posted on February 11, 2003 05:15:11 AM new
According to the ABC Radio (Australia), Some Australian Military are in the process of being sent home from Middle East for refusing to be immunised.
Apparently there is no action to be taken against them.
Can someone please let dubya know that we’re not quite ‘ready’.
Reports from within Australia are that emails to dubya on the US gov web site are bouncing back & have been since October.
posted on February 11, 2003 02:28:52 PM new
Colin,
I don’t know if Communist Party of Australia website.
http://www.cpa.org.au/ concurs with statements I am making, I’ve never looked but will take your word for it.
It seems a dominant belief of many Americans that the word ‘communist’ is the antithesis of the word ‘just’.
Are you saying that all statement made on this site are false or what?
Because someone speaks against some USA practices, does that make them anti-USA.
Are you taking the Bush stance, “either with US or against US”.
posted on February 11, 2003 03:09:21 PM new
No not all statements are false but most are slanted or false. Many things are taken out of context too.
Communist is the antithesis of the word Capitalist. It's also a fallacy as has been proven many times over. It's a carrot on a stick for those that think they are poor or downtrodden. Communism is a cruel joke played on the uninformed by self righteous intellectual zealots. It's a perverted sickness that offers it's friendship to the lonely.
Don't get me started austbounty, you've opened up a can of worms.
I figure you can trust about half of what you read, probably a little less. When it comes to the Communism, It's about one-one-hundredth.
The entire concept is based on lies and deceit.
You can say what you like about the USA. That's your right and your opinion.
I've lived here since I was born, 56 years. I've lived through many Presidents, good and bad. Lived through good and bad times. I love America as I'm sure you love your country.
You can agree or disagree to anything you wish but I ask you to check all the facts. Not just the triads you may find on this Message board.
There are some very good people on many sides of many debates here. Most are sincere as to there beliefs and know what they are talking about, some are just BS.
You can spot the good ones. No matter what their belief or opinion most will respect it. Check what the ones that aren't respected say and then you'll know what the truth is.
Hill says anthrax vaccine is safe
Defence Minister Robert Hill says an anthrax vaccination given to Australian troops who have been deployed to the Persian Gulf is safe.
The Minister's reassurance comes after three sailors aboard HMAS Kanimbla were returned home because they refused to be inoculated.
One of the sailors says he refused the anthrax vaccine because he was concerned about its side-effects.
He and two other crew members were flown back to Australia and there have been concerns their stand will be detrimental to their navy careers.
Senator Hill says that is not likely but he cannot understand the sailors' worries about the vaccine.
"Their concern would be if they weren't being properly protected, if they weren't being vaccinated," he said.
Opposition Defence spokesman Chris Evans says there are still questions that need answering "about what vaccine has been used, what conditions have been applied and what will happen to those who choose not to use it".
He says the sailors should have been offered the vaccine before, not after, they left Australia three weeks ago.
Able Seaman Simon Bond says he was threatened with disciplinary action after refusing the needle.
He told the ABC's 7:30 Report he was warned by the ship's engineer that he could face administrative action and be forced to prove why he should be retained by the navy.
Defence spokesman Brigadier Mike Hannan says those crew members who refused to have the vaccine cannot face disciplinary action.
He says all sailors were fully informed about the vaccination process and those who refused to be inoculated were removed for their own safety.
posted on February 11, 2003 06:34:34 PM new
I recall being forced to take the Swine Flu vaccine while I was in the Navy. It was mandatory. I was one of many who almost died from the damned thing. By the time I made it to the hospital they were all waiting for me -- they literally gave me two aspirins and told me to come back in the morning if I made it.
The second time that the vaccine was being given, I told everyone that I was going to refuse and I did. I looked the corpsman in the eye and refused. He asked Why and I told him that I almost died from it the previous time and I refused to take it again. He asked if it was in my record and I said Yes. He didn't bother to check and I wouldn't have cared if he had. I absolutely refused to take another one of those shots.
The government and the military downplayed the effects of the shot. Some military ended up dead, others were paralyzed for life or suffered other permanent symptoms and had to be discharged (and no Vet medical benefits either!)
So, if these three were brave enough to tell them to go to Hell, I SALUTE THEM!
posted on February 11, 2003 06:50:35 PM new
Marine Faces Court Martial For Refusing Anthrax Vaccine
Fri Jan 31, 8:42 PM ET
A Camp Pendleton-based Marine faces court martial and possible prison time for refusing to be vaccinated against anthrax, it was reported Thursday.
Cpl. Anthony Fusco, a Santa Clarita native, was charged this month with disobeying a lawful order and probably will be court-martialed in February, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported.
