Was/is the US responsible for this

BEFORE CLICKING ON LINK BE AWARE IMAGES ARE GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2579939/Children-suffer-horrific-effects-Americas-use-chemical-weapons-Vietnam-War.html

I am afraid that I simply do not have enough background and knowledge to know whose claims are correct in this story - whether the deformities are caused by the use of Agent Orange or if the evidence is lacking as the US authorities claim.

I am not sure it even makes a difference - the help is sorely needed here whatever the reason and it seems it is not being provided. It is things like this that I have no problem with foreign aid being spent on.

Unequivocally the US are responsible for this, the same as the US and Britain are responsible for the cancers and birth defects in Iraq from the depleted uranium on the bombs dropped.

Agent Orange was horrible and I don't see what else would have caused these effects after all the testing that has been done. The U.S. government is lying.

Sassy wrote:Unequivocally the US are responsible for this, the same as the US and Britain are responsible for the cancers and birth defects in Iraq from the depleted uranium on the bombs dropped.

Shells actually. They were fighting an all out war and depleted uranium shells are tank busters.

Agent orange was a defoliant and it very probably does have side effects.

Sassy wrote:Unequivocally the US are responsible for this, the same as the US and Britain are responsible for the cancers and birth defects in Iraq from the depleted uranium on the bombs dropped.

Indeed. The pictures above are very sad! I cant imagine what the parents must go through! How they must detest the American Government and rightly so.

If they got together all the children who have been born with birth defects, or who have got cancers etc from the chemicals used by the US and ourselves, and brought them to us and the US so that people could actually face up to what is done in their name, people would rise up and stop the things that happen.   Well, I damn well hope they would.

Sassy wrote:If they got together all the children who have been born with birth defects, or who have got cancers etc from the chemicals used by the US and ourselves, and brought them to us and the US so that people could actually face up to what is done in their name, people would rise up and stop the things that happen.   Well, I damn well hope they would.

The war with Iraq was initiated by Blair with the support of left and right. It deposed a seriously nasty leader who was pretending to have weapons of mass destructions and had in fact used them in Iran and against his own people. It wasn't done lightly and though the outcome in hindsight hasn't been satisfactory it was done I believe in the spirit of what is best. Some wars e.g. WW1 WW2 Falklands are forced upon us and the weapons of war always end up hurting the innocent. Mines for example have very deleterious long term consequences.

I'm sure not many people including politicians fight wars because they want to or because they are Psychos.

I am not sure what squabbling over blame achieves. I am fairly sure that those who made the decisions to use Orange did not understand or plan these results and if they had known would never have gone ahead - and that is ten fold for the men who flew the plane and laid the stuff down.

Surely all that matters now is getting these children the care and treatment they need - not pointing at decisions made half a century ago.

Kevin, As someone who marched against Iraq, can't stand Blair, and I'm perfectly convinced the reasons were nothing to do with what you are saying, I simply don't agree.   Blair and Bush had decided on war with Iraq long before, and whatever Saddam had done to his people they were in a much better place than they are now, and he wasn't killing off the children, which we managed to do with sanctions and bombs and the aftermath of bombs.

sphinx wrote:I am not sure what squabbling over blame achieves.  I am fairly sure that those who made the decisions to use Orange did not understand or plan these results and if they had known would never have gone ahead - and that is ten fold for the men who flew the plane and laid the stuff down.

Surely all that matters now is getting these children the care and treatment they need - not pointing at decisions made half a century ago.

The effects of Agent Orange were known long before it was used in Vietnam, I'm quite sure they knew.

As for the pilots etc of the planes that took it up, they didn't give a bugger about what napalm was doing, and they had seen the results of that.

PS, what it achieves is that the people responsible have to do something to try and make the lives of these children better.

What ever the reasons for war with Saddam many of us at the time thought it right. I once worked with a bloke who argued that we should not have fought Hitler. He wasn't a Nazi or a quaker he just said we shouldn't fight whatever the provocation. His view I am sure even you don't agree with. He was a real lefty btw.

