Four Decades After War Ended In Vietnam - Agent Orange Is Still Ravaging The Population - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;41564962]Agent Orange was unintentionally contaminated with dioxins if I recall correctly, the US Army was informed but used it anyway.[/QUOTE] dumping vast amounts of industrial chemicals over where people live and eat what could go wrong

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41565151]dumping vast amounts of industrial chemicals over where people live and eat what could go wrong[/QUOTE] From what I was aware it had no bad effects in the US as a standard agricultural herbicide, hence why it was being used in Vietnam en mass to deforest areas. The idea was to destroy crops to force people from rural areas into the cities that the US could easily occupy and also prevent cover and crops that would protect and feed the Vietcong. From what I understand it's base chemicals were widely used from the 1940's until the 1970's when it was discovered that the manufacturing method contaminated the 2,4,5-T with small amounts of carcinogenic dioxins, so from the 1970's it was banned from agriculture.

Mark my words, identical thing will happen with depleted uranium too. They claim that it's safe now yet radiation and cancer rate has been disturbingly increasing here, esp. kidney and lung cancer. We will see in about 20-30 years or so I imagine.

The reason it had "no bad effects" in the US is probably because agriculture is heavily machinized and farmers barely ever go inside their land on their own, while in Vietnam at the time agriculture was almost entirely manual and people spent way more time in there. Still pretty sure there has been a few cases of agent-orange related difformities in the US.

Yeah, we really were winning the war and all because we were making sure absolutely nothing could fucking live there without being defected from all the chemicals because fucking coward US military couldn't handle a little bit of jungle warfare.

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;41565238]From what I was aware it had no bad effects in the US as a standard agricultural herbicide, hence why it was being used in Vietnam en mass to deforest areas. The idea was to destroy crops to force people from rural areas into the cities that the US could easily occupy and also prevent cover and crops that would protect and feed the Vietcong. From what I understand it's base chemicals were widely used from the 1940's until the 1970's when it was discovered that the manufacturing method contaminated the 2,4,5-T with small amounts of carcinogenic dioxins, so from the 1970's it was banned from agriculture.[/QUOTE] good intentions, negligent execution, bad consequences. [editline]23rd July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;41565271]Still pretty sure there has been a few cases of agent-orange related difformities in the US.[/QUOTE] birth defects of kids of vietnam war vets. the government provides aid to them, but still doesn't claim responsibility.

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;41564962]Agent Orange was unintentionally contaminated with dioxins if I recall correctly, the US Army was informed but used it anyway.[/QUOTE] Yeah, here's what Wiki says about it. [QUOTE]It has often been claimed that the contamination with dioxin was discovered only later. However, prior to Operation Ranch Hand (1962-1971), health-risks had become apparent, from several accidents in 2,4,5-T-production in the U.S. and in Europe. [B]The causes had been investigated, and results published in [U]1957[/U][/B], specifically stating "tetrachlordibenzodioxine proved very active." Additionally "Boehringer, which used the relative safer low-temperature-process since 1957, in the same year warned the other producers of 2,4,5-TCP, which were using the high-t-process, pointing out the risk and providing suggestions how to avoid them." Furthermore, Dr. James R. Clary (a former government scientist with the Chemical Weapons Branch, BW/CW Division ) has stated that "[B]When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960’s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the ‘military' formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the ‘civilian’ version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the ‘enemy’, none of us were overly concerned."[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Swebonny;41565387]Yeah, here's what Wiki says about it.[/QUOTE] it's kind of horrifying how there's a blatant disregard for the human rights of others, in that respect, simply because they're 'the enemy'.

[QUOTE=joes33431;41565422]it's kind of horrifying how there's a blatant disregard for the human rights of others, in that respect, simply because they're 'the enemy'.[/QUOTE] Not to mention it was mostly used on South Vietnam.