Fusco, 22, a switchboard operator, told the newspaper he believes the vaccine isn't safe, based on his Internet research.
"They haven't really done any studies on long-term side effects," Fusco told the Union-Tribune. "I believe it's your own body. It's your own right to put something in your body."
Fusco told the newspaper that he fears the vaccine might cause auto-immune diseases and birth defects when he and his wife decide to have children.
Fusco is the only member of the 45,000-strong 1st Marine Expeditionary Force charged with refusing the vaccination since the military resumed the program last fall, 1st Lt. Dan Rawson, a Camp Pendleton spokesman, told the Union-Tribune.
All members of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton and Miramar Marine Corps Air Station are expected to get the shot if they are likely to be deployed on combat-related service.
Fusco is accused of the same offense for which at least 37 service members were convicted when they refused inoculations in the late 1990s.
If convicted, Fusco could face a year in a military prison and a bad-conduct discharge.
[ edited by neonmania on Feb 11, 2003 06:52 PM ]
posted on February 11, 2003 07:28:07 PM new
One possible complication for those who choose not to be vaccinated is that they can become exposed to the live virus from those who have been vaccinated.
"It becomes very complicated medical management, and they're not prepared to do that," Mr. Halloran said. "That is not the military service's strong suit. They do many things well. That is not among them."
Borillar can probably verify that! If he can't, I can.
posted on February 11, 2003 07:51:45 PM new
Latest ABC (Australia) Radio News;
5 Crew from HMAS KANIMBLA,
& Another frigate (numbers not stated).
GEE!
Some of the lower-socio-economic dominated millitary,
are refusing FREE vaccine.
Helen, If there is greater risk to non-vaccineted persons when exposed to vaccinated persons; I think that's what you were saying; then what will happen to the rest of us when the Army comes back home?
Will we be exposed to risk of ANTHRAX.
Neomania
“Fusco is accused of the same offense for which at least 37 service members were convicted when they refused inoculations in the late 1990s.
If convicted, Fusco could face a year in a military prison and a bad-conduct discharge.”
What punishment, IF ANY, was given to the 37 in 1990?
[ edited by austbounty on Feb 11, 2003 08:01 PM ]
[ edited by austbounty on Feb 11, 2003 08:04 PM ]
If the vaccination site is uncovered the live virus cound infect another person. In the case of the soldiers onboard the ship, it was mentioned that they alternate using the same bunks and the virus can be transferred that way from the sheeets. This would only be a concern for about three weeks.
A weak, live virus is used, so in a healthy person, I don't think that there would be any risk beyond that of a normal vaccination...depending on where the unvaccinated person was exposed.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Feb 11, 2003 08:42 PM ]
posted on February 11, 2003 08:36:02 PM new
Colin
In spite of your images and motorcycle associations on your web site and the –ve ‘BIKIE’ type stereotype some may choose to associate with you.
Your words here on AW seem to be some of the least taunting and you always attempt to address questions put to you in a logical/sensible and forthright manner. Respect to you for that. Top’O’The Class.
BUT
That doesn’t make us right or wrong.
American foreign policy is not necessarily for the ‘common good’, and may even be to the ‘common detriment’ for all BUT some US citizens.
Patriotism is not synonymous with humanitarianism, and may even be in complete contrast.
And in the end some of those foreign policies may even turn out to be to the disadvantage of US citizens, in spite of their intended effect.
How can you be so sure that this is the right thing to do.
Some may say that the outcome under Sadam MAY be –ve.
BUT
Some may say that the outcome under war WILL be –ve.
-Ve For who?
SADAM--- cool.
Humanity—not cool
posted on February 11, 2003 09:11:34 PM new
Half of the British are refusing the anthrax vaccinations.
Troops shun anthrax jab
Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday February 12, 2003
The Guardian
More than half the armed forces personnel deploying to the Gulf have refused to be vaccinated against anthrax, the Ministry of Defence has disclosed.
Though the vaccinations are voluntary, the ministry strongly recommends their use. The low take-up appears to reflect concern among troops about the side effects of the anthrax vaccine.
posted on February 11, 2003 09:33:04 PM new
antiquary
"Half of the British are refusing the anthrax vaccinations.
Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday February 12, 2003
The Guardian"
Reverend Colin keep your fingers crossed for me;
I’m go’na PROPHESISE.
I'm goi'n out on'a limb here and saying that ;
I think it unlikely and probably UNTRUE that there be such a large difference in % of ‘objectors’ exists between the British and their other Anglo distant cousins, ie America & Australia.
