story.news.yahoo.com/news...ent_orange (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&e=5&u=/ap/20040205/ap_on_re_as/vietnam_agent_orange)

Though I think those who gave the order to use the shit, should be more responsible than the companies who produced it.

"Vietnam has said that the United States has a moral and spiritual responsibility to heal the wounds of war."

Since there is no God and Taino's perfect world has no morality then they need to come up with some more reasons.

This is a case where the direct victims can be helped and should be helped. I see the US Government as the liable entity though...it was not DuPont who contracted for the stuff sprayed on jungles, it was the military.

There are similar concerns about the depleted uranium armor piercing rounds used in Iraq as well. War is hell...and a bitch of a liability risk...

My father contracted Agent Orange Poisening in Viet Nam.Our wonderful government gave him four thousand dollars back in 1989. Thats it.

The Government's liability is only to the military personnel and only what is due any other veteran, unless it can be shown that the companies who manufactured the stuff had given due warning about the health risks from exposure.

Civilians in combatant areas have no claim against the government, but may have one against the multinational manufacturing companies. I can't even imagine how complicated international law is on something like this.

There is legal liability and moral liability. The US government is certainly morally liable, the companies somewhat less so. The US government provides a specification of what they want, then contract it out to manufacturers (usually the lowest bidder). If the resulting product meets spec, the company making it is usually not legally liable for problems arising from it's use. Remember it was not DuPont or Monsanto who requested and was using the stuff... it was the US military.

Whether or not someone is legally responsible, we (being the US) should pay compensation to agent orange victims.

So under that logic, shouldn't we also be paying German citizens compensation for blowing up their houses in WW2 and Japanese citizens for radiation exposure? When we drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait maybe we should have consulted the lawyers first to make sure neither party would have a claim against us.

The government says... I want something to defoliate the fuggin jungle and won't harm my troops. The company makes it and it harms people. The company is responsible unless the human exposure levels prescribed in its use were exceeded by the government and can be proven.

But what if the government forgets to say anything about "not harming my troops" or civilians for that matter when they write the spec? Back in the sixties, environmental concerns were not high priority or even considerations.

Also, if the stuff is killing or maiming people by poisoning them, then it pretty solidly falls under the chemical warfare category which the US has signed treaties against using. Oops.

I'm sorry, something of this nature that continues to inflict casualties on civilians over a very large area decades after it's use needs to be dealt with. The victims are alive right now. They can positively identified and can still be helped. Morally we should do so.

Then the people who feel that they should do something morally should do so. Send em some money Gul :)

Likely we all will whether we like it or not....either through taxes or higher prices for your ant spray. I have given money to charity for the disabled US veterans in the past and if something were set up for the Vietnamese I might toss a few bucks their way directly as well (as long as I was sure it was going to victims and not some party hack's bank account).

http://www.humanplague.com/archive/pissoff/pics/imwithdawg.jpg

my dad died over a year ago as a result of agent orange,when he served in vietnam.
the goverment sent him a letter back in the mid 80s telling him he had been exposed to it.
which years later in the mid 90s he found out he had multiple-melenoma,a type of bone marrow cancer.
which the doctors listed as agent orange exposure, as the likely cause of the cancer.

anyone whos ever watched someone dying of cancer,knows how horrific it is to die from it.i would have rather been shot or blown up in the war, then have to face that utterly gruesome, agony and pain filled death 30 years after that fucked up war.

The disease is multiple myeloma. An old study showed an increased risk of multiple myeloma as a result of exposure to certain herbicides, and therefore it was hypothesized that agent orange could increase the risk of multiple myeloma since it was an herbicide. No studies have supported this and in fact no studies now support herbicide exposure as a risk factor for multiple myeloma. If a doctor told you that agent orange exposure was the cause of the cancer he should be shot.

A lot of the agent orange information is anecdotal like this. I know someone who got a disease.... they were in Vietnam.... it was caused by agent orange.

