explain the agent orange and alaska native claim?
398201
Agent orange was a defoliating gas used in Vietnam to uncover parts of the Ho Chi Mihn Trail.\nAlaska Native Claim is what the indigenous peoples of Alaska are claiming is rightfully their land maintaining that the deal between the U.S. and Russia to purchase Alaska was illegal.\nEDIT: I just googled it and HuggyBaby is right on with her answer for Alaskan Native Claim. \nMy agent orange info is correct however.
825944
I wasn't aware that the Texans "stole THEIR land illegally".  I thought they fought a war and won and were later admitted to the Union.  Based on your line of reasoning, we stole the 13 colonies from Britain because we fought a war with them and beat them as well.
873
Except your facts are all wrong. Halliburton acquired Brown & Root in 1962, well before major US involvement in Vietnam. KBR didn't become its own entity until 2002 after the asbestos lawsuits were going full steam ahead, threatening Halliburton assets. The company spilt off KBR and placed in under bankruptcy protection.\n\nSo what is your question anyway??? It appears to be a misguided attack on the right.
400712
I've never actually heard, or read about, any Americans claiming they've never lost a war. However, if 'Vietnam, Korea, etc. were "police actions"' as someone here claims, what the heck DO they call a 'war'?? At least they can't pretend Iraq wasn't a 'war' - it was called one repeatedly, although I'm still not prepared to accept that "America" (or her allies) won, it looked to me more like a successful invasion which has caused civil unrest!! Not quite the same thing as a 'war'!\n\nAnd why does America (or her government) think it's acceptable to compensate all those 'nice' soldiers for the damage caused to them by Agent Orange - but that it's okay NOT to compensate the Vietnamese, who are still suffering to this day, and who were mass-murdered by a bunch of Americans?!???? America DELIBERATELY poisoned Vietnam! Those were civilians!! Even if America DID have the right to poison the land (which it DIDN'T!!!) they should STILL give HUGE amounts of compensation to the Vietnamese who are SUFFERING!!
141249
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4134424.WKU.&OS=PN/4134424&RS=PN/4134424
237326
This link should help you out, you should read the entire article.\n\nhttp://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9597
989333
Most of the people fighting in Iraq are minorities... and since when does the act of killing another being prove you are American. I thought being American meant spreading capitalism and exploiting third world countries like Mexico. Killing Native Americans and displacing Mexicans off their land does not give anyone the right to be American and stay in this land.
1179034
You pose an interesting question, though it’s a little peculiar. If “white people” took the Native’s land, it seems that they would have the best understanding of the consequences that “taking” land leads to. Thus, your question actually answers itself. “White people’s” fear would logically follow from an understanding of the consequences that may come about.\n\nWith that said, I’d like to make a few other quick points. You repeatedly used the term “white people”, and it seems that you are trying to suggest this is a “white person” issue. That’s completely unfounded. For one, there are plenty of Americans of all skin colors and cultures that oppose illegal immigration, to include Americans of Mexican ancestry. Also, most “white” Americans oppose all illegal immigration, including illegal immigrants from “white” European nations. So this is not an issue of color at all, and I hope that you can see that.\n\nYou also mention in your comments that “white people” took the land from the Native’s but you fail to mention that so did other countries. First Spain “took” it, and then later Mexico “took” it. You say that California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas belonged to them, but you fail to mention that Mexico actually “took” these areas from the “Natives” first. This further shows that this has nothing to do with “white people”. In fact, with few exceptions the majority of warfare throughout all of human history has involved the “taking” of land from people who were there first. This happened in Asia, Africa, Europe, Australia, and the Americas, and it usually had nothing to do with skin color. When Africans fight Africans over land, they are also “taking” the land from someone else who had it first. It shows ignorance to speak of Africa as if it were unified just because the majority of the population shares the same skin color. The same goes for every other country or civilization throughout history. The “Natives” fought other “Natives” and “took” the land. What makes you think that a given “Native” tribe didn’t take the land from other “Natives” at some point in history? We know that warring tribes did this all of the time. The color designation is completely irrelevant and is therefore inappropriate.\n\nOne last point is that most Americans, including “white people”, have no problem with people coming to the U.S. legally. The issue revolves around legal entry into the country, and has nothing to do with the ethnic background of the person. The United States has the right to control its borders. Indeed, it must control its borders. The Mexicans that want to come to the United States usually want to come to get a job. However, if there were no controls on the number of people who could come into the United States there would be tragic consequences. Do you think that if ten million Mexicans came to the United States next month that the U.S. economy would be able to support them? All of the people working in lower income jobs would end up suffering because of simple supply and demand labor economics. The more workers that there are the less they need to be paid. So it makes sense for “white people” as well as every single other American to oppose illegal immigration. Tens of thousands of people of Mexican ancestry come to the U.S. legally every year, and we’re happy to have them.
757959
Both threats are as real as you are. To the lady that wanted proof of the Commies intent in the 60's, I'm guessing you weren't around at the time. I was. The whole World was scared that both the US and the USSR would destroy the World to destroy each other. The threat was definitely real. You want proof? Do a search on the Bay of Pigs.
586134
The ANNOUNCEMENT was related to end of WWII.  The ENFORCEMENT was related to Korea.  Truman misspoke his doctrine - or was ambiguous - and the Russians and Chinese misjudged his wording, leading to conflagration on the Korean peninsula.  I just don't remember what his misstatement was, precisely.
