE AFGHAN WAR AND IS CREATING “HUMANITARIAN CATASTROPHE” IN PAKISTAN
Posted on July 03, 2009 by sherwood
Obama Has No Legal Authority To Escalate Afghan War, International Lawyer Says
By Sherwood Ross, Staff Writer
President Obama has no legal authority either from the United Nations or the U.S. Congress under the War Powers Resolution(WPR) to escalate the war in Afghanistan, a distinguished professor of international law says.
“President Obama’s surge of 21,000 troops now engaged in combat in Afghanistan comes on top of the 60,000 we already had there,” says Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law at Champaign.“The Obama Administration simply ignored Section 4(a)(3) of the WPR when it announced the escalation,” Boyle noted. “U.S. armed forces are in Afghanistan originally pursuant to WPR. Its requirement that the President get Congressional consent on substantial enlargement (of forces) was put there to deal with the kind of gradual escalation we saw in Viet Nam that eventually led to 550,000 troops being there,” Boyle said.
“Clearly,” Boyle added, “President (George W.) Bush never had authority from Security Council in the first place to invade Afghanistan, and the WPR requires that any enlargement of U.S. troops in a foreign nation be authorized by Congress.” Boyle made his comments in a telephone interview with columnist Sherwood Ross of Miami, Fla.
President Obama “has now escalated the conflict into Pakistan and has set off a humanitarian catastrophe for 2-million of its people similar to what President Nixon set off in Cambodia,” Boyle said. “What Obama is doing is destabilizing Pakistan and setting off a civil war there. It’s a very dangerous, illegal, unconstitutional policy,” Boyle said.
The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in the first place because the Taliban government refused to allow UNOCAL oil to build the TAPI pipeline across its territory, Boyle said. He noted the route U.S. troops are taking in Afghanistan is that of the proposed pipeline. “I think this (escalation) is about getting the oil and gas out of Central Asia by avoiding Russia and without dealing with Iran,” Boyle added.
The easiest way to do that, he said, is to construct pipelines south through Afghanistan, into Pakistan and then out to the Arabian Sea. The oil and natural gas resources of Central Asia, Boyle noted, are reported to be the second largest in the world after the Persian Gulf.
In his new book, “Tackling America’s Toughest Questions,”(Clarity) Boyle wrote, “What is going on now in Afghanistan is not self-defense. Let’s be honest. We all know it. At best this is reprisal, retaliation, vengeance, catharsis. Call it what you want, but it is not self-defense. And retaliation is never self-defense.”
"IT" (which carries the name obama) needs not to be granted any authority. "IT" can and will act as "IT" chooses. "IT" chose the form which "IT represents the immage befor all life. Ignorance flavored with sweet Greed embedded in all corners of Government grows over our population, in movement of self justification of purpose. Our soldierd from the sky move in the valley of the edge. 3 years 5 moths 27 days. "IT" said in 2 years an announcemt will be made then all will know.
By Red Barron on 2009-07-03 22:33:06 Will we ever know the truth?
Very Interesting questions
More questions, and this time some good questions.
While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth
Issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be Resolved by Obama answering one simple question:
What passport did he use when he was shuttling between
New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981,
Without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and
Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and
Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions,
They must have answers.
It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible.
Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in
1981.
Conclusion:
When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a
British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof
That he (“IT”) was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.
And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to
Prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or
American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born"
American citizen between 1981 and 2008..
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America ,
As illustrated by his speech before Congress
And the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress,
The sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
By SSG Lem Genovese USA/Retired 91B on 2009-07-04 22:43:02
Reality sometimes is a cruel and ugly condition. The AfPak situation was a disaster waiting to happen the moment the Russians left. Afgn produces 90% of the world's heroin and that drug money finances the TaliQueda. When people start using LEGAL issues to try and whine about pre-existing geo-politics when it SUITS their ideology and world view, regardless of what side of the political fence they choose to occupy, it strikes me as a day late and a dollar short when it comes to tackling the GREATER issues at stake: 1.) Pakistan has nukes 2.) Heroin drug money finances enough crooked war lords amongst the Taliban & Al Queda and corrupt Paki government and some military leaders and keeps the otherwise hopelessly poor and hungry in both AfPak employed as Jihadis. 3.) Both nations are inextricably linked to the success or failure of the other. 4.) The refugee situation is dire in both nations and needs UN assistance ASAP.