I'm sorry for your loss, but it wasn't caused by agent orange.

umm it wasnt one doctor he had to go through,it was many doctors, from the mayo clinic in minn to the clinic in boston. including having to see a miltary doctor to recieve money for medical help.he had to go through kemo, had a bone marrow transplant,that didnt take in the end.but funny that all these doctors wrote down as the likely cause of his cancer was by exposure to agent orange.
except of course for the military doctor. but yeah they wont admit to this fucked up BS anyway. they did wind up paying my dad almost 3k a month in the end, based on the fact he was exposed to this chemical over 30 years past.even though they wont admit to it as the cause./boggle

Extensive studies have shown no increased risk of multiple myeloma from any herbicide exposure including agent orange. On top of that, no doctor would ever write down "likely cause or this cancer was agent orange exposure" because even in the 1960 study that did show a slightly increased risk of multiple myeloma, the increase in risk was barely statistically significant. There is no correlation between the two dude. You've been misled or are lying if you say those doctors wrote it down as the cause of the cancer.

They won't admit to it as the cause because its not. Period. If you want I'll link some studies. So what we have here is the government paying out money to help you and your dad despite the fact that they were not responsible. Maybe you should rethink you're feelings about them.

I have to eat a little crow because I just did a review of the literature, and it seems recent studies have shown an increased risk of 10 percent based on agent orange exposure. That means that if out of 100,000 people, at a baseline incidence of 1 percent in the population, 1000 would be expected to get multiple myeloma. If that 100,000 people were exposed to agent orange (variable exposure levels) then 100 more would be expected to contract the disease in the course of their lifetime.

I checked some VA sources and they list multiple myeloma as one of the diseases they recognize. It still would not be listed as "caused by agent orange exposure" but still I was wrong in my previous statement that it is not a risk factor.

Again, I apologize for the misinformation. I was basing my info off of a lecture I attended a few years ago given by an epidemiologist discussing the results of a ten year study he conducted.

Screw it. Just delay any legal proceedings in as much red tape as possible. Once the people harmed are dead, those involved owe nothing, and thus you can avoid the reparations and damages owed.

Problem solved. It will just take another 40 years. And the longer you delay it, the less those in the wrong (if there are any) will owe, because there will be fewer living victems.

One could argue that the decendants of those harmed should be compensated, but that's clearly injust.

These people probably should deserve reparations. But what I think is funny is that Marz is the one posting for it. The same guy that says innocent people die and its a part of war so fuck off... But maybe that's just me.

Allamar/winter are both right.

Here's why:

What doctors TELL you and what they actually WRITE DOWN are often two very different things.

If you have ever gotten the chance to see your medical files you know exactly what I am talking about.

They are complaining and bitching about Agent Orange - but say nothing about the thousands of land mines left behind by their own government?

Sure... chalk it up to the big bad USA - never mind all the crap that other countries pull during war. OMG let's freak about the small chance of radiation poisoning from depleted Uranium but lets not worry about Saddam's use of chemical agents during the Gulf War - not to mention their left over minefields.

Chemical/biological warfare is the most horrific form of warfare and as such the US refuses to engage in Chemical warfare UNLESS chemicals agents are used against US troops - and even then only in the most critical situations. Biological agents are completly prohibited from use by US policies. The US treaty does not PROHIBIT the use of Chemical weapons entirely - merely limits their use and application. Also, if memory serves, the US signed the treaty AFTER the Vietnam War was over and done with...

I feel strongly for people who have suffered from the effects of chemical warfare. However, I do not feel that the US should pay everyone off because our country went to war with their country and casulties ensued as a result. If you follow that line of thinking then every person who has been maimed or killed by a land mine explosion should have full right to sue the government who was irresponsible enough to leave the mines behind years after they were placed...

And, for FYI, I have watched my Father in law die of Cirrhosis and both my Mother and Mother in law die from cancer. Heartbreaking, difficult... yes. But dying/suffering from a land mine or chemical warfare is the stuff of nightmares...

I don't think the US should pay off everyone it went to war with either. But I do think when we violate (even unintentionally) a treaty regarding the conduct of war that we are signatory to, we become culpable. Although Agent Orange was not meant to be a weapon against humans, in effect it has acted like a chemical weapon (and a persistent one at that, lingering long after the war was over). Do we live up to our treaties or not?

They are asking for 180 million. To keep that in perspective, that is about $.65 each from every American. I would pay ten times that amount without a moments hesitation.

How about this... lets pay them off right after they pay us off for the prisoners they tortured and murdered.

It wouldn't break my heart for some pressure for reparations (and / or prosecutions) the other way for those crimes. But we are not responsible for the honor or morals of Vietnam...we are responsible for our own. Because a foe doesn't do the right thing does not mean we should emulate them.