454138
gee umm not apples to orange. You make a good point.\nI definitely would not allow them to stay for FREE.\nI definitely will not give them money to STAY for FREE.\n\nYes U.S does belong to me \n"WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"\nAngie please pay attention in us government/history class
1036281
All the same!\n\nFor people who are making fun of those who claim everything is about oil. There's also this little fact:\n\nThe Alaska state constitution claims common heritage rights of ownership of oil and other minerals for the people of the state as a whole. Citizen dividend checks are distributed every year in Alaska out of the interest payments to an oil royalties deposit account called the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) created in 1976 after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The APF is a public trust fund - a diversified stock, bond and real estate portfolio - into which are deposited the oil royalties received from the corporations which extract the oil from the lands of Alaska. The first citizen dividend check from the interest of the APF was issued in 1982 and was for $1000 per every person for everyone in Alaska who had resided in the state for at least one year. Annual citizen dividends have been issued every year since then, for a total of more than $23,000 per person. \n\nIn 2003, each of the nearly 600,000 Alaska US citizens (residents of Alaska for at least one year) received a check for $1,107 from the APF. The total amount dispersed was $663.2 million. The $25 billion investment fund's core experienced stock market losses which led to the dividend's decline this past year compared to the several previous years. The amount was $433 less, a 28 percent drop from the 2002 pay out of $1,540, and a 44 percent decrease from the all-time high of $1,964 in year 2000. The amount changes based on a five-year average of APF investment income derived from the bonds, stock dividends, real estate and other investments. \n\nAlaska relies on oil for about 80 percent of its revenue and has no sales or income tax. Alaska state government is mandated to invest 25% of its oil revenue into the APF while the other 75% of oil royalty revenue is dispersed to other government funds to finance education, infrastructure and social services. If 100% of Alaska's oil royalties had been deposited into the APF, it is conceivable that the CD this year could have been about $4,400 or $17,600 for a family of four. But then there would have been no funds for roads, education and other public services and no funds available to run the state legislature - a libertarian dream fulfillment or a social and economic disaster, which one we will never know. If state services were to have been maintained while 100% of oil royalties were deposited in the APF, there would of course have been the need for income, sales and other taxes on wages and production. \nSource(s):\nhttp://www.earthrights.net/docs/oilrent.... \n\nOil is just 1 of thousands of commodities, with all the thousands of commidities in your state why aren't you getting paid?\n\nWith feds resources why can't feds pay 50 times better than Alaska?\n\nKuwait pays this way $58,000 y no rent, utilities, phone, hospital bills\nDubia pays this way\nNorway I've heard has a similar system\nI hear Nigeria is working on doing this\n\nHOW FAR WILL YOU, YOUR KIDS, AND GRANDCHILDREN GET LEFT BEHIND IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE IF THE US DOES START A SYSTEM OF THIS KIND FOR THE US PEOPLE?\n\nARE WE TO BE PAUPER THIRD CLASS WORLD CITIZENS WHEN YOUR GRANDCHILDREN START TO WORK?\n\nDO WE SLIDE FROM THE RICHEST NATION TO THE POOREST IN YOUR LIFETIME BECAUSE YOU LACK THE COURAGE, NERVE, OR BACKBONE TO TAKE ACTION NOW WHEN IT'S NEEDED?\n\nVOTE! VOTE FOR ANYONE BUT DEMS OR REPS!\nTHEY ARE IN POWER AND HAVE THE CONTROL THEY MUST BEAR ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR MISMANAGEMENT!
545818
My father manufactured the active ingredient in agent orange,(C-5,6), at Hooker Chemical's Montague Michigan plant for the duration of the Vietnam War. The process was so volatile and so toxic that it had to be manufactured on a seven story wall-less superstructure in the middle of a 160 acre field. All of the production was then loaded on railway tankcars for shippment to Dow Chemical of Midland Mi.for addition of solvents and packaging for shipment to the military. At the close of the war, the superstructure was dismantled, and it, and all associated equipment, tools etc. were buried in a huge clay lined disposal pit on the site. The site remains a Toxic hot spot to this day and all of the surrounding neighborhood has water piped into them as the groundwater is highly contaminated. From '82-'93 my father ran a chlorine plant's maintainence department on the persian gulf, about 25 kliks from Kuwait City in Saudi. In 1997 he fell ill with the small cell cancer that has become consistent, though unrecognized by our government, as due to exposure to AO or its components. I know this as I was a service officer for the Am Legion Post here in my  town, and have seen the wreckage that this stuff left in its wake. I am an Non Combatant, US Navy, Vietnam Era vet, ( Commonly refferred to as a "rear echelon puke" ), who salutes and thanks you for your service. Hope you are well, and look forward to your Photo posts as you are quite knowledgeable on the subject. God Bless, Jed
63638
Native Americans... but I would not put it as "disputing European land claims".... rather the question should be "Who did the Europeans steal the land from" !\nThe native americans lived in what is now called america for thousands of years before the Europeans arrived to loot and plunder and commit genocides... this sounds harsh but it is sadly true.
1158681
Great question and just another illustration of Bush's hypocrisy, such as how we are bringing "freedom" to the Iraqis while reducing freedom in America (i.e. wiretaps, patriot act, incarcerating terminally ill cancer patients)\n\nFYI - Alaskans receive money every year for "their" share of the Alaskan oil reserves
984203
GOOD QUESTION! Many are over-rating the importance of oil in this region when there is enough oil in our emergency reserves and under the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve to make America self-sufficient beyond the expected need for petroleum based energy. The oil is, however, an important natural resource for those in the middle east and with several of those nations supporting terrorism and nuclear power, that makes for a nasty combination that needs to be carefully monitored!
556230
Russia had been the only Euopean power to support the Federal government during the Civil War, and was on very friendly terms. After the Polish rebellion in 1863, Russia was very strapped for cash, and Alaska was very isolated and not paying for itself. There was also the problem that England, which held Canada and was opposing Russia as it moved south from Siberia towards India, might start some sort of military action against Alaska that Russia could not support. It would be better to sell Alaska rather than watch it be stolen.