Military regimen and get his troops to cuba and it was his force of will to get him to that spot where he created the iconic moment in 1888. He was not a regular army. He was not. Did he operate independently . Yes, he certainly had an independent spirit in his own way of doing things but didnt have a Commanding Officer interest part of the core, they did have their marching orders as to what their role would be but he took on additional roles and a lot of credit for that, to roosevelt. Where is that phil . Its in cuba just outside of the east side. Why was it significant . One of the spanish fleet was held up in the harbor and the u. S. Navy wanted to force that fleet out of there and destroy it, make combat and they thought the best way to do that was to send a plan forced. Once he was taken, the fleet would be honorable. It was destroyed by the u. S. Navy. Why was the u. S. Military in cuba in 1898 . It can be complicated. And at times not so complicated but there was a lot of sympa
His bestselling book, the debtor those about to die, september hope, and deadly sky. John is curator professor of us military history at Missouri University of science and technology. He recently finished a 1year visiting professorship at the Naval Academy in annapolis and served as guest commentator in a History Channel documentary on dday. Johns latest book, fire and fortitude the u. S. Army in the pacific war, 19411943, is the first installment of a 2part history of the u. S. Army during world war ii. Fire and fortitude the u. S. Army in the pacific war, 19411943 covers the tragedies and triumphs of the u. S. Army soldiers from pearl harbor to the battles in the macon islands. Based on Extensive Research from government archives and academic collections, fire and fortitude the u. S. Army in the pacific war, 19411943 is a riveting narrative with a historians profound insights. Help me welcome our featured author, st. Louis hometown boy, john mcmanus. You need that. You do. Thank you,
might expect to help them. but then the side effects of the radiation will be the side effects of the cancer, and the department of defense wasn t particularly interested in the effects of radiation on people with metastatic cancer, they wanted to know what the effects of radiation were on a healthy 23-year-old pilot. and that could be best studied by irradiating people whose karch cancers were not going to respond to the radiation. most of the patients who were irradiated were poor. most of the patients who were irradiated were african-american. all of them had cancer. some of them weren t all that sick. some of them were still ambulatory, some of them were still going to work. the radiation had some pretty serious effects. out of the 90 people who were irradiated, 21 of them were dead within a month. and here s what s there are many things bothersome about this. we know that when you irradiate people, they have side effects. you can get nauseated, you can get very nauseat
syphilis and gonorrhea. and by the end of the war, there was enough for the army, there was enough for civilians and enough to give to some of our allies. there was also interest in using it to see if you could prevent people who had been exposed to gonorrhea from getting gonorrhea. the experiments were proposed here at the federal prison in vienna. they were proposing to give these men gonorrhea and then see if penicillin could be used to treat it. but they knew this was likely to be sensitive. so in a memo from the head of medical research, which was part of the office of research and development, ann richards said when any risks are involved, volunteers should only be utilized as subjects. and these, only after the risks have been fully explained and after signed statements had been obtained which shall prove that the volunteer offered his services with full knowledge. now, this is a pretty clear indication of what you need to do to do experiments on people that might hu
we decided to treat this individual as a criminal. when you are overseas, that maybe what you have to do in order to get these people and bring to justice. i would never have that in u.s. hands i would rather have that in u.s. hands. i think george washington summed it up best. keep strong american borders and stay out of other countries squabbles. what ever happened to our christian ethics and foundation? the biggest change in american foreign-policy since the republic was founded was the creation of nato in 1947. it was the point in time the united states said they would engage in other countries in our national interest. the previous 165 years of american history avoided those kinds of commitments. you can make your own decisions if it was smart. i think it was wise myself. it was a significant change in the orientation of american international engagements. that has been true since 1947. 65 years we have been engaged that involve the united states and the global lea