I may be wrong but we’ll hear about it soon from many other media sources, if it’s true.
posted on February 11, 2003 09:44:05 PM new
Aust - was not able to find that info but did find this....
- Oct 22 2002
Highly trained and experienced pilots and crews in the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve are leaving or have left military service in part because of the Pentagon's anthrax vaccine, congressional investigators say in a report released Tuesday. Randomly selected guard and reserve troops surveyed in 2000 by the General Accounting Office also reported adverse reactions to the vaccine at double the rate claimed by the manufacturer, BioPort Corp., the GAO said.
- Oct 22 2002
posted on February 11, 2003 11:01:47 PM new
>Your words here on AW seem to be some of the least taunting and you always attempt to address questions put to you in a logical/sensible and forthright manner. Respect to you for that. Top'O'The Class.
austbounty, the only thing more repellant to me than one of Colin's UnHoly comments is your brown nosing him. Believe me when I say that your compliments won't change him ~ he needs a lot of psycho-therapy, in my opinion. I think I could stand his comments well if he would stop trying to sign God on each of his posts.
posted on February 12, 2003 01:20:40 AM new
Borillar
I too believed he wasn't a reverend.
But I think now that he has us on a technicality.
According to my dictionary a reverend is one who is revered or held in awe, and not necessarily as a religious leader.
So as best that I can figure, if your mum or kids revere you then you are a reverend.
I think he is ‘technically correct’ (assuming his kids look up to him a lot).
He has never called himself a ‘holly man.’.
His web site does in fact mock religion (I feel)
Ass far as Ass kissing Colin is concerned, even though many of our socio/political opinions are at odds, we do, I feel, share a similar sense of humour.
And I do feel that he tends to throw fewer insults than most of us who are regularly here, myself included.
Colin’s only sin, as I can figure, is that he has succumb to the indoctrination of the, not only capitalist but, imperialist leadership under which he has been raised. “better dead than red”.
I think his sin is largely out of ignorance THAN lack of compassion, unlike 1” & KKK.
posted on February 12, 2003 10:50:19 AM new
I know that Colin has been listening to too many Rush Limbaugh/Michael Savage broadcasts. He is here to learn what the truth really is. That there is a big difference between basing your opinions on demagoguery from Radio Entertainment programs and real fact is something he is now having to face. I also don't mind that in the least. We are all going through a learning process in life.
>His web site does in fact mock religion (I feel)
If so, I wish he would drop the prayer and titular parts to his signature line. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but I find some of the comments that he makes and the connection to God that he is referencing them to are offensive to me. I guess that puts me into a bad mood when I write to him. If it's humor, it isn't funny to me.
posted on February 12, 2003 11:14:04 AM new
It doesn't bother me.
Anybody can call themselves a reverend and any reverend can choose their beliefs. At least he is not a typical, bigoted and self-righteous bible thumping proselytizer. That kind of reverend is offensive to me.
posted on February 13, 2003 06:32:33 AM new
I'm not a Rush Limbaugh/Michael Savage fan. I listen and laugh sometimes, not often. I am a big fan of George Carlin, Ambrose Bierce, Rochefoucault and Ralphie (don't know his last name) a drunk at a bar I stop at. He spouts off the damnedest things.
Borilla "If so, I wish he would drop the prayer and titular parts to his signature line."
Being your so well read, You should know that Amen also means "hearty approval (as of an assertion)" Knowing it bothers you gives me great pleasure.
posted on February 13, 2003 01:04:32 PM new
Colin, since I'm so well read, I'll impart this bit of knowledge to you to use: Dictionaries do not tell the proper use of words. Dictionaries give the current use of a word, no matter how incorrect it may be. It starts first from the most common usage to the least common and with better dictionaries, even the history and origin of that word (the derivation).
Therefore, the Vulgar may misuse Amen as "hearty approval (as of an assertion)", but that would be incorrect according to both its historical English usage and its ancient origins.
As a supposed Man of God, when you espouce hateful speech, such speech in oppostion to what Jesus taught, then you profane God with your signitures on those posts. That's what I find offensive about your posts, not the content, which I couldn't care less about.
posted on February 13, 2003 02:38:48 PM new
If it's Vulgar I am, So be it.
Who died and left you the Supreme authority of the English (and probably all other) language?
"Man of God" ?? I consider myself a man of Gods. You said you read my site but I find that hard to believe. Comprehension again.
"espouce hateful speech" This must be about not being an anti war Liberal. I don't recall espousing any hateful speech.
My God will forgive any of my transgressions. You forgiveness doesn't matter "a hill of beans" to me.
Your self righteous indignation may play well to some on these boards but not to me.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