War is never the first route and should always be the last resort but often to do nothing leads to greater wars. The Ukraine is a case in point. That is a real problem.

I find it strange you argue that it is right to send rockets into Israel aimed at civilians on the one hand yet wear your heart on your sleeve the next. Hardly a consistent view. Don't Jewish civilians count?

I am consistent war is bad and directly attacking civilians even worse.

Sassy wrote:PS, what it achieves is that the people responsible have to do something to try and make the lives of these children better.

What would you rather see the people responsible half a century ago punished or these children helped?

sphinx wrote:I am not sure what squabbling over blame achieves.  I am fairly sure that those who made the decisions to use Orange did not understand or plan these results and if they had known would never have gone ahead - and that is ten fold for the men who flew the plane and laid the stuff down.

Surely all that matters now is getting these children the care and treatment they need - not pointing at decisions made half a century ago.

Agree 100%, the help to the children who have suffered is what really matters now. War creates many mistakes, you only have to looking at the bombing campaign over Germany in WW2 of Cities, it caused devastation with countless deaths and did not achieve its goal to beat the German population into submission, in fact it gave them resolve, with the only strategic success in keeping German fighters from the theater of combat tied up defending Germany.

Yes we should recognize mistakes, but am not going to blame all the airmen involved in the bombing campaign, because they were doing what they thought was the best tactics to use.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:PS, what it achieves is that the people responsible have to do something to try and make the lives of these children better.

What would you rather see the people responsible half a century ago punished or these children helped?

Both

Alright said Fred wrote:What ever the reasons for war with Saddam many of us at the time thought it right. I once worked with a bloke who argued that we should not have fought Hitler. He wasn't a Nazi or a quaker he just said we shouldn't fight whatever the provocation. His view I am sure even you don't agree with. He was a real lefty btw.

War is never the first route and should always be the last resort but often to do nothing leads to greater wars. The Ukraine is a case in point. That is a real problem.

I find it strange you argue that it is right to send rockets into Israel aimed at civilians on the one hand yet wear your heart on your sleeve the next. Hardly a consistent view. Don't Jewish civilians count?

I am consistent war is bad and directly attacking civilians even worse.

Total rubbish, I have never said that rockets into Israel are right, I have said that when people have as many of their civilians killed and maimed as the Palestinians have, it's impossible to tell them not to fight back. Especially when white phosphorus is dropped on said civilian population and Israel is not charged with a war crime as the UN says it was.

Sassy wrote:

Alright said Fred wrote:What ever the reasons for war with Saddam many of us at the time thought it right. I once worked with a bloke who argued that we should not have fought Hitler. He wasn't a Nazi or a quaker he just said we shouldn't fight whatever the provocation. His view I am sure even you don't agree with. He was a real lefty btw.

War is never the first route and should always be the last resort but often to do nothing leads to greater wars. The Ukraine is a case in point. That is a real problem.

I find it strange you argue that it is right to send rockets into Israel aimed at civilians on the one hand yet wear your heart on your sleeve the next. Hardly a consistent view. Don't Jewish civilians count?

I am consistent war is bad and directly attacking civilians even worse.

Total rubbish, I have never said that rockets into Israel are right, I have said that when people have as many of their civilians killed and maimed as the Palestinians have, it's impossible to tell them not to fight back.   Especially when white phosphorus is dropped on said civilian population and Israel is not charged with a war crime as the UN says it was.

A big twist and problem of such claims, as what is fighting back, when no fight is happening at times, thus firing rockets is aggression if there is no war and is not fighting back, no matter if they see it as such, when both sides thus do wrong, and this is a good example where you always only see one side wrong where I see both.

Sphinx raises a good point which you would cloud the matter by wanting both help for the children and retribution, yet by wanting the later you would also no doubt kill off any chance of the former happening, because as soon as you go down the route of treating this as a war crime and making people culpable, then America will cease to help. Cut out the blame and they could well indeed help, as what Sphinx said is true, as many actions are not known at the time what real lasting affects they have.