Damn, that's horrible. One of my favorite rapper's father had it, it fucked him up so much. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBwhKC2pvWg"]He even rapped about it.[/URL]

[QUOTE=joes33431;41565422]it's kind of horrifying how there's a blatant disregard for the human rights of others, in that respect, simply because they're 'the enemy'.[/QUOTE] Well the US did drop two atom bombs on Japan.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;41565505]Well the US did drop two atom bombs on Japan.[/QUOTE] every major nation in WW2 bombed cities

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;41565565]every major nation in WW2 bombed cities[/QUOTE] tbh an atom bomb is kind of more dangerous the other bombs that were used

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;41565565]every major nation in WW2 bombed cities[/QUOTE] Not with a fucking [I]atom bomb[/I]

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;41565565]every major nation in WW2 bombed cities[/QUOTE] Yeah no. Not every nation in WW2 dropped two nuclear bombs on minor towns of hostile country that themselves posed no threat at all. You could argue that no one else had nukes. But that's hardly an excuse. They could've decided to drop the bombs anywhere. But they decided to specifically kill a lot (but not too many) of civilians.

[QUOTE=joes33431;41565422]it's kind of horrifying how there's a blatant disregard for the human rights of others, in that respect, simply because they're 'the enemy'.[/QUOTE] [quote]"Terrorists" is the title given to the losers. Once they win, they become known as "heroes".[/quote]

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;41565565]every major nation in WW2 bombed cities[/QUOTE] The US bombed a poor, poverty-living side on the country war is supposed to be the military vs military but the US bombs towns with people that have nothing to do with it. Same with the bombing of Hiroshima, they bombed a city with millions of citizens

[img]http://i.imgur.com/LQOy1.gif[/img]

I'm honestly glad I didn't come out anything like that seeing as how my parents were there during the Vietnam War. Really, really glad.

Thanks Monsanto for making a product that lasts

[QUOTE=gudman;41565612]Yeah no. Not every nation in WW2 dropped two nuclear bombs on minor towns of hostile country that themselves posed no threat at all. You could argue that no one else had nukes. But that's hardly an excuse. They could've decided to drop the bombs anywhere. But they decided to specifically kill a lot (but not too many) of civilians.[/quote] "Minor towns"? No. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not just bombed for the fuck of it, they were selected because they were legitimate military targets. Hiroshima was a port city with a major industrial center that served as the headquarters for the Japanese Second General Army, which was responsible for maintaining all of the country's southern defenses (basically coming down to: anti-aircraft defenses, bunker and fortress defenses, organizing civilian militias and guerrilla forces to fight off invaders, etc.). Actually, when the city was bombed, most of the Second General Army's staff members were killed (excellent news, if we had needed to go ahead with Operation Downfall). Nagasaki was another city with a major industrial center that constructed ships and manufactured naval munitions and armaments. It was actually selected over Kyoto in the end because of the fact that Kyoto had a larger population and was very much admired by Secretary of War Stimson as an "intellectual" city. Nice job completely changing the subject off of Craig's point, by the way. Every major nation in World War II [b]did[/b] strategically bomb cities; he is entirely right about that, and there's no way around this fact. But of course nobody wants to talk about anything but Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Ok, so I really need to brush up on my history knowledge, why was the US spraying pesticides in the first place?

[QUOTE=Rhenae;41567021]Ok, so I really need to brush up on my history knowledge, why was the US spraying pesticides in the first place?[/QUOTE] chemical warfare

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;41567030]chemical warfare[/QUOTE] But was this the intent of them or was it to just damage crops or more short term damage etc? I just cant imagine intentionally screwing anywhere over this hard for this long for any reason war or not.

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;41566949]"Minor towns"? No. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not just bombed for the fuck of it, they were selected because they were legitimate military targets. Hiroshima was a port city with a major industrial center that served as the headquarters for the Japanese Second General Army, which was responsible for maintaining all of the country's southern defenses (basically coming down to: anti-aircraft defenses, bunker and fortress defenses, organizing civilian militias and guerrilla forces to fight off invaders, etc.). Actually, when the city was bombed, most of the Second General Army's staff members were killed (excellent news, if we had needed to go ahead with Operation Downfall). Nagasaki was another city with a major industrial center that constructed ships and manufactured naval munitions and armaments. It was actually selected over Kyoto in the end because of the fact that Kyoto had a larger population and was very much admired by Secretary of War Stimson as an "intellectual" city. Nice job completely changing the subject off of Craig's point, by the way. Every major nation in World War II [b]did[/b] strategically bomb cities; he is entirely right about that, and there's no way around this fact. But of course nobody wants to talk about anything but Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[/QUOTE] Neither cities were strategic targets, not on the scale as you suggested. They were even purposefully kept untouched by bombing raids so the US could use them as clean petri dishes to test nuclear weapons on. They were chosen because they weren't important targets that didn't require mass bombing raids that were inflicted on other targets. [editline]23rd July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Rhenae;41567063]But was this the intent of them or was it to just damage crops or more short term damage etc? I just cant imagine intentionally screwing anywhere over this hard for this long for any reason war or not.[/QUOTE] They were used to try and strip the landscape of cover for the Vietcong. While it wasn't really effective it did decimate plantlife, to the extent where only certain types can grow in affected areas even today. Affectionately called 'American Grass'. I got to saw plenty when I travelled Vietnam for three weeks.

