There's a kids' mouthwash called Agent Orange? Either their marketing people didn't learn about the Vietnam War during school or... god damn it, I don't even know.CRUNKMUFFIN said:
Agent Orange (the chemical)
- Thread starter Mythos1092
- Start date
Recommended Videos
War is hell but a civil war is actually worse because it is personal.JimmyBassatti said:
America was foolish to have waded into it but the people in charge freaked out and thought they would lose all of Asia to communism so they killed millions to stop communist infiltration of our precious body fluids!
Hey teacher, I have a question! Isn't Agent Orange against the Geneva Convention? Is it considered a bio or chemical weapon?
I don't really know much about the Vietnam war - but I do know a little about the chemical "Agent Orange". It was mass produced (although not created) by the chemical research division of the Monsanto Corporation (they didn't start up as a genetics company, and indeed, Monsanto still make quite a profit with its chemical arm of the company).
Now, I've heard from people who say that it was all a conspiracy to poison the Vietnamese. My mother believes this as well. But the fact of the matter is that they started dropping this years and years before the war was over - if they knew it was poison, they wouldn't have sprayed so much so soon, because then the press would have gotten wind of it. Plus, the objective of the US was to secure South Vietnam - this Agent Orange stuff spreads, dioxins spread, and they certainly didn't want to poison their allies. They didn't really know what it could do at the time - medical science wasn't as advanced then as it is now, they probably didn't know it was so toxic to human beings. Hell, quite a few US soldiers got really sick from handling the stuff. They just thought it was a really good defoliant.
Should the US pay compensation? Sure. The companies who manufactured the stuff have already paid compensation to soldiers who got sick. The science on the effects of dioxins is pretty solid But I suppose they didn't know it was a poison.... and if they didn't know what they didn't know, was it really negligence?
Yes Agent Orange is bad and it has caused some birth defects. But friends of mine have been to vietnam - most children are born without such defects. Vietnam isn't a nation where everyone under the age of thirty looks strange. Agent Orange has raised the rate of birth-defects and abnormalities, and in areas which recieved multiple sprays of the stuff, the rate of defects is quite high. Also, US bases where some of the excess chemicals were buried, also have high rates of dioxins.
Should the US pay compensation to the vietnam government? Hmmm, maybe. But they probably won't. The Vietnam government has already identified areas which have high levels of contamination, so the problem should stop pretty soon. Should the US pay money to children who have been affected by this disease? Well, if they were nice, sure. But no government is "nice". The most you could hope for is help cleaning up the remaining sites.
Now, I've heard from people who say that it was all a conspiracy to poison the Vietnamese. My mother believes this as well. But the fact of the matter is that they started dropping this years and years before the war was over - if they knew it was poison, they wouldn't have sprayed so much so soon, because then the press would have gotten wind of it. Plus, the objective of the US was to secure South Vietnam - this Agent Orange stuff spreads, dioxins spread, and they certainly didn't want to poison their allies. They didn't really know what it could do at the time - medical science wasn't as advanced then as it is now, they probably didn't know it was so toxic to human beings. Hell, quite a few US soldiers got really sick from handling the stuff. They just thought it was a really good defoliant.
Should the US pay compensation? Sure. The companies who manufactured the stuff have already paid compensation to soldiers who got sick. The science on the effects of dioxins is pretty solid But I suppose they didn't know it was a poison.... and if they didn't know what they didn't know, was it really negligence?
Yes Agent Orange is bad and it has caused some birth defects. But friends of mine have been to vietnam - most children are born without such defects. Vietnam isn't a nation where everyone under the age of thirty looks strange. Agent Orange has raised the rate of birth-defects and abnormalities, and in areas which recieved multiple sprays of the stuff, the rate of defects is quite high. Also, US bases where some of the excess chemicals were buried, also have high rates of dioxins.