 

Back to Agent Orange and other indignities let loose on an unsuspecting civilian population.   The reason people need to be punished is to deter others doing it in the future.   Isn't that why we lock up criminals?   If the US had been punished for Agent Orange earlier, they might have thought twice, as might we, of dropping bombs coated in depleted uranium on Iraq.

The whole situation means that people who say we had a right to go into Iraq because of what Saddam did, total hypocrites, because we have done worse.

Sassy wrote:Back to Agent Orange and other indignities let loose on an unsuspecting civilian population.   The reason people need to be punished is to deter others doing it in the future.   Isn't that why we lock up criminals?   If the US had been punished for Agent Orange earlier, they might have thought twice, as might we, of dropping bombs coated in depleted uranium on Iraq.

They did not use the chemicals to target civilians though, it was to meant to destroy vegetation, thus clearly they were unaware at the time it would have any affect on civilians, so how can you blame people who were unaware of its affect?
You cannot, as there was no intent at the time using this to commit harm, so again you are making people culpable for actions they were unaware they were committing would do any harm, are you going to make the crew of Enola Gay charged for a war crime now?

Yes they did, I remember at the time and everyone knew the deforestation was an excuse, the research into it's effects on people was well known and they knew there were whole villages under the trees they were spraying. They also sprayed it on rice fields etc, knowing that people would either starve or eat what was left.

Sassy wrote:Yes they did, I remember at the time and everyone knew the deforestation was an excuse.

Really?

I do not think so, if they are only now seeing the full affects from this years later, then clearly your claim makes little sense or has any validity.
Again what is needed is to now help the victims, as trying to make people culpable with leave the victims without any help

I was around, you weren't, I was marching against it, you weren't.

Sassy wrote:I was around, you weren't, I was marching against it, you weren't.

Yes you were marching with your tits out with flowers in your hair, great, that does not mean you have a clue what you are talking about.

The reality is already America has set up funds to help clean up and decontaminate hotspots , which is the right way forward, it was also used by the British in Malaya.


So I really take what you say always with a pinch of salt

You stupid little man, do you think you can gain an advantage by talking about tits out etc.   Lots of the marches were in winter, they would have dropped off.

The concentrations of chemicals they used and added (TCDD) were hundreds of times greater than the levels considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  They knew exactly what they were doing. We had used Agent Orange in Malaya, without the additives and that was bad enough.

Sassy wrote:Back to Agent Orange and other indignities let loose on an unsuspecting civilian population.   The reason people need to be punished is to deter others doing it in the future.   Isn't that why we lock up criminals?   If the US had been punished for Agent Orange earlier, they might have thought twice, as might we, of dropping bombs coated in depleted uranium on Iraq.

The whole situation means that people who say we had a right to go into Iraq because of what Saddam did, total hypocrites, because we have done worse.

IF you knew anything about this matter sassy you would realise that we didnt "drop bombs coated in depleted uranium" the depleted uranium was actually "bullets" made of said material, used for armor busting ...Reason? it is FAR heavier than lead etc whilst being MUCH harder, but STILL soft enough to be explosively formed into the "best" shape for destroying a tank whilst in flight.
It was chosen for its physical properties, and only afterwards ...when problems became apparent........ was it that anyone thought "oh shit, that was a bad idea"