THESE are the TRUE issues facing US & NATO leadership. The time to act is now. Either these situations are faced head on now, while they are at least manageable or as these legal eagles would like, we return to the 1980's and let these nations fend for themselves and become breeding grounds for more global terrorist acts like 9/11. Just so you know - I'm NOT a member of the GOP or the Democrats. I am a student of American History and a veteran of RVN & Desert Storm. Take my word for it, if Bush Senior would have allowed the XVIIIth ABN Corps to take Baghdad and then turn it over to an Arab coalition of Egypt, Syria & the Saudis to get Iraq to become a democracy after getting rid of Saddam and his Baathist band of thugs in 1991, we wouldn't have needed to have Bush 2 perform a sequel and we could have concentrated on AfPak a lot sooner ! Yes, the UN Resolution called for only kicking the Iraqis out of Kuwait, but within another 24 hours the 18th ABN Corps could have taken Saddam out. He merely could have said it was a communication breakdown with his Corps Commander and waited ONE more day to call a halt to offensive operations.
By Father John on 2009-07-04 22:56:05 Have you ever noticed that big desk in a circular shape of a "C" on the counsel floor of the "UN" ? Just what do you think that "C" stands for ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll give you a hint. It dose not stand for CORPORATION.
By Lems Supporter on 2009-07-05 21:42:17 good man Lem , well stated but you are in the minority here among these slime who claim to know everything all the time, pathetic little weasel gnats all, this is a stupid site. these are stupid people wrting at this blog.
By "All Of You Are Chicken Shit" on 2009-07-05 22:27:59 Every thing you have stated is valid, But JUST WHERE DO YOU AND ANYONE ELSE THINK MONEY COME FROM SUPPORTING MEXICO'S INVASION OF AMERICA. HELL, and I mean HELL the American Government refuses to reconize that there is an Invasion which has been taking place for over 10 years, Any of you should just attempt to live on the border, THE BORDER OF AMERICA ! IT IS NOT SAFE. WE ARE BEING ATTACKED. BULLETS WHIZ THRU MY HOME DAILY.
By C.V. Compton Shaw on 2009-07-04 07:42:42
The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have no reasonable legal basis nor "causus belli" (latin for just legal cause for war). No formal legal declaration of war has ever been made by the U.S. Congress against either nation. This is indicative of the lack of a reasonable legal basis for initiating and continuing these wars and a disrespect for the rule of Constitutional law within the USA and of International Law. These same wars, in my opinion, are similar to the U.S.-Mexican War ( 1846-1848), although in that war a formal declaration of war against Mexico WAS MADE by the U.S. Congress. The Washington establishment does not have the commitment to the concepts of honor and the rule of law to do the same in these wars. These wars, as was the case prior to the American Civil War, underlie fundamental political conflicts within the USA which subsequently may result in the disruption in the body politic of the USA. Inclusive of the same, as was the case in the American Civil War, is a body politic and political establishment which is aggressive and which is unresponsive to calls for justice internationally and internally. In the parlance of Vietnam Veterans: "What goes around, comes around." End the current illegal, aggressive, and criminal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but support the returning veterans! The following quote from Civil War Union General and U.S. President U.S. Grant is appropriate: " As the United States is the freest of all nations, so, too, its people sympathize with all people struggling for liberty and self-government; but while so sympathizing it is due to our honor that we should abstain from enforcing our views upon unwilling nations and from taking an interested part, without invitation, in the quarrels between different nations or between governments and their subjects. Our course should always be in conformity with strict justice and law, international and local. o Ulysses S. Grant's First State of the Union Address (6 December 1869)" End of Quote
I agree with the ALL OF YOU poster. The neo con BULLSHIT right wingers will whine about Obama and try to sound like they care about our country. You all are a bunch of con artists and filthy liars. You sat for 8 years and let our country be overran by illegal Mexicans and Central Americans. Geo. Bush created a reason to sneak in to Iraq. I really do not care about that though because it gave our country the oppurtunity to kill our enemies. Your propoganda attack on President Obama is meaningless. It is just more crybaby lies because your band of cutthroats and thieves lost the election. One thing you idiots don't or refuse to realize....OUR COUNTRY IS BROKE!!!!! The last 8 years the bulk of our industry was shipped to China. Your RAT PACK has done everything it can to stab the middle class working man in the back. President Obama is at least trying to rebuild some wealth in the working mans pocket. That is a profane idea to the scumbags that just recently got booted out of Washington. We are killing our enemies in Afghanistan. I personally think we need to bring back the draft and put at least 500,000 troops in that region TODAY....Before you run your mouths and stab me in the back...I did 5 years full time in the Vietnam War.
VeteransToday.com believes in an open discussion and seeks views from all sides.
In this spirit, we encourage you to post your comments on this article and any other articles on VeteransToday.com. VeteransToday.com does NOT endorse the comments of its users or the content of Staff Writers but supports and respects the users and Staff Writers right to express their points of view.
So go for it. Post your opinions, comments, reactions, and outrages!
