Yup, it just is no fun when you use chemical weapons and then get held accountable....thank god for the judge who remembers that we are the US, so we can do what ever we want...

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=World&cat=Vietnam

Don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with you, but Agent Orange, also known as 242T was used as a defoliant, not a chemical weapon. (Not to say that they didn't have the same affects)

That is the point, we knew about what it would do, to the innocent and to our own troops. There is a huge amount of NHL in the guys that handled agent orange, and for years the government refused to pay for their treatment. During the last 10 years, they have started to. (I know three vets who have it) finally.

Remember zyklon b was a pesticide.....but it sure was not used that way.

If saddam had called what he used on iran and the kurds a "defoliant" would it have been ok?

That photo was horrible :( Poor kids, never did anything to anybody...

like I said before, I primarily agree with you.

Chemical weapons are the worst (I think even than a nuke since it's been used alot more often) weapon man has ever conceived. I know that their use goes back to the middle ages but the continual development of these weapons disgust me.

Like already stated...that little baby did NOTHING to NOBODY!!! While the US did not use it as a weapon I think desperation caused them to overlook the potential side effects of that chemical.

BUT, with that said...4 million people asking the US to pay them is rediculus. They better do more research and prove their cases before the US starts paying them. It's crazy to ask the US to pay when they have little to no evidence. Also...those 4 million people...I just don't think they all have been tested to say the least.

I think this will fall away quickly if no evidence, medical records, etc is produced for the 4 million seeking money.

...

Like already stated...that little baby did NOTHING to NOBODY!!! While the US did not use it as a weapon I think desperation caused them to overlook the potential side effects of that chemical... In what sense would you contend that the "US did not use (Agent Orange) as a "weapon" in Vietnam?

" U.S. aircraft sprayed more than 21 million gallons of the chemical between 1962 to 1971 in attempts to destroy crops and remove foliage used as cover by communist forces."

Destruction of food crops and destroying cover to allow more effective bombing would seem to constitute "a weapon" according to any definition of the term I can imagine.

If it's your contention that it wasn't a weapon designed to kill people immediately, but only through starvation and birth defects, that's a fairly restricted version of the definition of "weapon." Futhermore, the "side effects" of Agent Orange were difficult to "overlook." They were well known at the time.

The judge's decision focuses on the liability of the companies that produced Agent Orange, not the culpability of the US in its use.

like I said before, I primarily agree with you.


Did not mean to look like I was comming down on you...sorry if it came off that way.

BUT, with that said...4 million people asking the US to pay them is rediculus. They better do more research and prove their cases before the US starts paying them. It's crazy to ask the US to pay when they have little to no evidence. Also...those 4 million people...I just don't think they all have been tested to say the least.


The Vietnam vets had a $180 million settlement package from the Agent Orange producer. This precidence, in the view of many, is like an admission of guilt. Heck the VA office maintains a website that helps vets with their Agent Orange contamination (http://www1.va.gov/agentorange/.)

The spraying of that stuff was not a weapon PER THEIR explanation. Did they really have another motive...I don't know, but they could have had one that's for sure.

They explain that they were not attacking people but attacking the forest, trees, etc that the enemy was hiding in. Per that explanation...it was not used as a chemical weapon per say but as a chemical to kill the plant life and not directed at the people.

With that said, I don't work for the CIA, FBI, NSA or any other government agency to say that I KNOW FOR A FACT we used that to hurt people. Could have it been done...sure, do I or anyone else for that matter know for a FACT that they used it on purpose...unless someone is offering proof.

I think all chemical weapons are a great evil (similar to war, murder, etc) and I wish the world would stop using them.

Now...the maker of the stuff paying out...(while their release probably states that it's not a confession of guilt) does say something...but I don't know the details about that to say anymore.

Per the US explanation it was not a weapon...but are they liable...maybe, will they pay...probably not...

I hope who ever has been hurt by this stuff has his/her day in court, but paying out money without proof is simply not the way law works. Not for an American...a Russian, or Vietnamese....per the law you will have to offer some sort of "reasonable" proof.