Depleted uranium (DU; also referred to in the past as Q-metal, depletalloy or D-38) is uranium with a lower content of the fissile isotope U-235 than natural uranium.[2] (Natural uranium is about 99.27% U-238, 0.72% U-235—the fissile isotope, and 0.0055% U-234). Uses of DU take advantage of its very high density of 19.1 g/cm3 (68.4% denser than lead). Civilian uses include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shielding in medical radiation therapy and industrial radiography equipment and containers used to transport radioactive materials. Military uses include defensive armor plating and armor-piercing projectiles.
Most depleted uranium arises as a byproduct of the production of enriched uranium for use in nuclear reactors and in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Enrichment processes generate uranium with a higher-than-natural concentration of lower-mass uranium isotopes (in particular U-235, which is the uranium isotope supporting the fission chain reaction) with the bulk of the feed ending up as depleted uranium, in some cases with mass fractions of U-235 and U-234 less than a third of those in natural uranium. U-238 has a much longer halflife than the lighter isotopes, and DU therefore emits less alpha radiation than the same mass of natural uranium: the US Defense Department states DU used in US munitions has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium.[3]
Since the U-235 content of nuclear reactor fuel is reduced by fission, uranium recovered by nuclear reprocessing from spent nuclear reactor fuel made from natural uranium will have a lower-than-natural U-235 concentration. Such 'reactor-depleted' material will have different isotopic ratios from enrichment byproduct DU, and can be distinguished from it by the presence of U-236.[4] Trace transuranics (another indicator of the use of reprocessed material) have been reported to be present in some US tank armor.[3]
The use of DU in munitions is controversial because of questions about potential long-term health effects.[5][6] Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because uranium is a toxic metal.[7] It is only weakly radioactive because of its long radioactive half-life (4.468 billion years for uranium-238, 700 million years for uranium-235). The biological half-life (the average time it takes for the human body to eliminate half the amount in the body) for uranium is about 15 days.[8] The aerosol or spallation frangible powder produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites, leading to possible inhalation by human beings.[9]
The actual level of acute and chronic toxicity of DU is also a point of medical controversy. Several studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, and of genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.[5] A 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10] However, the World Health Organization, the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations, states that no risk of reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects have been reported in humans due to DU exposure.[11][12] This report has been criticized for not including possible long term effects of DU on the human body.[13]

rest of the article here...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

Sassy wrote:You stupid little man, do you think you can gain an advantage by talking about tits out etc.   Lots of the marches were in winter, they would have dropped off.

The concentrations of chemicals they used and added (TCDD) were hundreds of times greater than the levels considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  They knew exactly what they were doing.

You really are daft and I will explain why.
Over 40,000 US service men were also affected by these chemicals, are you now saying the US Government and its troops knew they were affecting each other?
Don't be daft, the British had used this throughout the Malayan Emergency and without any hugh and cry over its use. It had been successful it clearing forestation, which was the hiding place of Guerrillas, which was then suggested to the US with Vietnam.

Thus there would have to be the chemical companies making this in full knowledge they would be affecting thousands of their own armed forces, sorry that is bullshit, they clearly had little knowledge of the side affects, and clearly your tits hanging out would have been put to better use it bringing an end to the conflict on Vietnam, as it would have scared the opposition into brokering a peace deal

Marion Falk, a retired chemical physicist who built nuclear bombs for more than 20 years at Lawrence Livermore Lab, was asked if he thought that DU weapons operate in a similar manner as a dirty bomb.

“That’s exactly what they are. They fit the description of a dirty bomb in every way.”

According to Falk, more than 30 percent of the DU fired from the cannons of U.S. tanks is reduced to particles one-tenth of a micron (one millionth of a meter) in size or smaller on impact. “The larger the bang” the greater the amount of DU that is dispersed into the atmosphere, Falk said. With the larger missiles and bombs, nearly 100 percent of the DU is reduced to radioactive dust particles of the “micron size” or smaller, he said.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-far-worse-than-9-11/2374

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:You stupid little man, do you think you can gain an advantage by talking about tits out etc.   Lots of the marches were in winter, they would have dropped off.

The concentrations of chemicals they used and added (TCDD) were hundreds of times greater than the levels considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  They knew exactly what they were doing.

You really are daft and I will explain why.
Over 40,000 US service men were also affected by these chemicals, are you now saying the US Government and its troops knew they were affecting each other?
Don't be daft, the British had used this throughout the Malayan Emergency and without any hugh and cry over its use. It had been successful it clearing forestation, which was the hiding place of Guerrillas, which was then suggested to the US with Vietnam.