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;41566949]"Minor towns"? No. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not just bombed for the fuck of it, they were selected because they were legitimate military targets.[/QUOTE] Actually hiroshima was picked over Kyoto because one of the men responsible for the decision had his honey moon in Kyoto. Nagasaki was bombed because of poor weather condition that stopped them from going on the original destination.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41567066]Neither cities were strategic targets, not on the scale as you suggested.[/quote] Both cities were industrial centers. Both cities had ports. Hiroshima was the headquarters for the Japanese Second General Army, which was responsible for maintaining the country's southern defenses. Nagasaki manufactured naval munitions and armaments. They were both strategic targets, Hiroshima an especially important one. [QUOTE=NoDachi;41567066]They were even purposefully kept untouched by bombing raids so the US could use them as clean petri dishes to test nuclear weapons on. They were chosen because they weren't important targets that didn't require mass bombing raids that were inflicted on other targets.[/quote] They actually didn't bother to conventionally bomb them as they had plenty of other cities and towns because they wanted to magnify the psychological effect of their destruction on the Japanese. Dr. Robert Stearns, who was one of the men working with the Target Committee, drafted up the criteria for selecting sites to bomb: [quote](1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August[/quote] Furthermore: [quote]It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.[/quote] Turning them into "clean petri dishes to test nuclear weapons on" was never the primary intention. [QUOTE=Ganerumo;41567113]Actually hiroshima was picked over Kyoto because one of the men responsible for the decision had his honey moon in Kyoto.[/quote] That was actually Nagasaki, not Hiroshima, and the man you're thinking of was Secretary of War Henry Stimson, who also appreciated the fact that Kyoto was a heavily-populated intellectual center for Japan and didn't want it destroyed. There was also the fact, highlighted by the Target Committee, that Kyoto, being an intellectual center, was more likely to realize the significance of the bombs. [QUOTE=Ganerumo;41567113]Nagasaki was bombed because of poor weather condition that stopped them from going on the original destination.[/QUOTE] Nagasaki was selected by the Target Committee in place of Kyoto, however, on July 25, 1945.

[QUOTE=Archeroc;41566121] Same with the bombing of Hiroshima, they bombed a city with millions of citizens[/QUOTE] As opposed too a very costly invasion of Japan that would have killed millions of our soldiers and Japanese alike, or the continuing of blocking Japanese ports until we eventually starved them into surrendering. We estimated the numbers and it turned out that nuking both cities would have saved more lives then either of the other options.

[QUOTE=Suttles;41565609]tbh an atom bomb is kind of more dangerous the other bombs that were used[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo[/url] [QUOTE=Archeroc;41566121]The US bombed a poor, poverty-living side on the country war is supposed to be the military vs military but the US bombs towns with people that have nothing to do with it. Same with the bombing of Hiroshima, they bombed a city with millions of citizens[/QUOTE] [quote]Not every nation in WW2 dropped two nuclear bombs on minor towns of hostile country that themselves posed no threat at all. [/quote] its helps if you actually read about the subject(s) you post about nagasaki and hiroshima were both military targets p.much only revisionist historians that claim that they were poor farmers and villagers and that the rape of nanking never happened.

[QUOTE=KingArcher;41567674]As opposed too a very costly invasion of Japan that would have killed millions of our soldiers and Japanese alike, or the continuing of blocking Japanese ports until we eventually starved them into surrendering. We estimated the numbers and it turned out that nuking both cities would have saved more lives then either of the other options.[/QUOTE] As I recall, we minted around 500,000 or so Purple Hearts (for those of you who don't know, that's the medal they give you if you get wounded) in preparation for the invasion of Japan. We still haven't issued all of them yet. In 70+ years of on and off warfare, we haven't yet reached the number of casualties that were projected for the invasion of Japan.