Should the US pay compensation to the vietnam government? Hmmm, maybe. But they probably won't. The Vietnam government has already identified areas which have high levels of contamination, so the problem should stop pretty soon. Should the US pay money to children who have been affected by this disease? Well, if they were nice, sure. But no government is "nice". The most you could hope for is help cleaning up the remaining sites.
i always laughed at the geneva convention. i mean on paper is should be great. don't do absurdly sick and cruel things to people, but think about it. you are going to war with someone. you want to irradicate their population or slaughter and terrify their population into submission, but oh no, we're going to be sporting about it. just a big joke. And to be on topic yes there are some nasty chemicals and bio-weapons that various countries have come up with. If humans are good at one thing its exploring new and more horrifying ways to destroy.Kollega said:
It is now but during the Vietnam War which ended in April 30, 1975 it wasn't. The Chemical Weapons Convention didn't go it to force until April 29, 1997, the Biological Weapons Convention did go into force until March 26, 1975. Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention didn't even go into effect until December 7, 1979. Agent Orange was only used between 1962 and 1971 so technically it wasn't illegal under the Geneva Convention. Plus it also wasn't actually used as a weapon against people it was used as a defoliant to clear out jungle cover the Vietcong would use. They simply were not thinking about long term effects they were just worried about then and trying to win a war.letsnoobtehpwns said:
haha. yeah maybe. i guess there is a difference. war is war tho, and i doubt anyone will stick to the rules, especially if the chips are down. if someone is willing to kill someone for something then i don't really see why they would stick to the rules was my point.Pebkac said:
Does agent orange cause birth defects? Yes
Are all of the deformed children in Vietnam caused solely by Agent Orange? No
When you see images of deformed Vietnamese children it is often hard to separate those whose defects were caused by AO, and those who have the defects that inevitably a small portion of any population (even western) will contain. I went through a museum in Ho Chi Minh City/Saigon that had these sort of pictures and my father who is a surgeon was pointing which ones were naturally occurring abnormalities and which were AO induced. The ratio was nearly 1:1.
The issue is that now any deformed child, either by natural or unnatural means is suddenly turned into a tool of propaganda against the west.
Are all of the deformed children in Vietnam caused solely by Agent Orange? No
When you see images of deformed Vietnamese children it is often hard to separate those whose defects were caused by AO, and those who have the defects that inevitably a small portion of any population (even western) will contain. I went through a museum in Ho Chi Minh City/Saigon that had these sort of pictures and my father who is a surgeon was pointing which ones were naturally occurring abnormalities and which were AO induced. The ratio was nearly 1:1.
The issue is that now any deformed child, either by natural or unnatural means is suddenly turned into a tool of propaganda against the west.
You'd be surprised. In recent history at least, the concept of Total War (attacks on civilian and industrial/produce targets), is a relatively new thing. Go back 200 odd years and it was more about wiping out enemy armies to win, rather than doing anything to their civilian population.grimsprice said:
You'd also be surprised at how much people are willing to 'stick to the rules'. After all, no matter how 'evil' the other guy is, he's still just the other guy, not a horned and fiery demon. The WWI Christmas Truce demonstrated this more than anything, with a bunch of young men who had been trying to kill one another only days before being able to exchange gifts and play soccer.
That's because war is supposed to be a last resort and resolved as quickly as possible. If you're dicking around using chemical weapons to cause birth defects and cause suffering instead of just putting a few bullets in them, you're doing it wrong.grimsprice said:
Its more than just following the "rules", its hard to keep your army motivated when they know they are slaughtering helpless civilians. People go to war because they think it is the right thing to do, its hard to fit genocide into that.Armitage Shanks said:
Heh. Agent Orange.
Apparently, my great grandmother tried to use it as weedkiller once. It killed the entire rosebush.
This was Soviet-era Hungary, so it was commercially available. Apparently.
But yeah...I agree. Those poor kids look terrible. Ditto the Chernobyl children.
It sickens me that they are kept alive. Probably against their wishes.
Apparently, my great grandmother tried to use it as weedkiller once. It killed the entire rosebush.
This was Soviet-era Hungary, so it was commercially available. Apparently.
But yeah...I agree. Those poor kids look terrible. Ditto the Chernobyl children.
It sickens me that they are kept alive. Probably against their wishes.