Thus there would have to be the chemical companies making this in full knowledge they would be affecting thousands of their own armed forces, sorry that is bullshit, they clearly had little knowledge of the side affects, and clearly your tits hanging out would have been put to better use it bringing an end to the conflict on Vietnam, as it would have scared the opposition into brokering a peace deal

The British had used it, BUT THEY DIDN'T ADD THE TCDD, at very high levels, that they knew were dangerous. That is why so many of the US Forces got sick and are suing as well.

yes yes Sassy, anyone can be wise AFTER the event....

Yes scientists will argue over this Sassy, lets keep on topic though, it is no doubt that there was reservations about using these chemicals, but clearly they had no knowledge of the real damaging affects done not only to the populations of Vietnam, but to its own servicemen. The fact is war creates new methods in the hope of bringing about an end to a conflict, this they got wrong, but trying to make people culpable when they clearly had no real idea as they did not carry out enough testing in advance is you looking on this in hindsight

victorismyhero wrote:yes yes Sassy, anyone can be wise AFTER the event....

Exactly, nail on the head, even scientists at the time were unaware of the long term affects

victorismyhero wrote:yes yes Sassy, anyone can be wise AFTER the event....

Victor honey, we were wise at the time if you are talking about agent orange and the addition of TCDD.

Sassy wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:yes yes Sassy, anyone can be wise AFTER the event....

Victor honey, we were wise at the time if you are talking about agent orange and the addition of TCDD.  

Dear me, sorry you were not aware of anything Sassy and you are making it up, because many did not know the affects, especially long term affects, all you are doing is looking back in hindsight, thank goodness you are not in charge as I imagine the streets would be lined with gallows

What again is needed is for help now to be provided to all the victims

PhilDidge wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:yes yes Sassy, anyone can be wise AFTER the event....

Exactly, nail on the head, even scientists at the time were unaware of the long term affects

TCDD is a dioxin, known to be very very dangerous for a very very long time.

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Exactly, nail on the head, even scientists at the time were unaware of the long term affects

TCDD  is a dioxin, known to be very very dangerous for a very very long time.

Yes you can look up something now and claim you know, you did not know back then and so stop trying to bullshit people or even claim they knew the long term affects, they did not, so you are not convincing anyone, all you are doing is proving you are looking back in hindsight.

You are more concerned about making people culpable then helping the victims, that is obvious

Again sassy you are making a mistake, TCDD was NOT added to the agent orange, it was a contaminant from the production method. Now i doubt that the agent orange was tested for the presence of this, why would it have been?
At the tine a herbicide was in comon use in this country...called SBK brushwood killer, and by eck it wasnt half good...did what it said on the tin...NOTHING could stand it even nettles and brambles ....

BUT can you get the same stuff now...nope...wht...because they cant get the TCDD levels (and other dioxins) down below "safe levels"...but back then....no one knew properly how bad that stuff was....

PCB (of which TCDD is one) history is not pretty. As the timeline shows, the manufacturers and major users of PCBs knew by the 1930s and 1940s that PCBs caused serious health problems in their workers, and doctors advised them that other effects could be occurring as well.

http://www.foxriverwatch.com/monsanto2a_pcb_pcbs.html

Thanks for posting that Sassy, I suggest you actually read it, it backs more what Victor and I are saying

However, it is almost certain that the 2,4,5-T (Agent Orange) manufactured at this time was heavily contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, or dioxin. Chemists synthesized dioxin for the first time in 1957, and recognized that it was always produced during the manufacture of the herbicide 2,4,5-T.

By 1971, 12 percent of the total area of South Vietnam had been sprayed with defoliating chemicals, at an average concentration of 13 times the recommended U.S. Department of Agriculture application rate for domestic use.[59] In South Vietnam alone, an estimated 10 million hectares of agricultural land were ultimately destroyed.[60] In some areas, TCDD concentrations in soil and water were hundreds of times greater than the levels considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange#Health_effects

PhilDidge wrote:Thanks for posting that Sassy, I suggest you actually read it, it backs more what Victor and I are saying

No it doesn't.

1971??????????????