We are not responsible for their citizens at all... their own government is. The devaluation of the dollar is hurting the European economy... maybe we should pay the Europeans reparations. Do we owe the Japanese reparations for radiation exposure?

They are just pissed at being the only country we've fought with or against in the last 100 years that we haven't pitched in to rebuild better than they were before after the war was over.

You miss the point Winterworg...

In all those other instances you mention, the US has not signed a treaty prohibiting them. Even today the US has never signed any agreement prohibiting use of nuclear weapons. We have, however, signed conventions outlawing chemical weapons. As I stated, even though it was not intentional, it is clear that Agent Orange is in effect a chemical weapon that we used over a wide area and over several years. We unkowingly violated our own agreement. Where I come from, that makes it our responsibility to make some sort of amends.

The problem with trying to tie reparations to crimes by Vietnam against prisoners is that our skirts are not clean either. If we demand x dollars for soldiers murdered upon capture, then they demand x+1 dollars for victims of My Lai or Vietnamese captives also murdered upon capture. It's better to call that mess a draw since it is not accurately documented in any case.

I'm not missing the point I'm denying the point as valid. It depends on your frame of reference really. My frame of reference says that it was a war, it was obviously not intended as a chemical weapon against personnel, and our responsibility begins and ends with our own people in that case. We're spending a billion dollars on tuberculosis research to help out these underdeveloped countries, so I'm gonna call it a wash.

I look at it this way... we have a different perception of what constitutes the right thing. In your view, they are undeserving of any compensation for our breaking the rules because they were breaking different ones (even though we were as well). I see it that whenever anyone breaks a rule, they are culpable...i.e. I am a strong believer in living up to one's responsibility to address wrongs committed on your behalf, whether the wrong was intentional (or provoked) or not.

Yes it was a war. But it is in our best interest that all wars be conducted within some framework of restraint. After the first world war, a large number of nations decided that the horrors of chemical warfare should be avoided by future generations. The US signed up to that belief. It is important to note that even though a number of countries we have fought with have had chemical weapons, they were not used against us in battle. Even though other agreements were blatantly violated, that one was deemed important enough not to violate. The reason was simple...we could and would retaliate in kind and the results could be catastrophic for everyone.

Now here we are years later. Some could (and will ) argue that since the US apparently feels itself free to ignore it's agreements about chemical weapons without repercussions, they should as well. We start getting countries more and more willing to develop (and theoretically use) chemical weapons. After all, if we can violate agreements, so can they. By admitting our mistake and making an effort to make amends, (i.e. not just saying "fuck em, they deserved it"), we are strengthening the value of our word when we give it. To ignore the issue is to erode our credibility. IMO, that is a bad thing.

Point taken... however I doubt anyone in the world is looking at the agent orange issue and saying, oh gee America used chemical weapons and fuck it we might as well too. On top of that how do you verify who is sick as a result of agent orange in a country with virtually no environmental regulations, a contaminated water supply, and a majority of the population living in squallor? The complicated array of medical conditions experienced by those exposed to agent orange 1) are often poorly defined 2) all of the illnesses occur naturally 3) all of the illnesses are also increased in frequency in those exposed to many other common chemical agents and herbicides. Its not a cut and dried diagnosis where you can definitively say that someone is suffering from agent orange exposure. Rather, you get an increase in prevalence of certain illnesses.

All very true, but it is the perception that the US at least did something to address the issue that is important. If some non-agent orange afflicted people are helped out as well, I consider that a bonus not a reason to nix the whole thing. The one thing I would be concerned about is the rampant corruption in Vietnam. The biggest challenge would be making sure any aid goes to those afflicted, not to build some party official a new crib as happens in so many countries where aid is sent.

It doesn't matter what we do. Foreign perception will always be negative. Soviet tanks would have rolled over all of Europe if we hadn't stood up to them, but they act like it never happened. Your strongest argument is our moral responsibility.

Part of that negative foreign perception is precisely because we sometimes take the "screw em, they deserve it" attitude. But, yeah the moral responsibility is the biggest part. We should also recognize the more pragmatic aspects as well though since they do exist. Being perceived as a country that honors it's committments is a practical benefit.

I'm sorry for your loss, but it wasn't caused by agent orange.
Ich habe es nicht gewust.