1959 ---- The assistant director of Monsanto’s Medical Department wrote to the Administrator of Industrial Hygiene at Westinghouse saying, "...sufficient exposure, whether by inhalation of vapors or skin contact, can result in chloracne which I think we must assume could be an indication of a more systemic injury if the exposure were allowed to continue."[18] Monsanto also sent Westinghouse animal toxicity studies on PCBs and Material Safety Data Sheets with specific warnings about the risks of overexposure.


Again that shows an unknown, it knows it can be harmful but not to what extent.



This is the reality you are faced with Sassy and you are proving beyond doubt you did not know the affects at the time, because clearly the long term affects on humans were not known at the time

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Thanks for posting that Sassy, I suggest you actually read it, it backs more what Victor and I are saying

No it doesn't.

I suggest you read it again, it proves you did not know at the time, so thanks

Many experts at the time, including Arthur Galston, the biologist who developed and intensively studied 2,4,5-T and TCDD, opposed herbicidal warfare, due to concerns about the side effects to humans and the environment by indiscriminately spraying the chemical over a wide area.


That shows again an unknown, they know it could be harmful but not to what extent, sorry you have been exposed sassy, they clearly did not know the long term affects

 

They knew Agent Orange was dangerous, they knew Dioxins were off the scale dangerous and they sprayed with both deliberately, and much higher concentrations, which they definitely knew was hugely dangerous. I was there, we talked out it, we knew it was dangerous and we knew their would be repercussions for both the civilians and the troops. We hoped they wouldn't be terrible. They were.

More to the point is the fact that the SAME stuff, albeit a "bit" cleaner was available HERE in this country for use by ANYONE, who could have used it NEAT if they so wished....IF the dangers were fully known , do you recon that that was likely??
why do you think it was eventually...much later........... banned?

Sassy wrote: 

They knew Agent Orange was dangerous, they knew Dioxins were off the scale dangerous and they sprayed with both deliberately, and much higher concentrations, which they definitely knew was hugely dangerous.   I was there, we talked out it, we knew it was dangerous and we knew their would be repercussions for both the civilians and the troops.   We hoped they wouldn't be terrible.  They were.

Dear me, even the experts did not say, do not use this because, this, this and this will happen, they instead said they had concerns about the side affects, concerns is not knowing the side affects, knowing the affects would be spelt out before the Government.
So again you are telling porkies, you certainly did not know at the time, as clearly the experts did not know at the time the side affects, let alone the long term affects, they just knew it could be potentially dangerous

You can say it until you are blue in the face, we knew that Agent Orange and the other stuff was dangerous, we didn't know how dangerous, but we knew that what was being done was going to have health consequences, simply from the amounts and the concentrations, which, although the stuff was legal, would never have been allowed to be sold at the concentration levels they used Victor.   The stuff the public was allowed to buy was a thousand times less concentrated. There were troops coming back from Vietnam who had used it, who were in a terrible state, and they were angry and let it be known why.

And they have known there were bad side effects from dioxins since the 30s/40s Didge, even if they allowed it to be sold at less concentrations, which as it turned out, should never have been allowed either.

Sassy wrote:You can say it until you are blue in the face, we knew that Agent Orange and the other stuff was dangerous, we didn't know how dangerous, but we knew that what was being done was going to have health consequences, simply from the amounts and the concentrations, which, although the stuff was legal, would never have been allowed to be sold at the concentration levels they used Victor.   The stuff the public was allowed to buy was a thousand times less concentrated.   There were troops coming back from Vietnam who had used it, who were in a terrible state, and they were angry and let it be known why.

And they have known there were bad side effects from dioxins since the 30s/40s Didge, even if they allowed it to be sold at less concentrations, which as it turned out, should never have been allowed either.

BUt...isnt that the point....no matter what happens...civilian and soldier alike...WAR is going to have health consequences, some of which are going to be long term.
which is why war should ONLY be the last resort in defence...

I'd definitely agree with that Victor, but Vietnam, like many others, was a war that America should not have been involved in, and it was the Peace Movement and TV coverage that got them out, and the telling of the terrible things that were being done, like napalm.