I don't speak german. Care to say it in english so I can respond? vix vix

I seem to remember it's a phrase that was often used by the German citizens when confronted with the concentration camps after the war. I think it is loosely translated as "I didn't know it" though I could be mistaken. My last class in German was twenty five years ago and I have had scant chance to use it.

Funny that he would pull that out and ignore the fact that I admitted that I had made a mistake. Hello asshole drive through.

WW, foreign perception of the USA isn't always negative.

You do know that for most of the world, the USA was the white hat in the cold war?

If the USA was held up to standards higher than the Soviets, it was because it earned that privledge. A moral failure of the American Empire was ethically similar to Soviet moral perfection.

Now, there are no more Soviets to compare the USA against.

I think that is over simplified. There is always good ole China for contrast. Which brings up a pet peeve of mine...

What do some people on this board say are the biggest problems with the US? Let's see..I seem to remember opinions that:

1. The US has capital punishment and is therefore immoral
2. The US is environmentally wreckless
3. The US pokes it's nose into other countries' business
4. The US is arrogant
5. The US is agressive towards other countries
6. The US propped up evil dictatorships

If you look at China:

1. Is the top executioner in the world
2. Has far fewer environmental standards than the US
3. China also pokes it's nose into other countries' business (see Tibet, Nepal, Part of Kashmir)
4. China is pretty arrogant claiming Taiwan belongs to them.
5. China is agressive towards other countries (see Taiwan, Spratley Islands, Tibet, India, Vietnam).
6. China props up North Korea even to this day.

Funny the countries criticizing the US the most are tripping over each other trying to get their piece of the Chinese economic pie with nary a word of complaint on their policies. I can only conclude that the US is actually disliked because the US is perceived as being on top of the heap...to move up, you need to knock the leader down a peg or two.

Nice points Gul. I think I understand your point Laeyakk, and though it seems obvious that foreign perception of the US isn't ALWAYS negative... and that we're probably seen in a more critical light than during the cold war... my opinion is that we have a big bullseye on our back and most of the world are throwing darts. Of course this is an entirely empirical study I've conducted.

Gulor, most nations agree that the government of China is better than anarchy. Beyond that, I doubt you could get a uniform agreement. They trade with China because China is a big pie to get a slice of (1/10th of the world's total pie). Plus, the growth rate of the slice is larger than most other slices.

Most nations agree that the USA isn't as good as it should be. They trade with the USA because USA is 1/5th of the world's pie.

my opinion is that we have a big bullseye on our back and most of the world are throwing darts.

*nod*. If the USA want's the moral power to say "X is a bad guy, trust us, we know he's doing bad things. Help out, passively or actively" it needs a huge amount of moral credibility. When it fails to live up to this standard, those who would otherwise help out feel betrayed.

Bush just asked the world to help invade a nation, or to ok the invasion, where most nations said the evidence was unreliable. Those who where not with the USA where lambasted as being the allies of Terrorists and destroyers of civilization. "If you aren't with us, you are against us". Since then, the evidence used to convince those that came along at the start turned out to be unreliable.

The nations of the world asked for proof. They disagreed with the proof shown, where verbally/economically attacked and insulted for daring to claim that the USA could be wrong, and when the evidence turned out to be inprecices after the invasion felt justified in their disgust.

Is this an accurate assessment? Probably not perfectly, but that is the view a good chunk of the rest of the world seems to have of the situation.

But yes, the world opinion of the USA's actions and purity of heart has fallen recently. Which is sad, I swear the USA could have convinced the world to go along with Iraq using less fuzzy evidence, and avoided wasting alot of moral capital.

Of course this is an entirely empirical study I've conducted.

Neither is mine. =)

That is exactly my pet peeve.... the US is held to a higher standard than China. That should not be the case... after all everyone should also agree that the US government is also better than anarchy so that argument doesn't wash.

It irks me that the people of Taiwan are being lectured by other countries (including my own unfortunately) for considering holding an *internal* referendum on missiles pointed at them. Many of the lecturers are the same people, in fact, who were aghast that Iraq was being pressured by the US to meet their obligations after the first gulf war. So basically its evil of the US to pressure a dictator, but it's A-OK for China to openly threaten invasion of a democratic government if you dare to hold a vote. Someone explain that to me in a coherent fashion please.