Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on February 06, 2004, 11:08:50 AM
-
Kinda interesting. The govt of vietnam is sueing US companys on the basis that over 3million of its citizens were adversly effected by its use. My question would be how many citizens were adversly effected by its invasion/aggression? No scientific study has ever confirmed that dioxin has ever cause any significant health risks to anyone exposed.
Interesting article
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110599,00.html
-
Let's send Bill Clinton to apologise.
-
REPARATIONS!
-
I think it has affected the people.. chemicals like that usually do when sprayed in large quantities.
Any chemical is dangerous to human if theres enough of it.
It's just that some arent because you're not going to use those on waste quantities.. like you're not going to use hairspray for several bottles to get your hair straight.
Anyway, these lawsuits against companies are quite stupid.
Like all these lawsuits against german companies merely over half a century after the war, when things were quite a bit different.
Everyone responsible are now DEAD and I doubt companies do have ANY control on that what kind of work force or stuff they produce when goverment tells to.
If someone should be paying, it'd be US Goverment, not the companies doing as goverment tells.
-
Ok here is an interesting story from a personal perspective.
FYI I think its crap that Vietnam is trying to sue the company over something used during wartime by the Government.
The active agent in Agent Orange a defoliant was called 2,4,5 T and was produced by Monsanto in Nitro WV during Vietnam. My Grandfather, and my great uncle both worked in the chemical unit that produced this chemical. I think about 40 people or so worked in this unit during that time, but I may be wrong.
Back during the 60's there was not the knowledge about chemicals we have today, let alone the regulations and worker exposure limits. So basically if you worked in that unit, you came into contact with it frequently and in large quantities.
Almost every man who worked in that unit died of some form of lung cancer or skin cancer, including my grandfather. Only two men didn't die of some form of cancer, and both were survivors of cancer. One of them was my great uncle. They sued Monsanto in a class action lawsuit back in the 80's when I was a kid, but most of the people were dismissed from the case because of some legal statue of limitations (ie they were already dead and had been dead for a number of years). But the two survivors won the court case.
So do I think Agent Orange was dangerous and nast? Hell yah. But what concentration and what exposure does it take to effect you is a matter of great debate.
-
I guess when it is intentionally sprayed on your skin, your food and your water, it is likely to be higher than a normal unintentional exposure at manufacture.
miko
-
my whole point is that a country that commited MANY MANY atrocities during a war is sueing for a chemical usage that may or may not be dangerous.
What would they say if GIs that were mistreated while in captivity sued their govt?
-
^
I don't know. If Vietnamese spread poison here that killed people and caused babies to be born deformed, would it be a good excuse for them that 600,000 americans were kiled during the Civil War?
Of corse suing the companies is not righ - they have never made anu claims to the vientanese about the effects of the poison.
miko
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
my whole point is that a country that commited MANY MANY atrocities during a war is sueing for a chemical usage that may or may not be dangerous.
What would they say if GIs that were mistreated while in captivity sued their govt?
How about bombing of cambodia, that whatever special force team doing attrocities against suspected VC's... butchering couple of villages....
US GI's werent any G.I holy mary's there either.
US commited SEVERAL war crimes in vietnam.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
How about bombing of cambodia, that whatever special force team doing attrocities against suspected VC's... butchering couple of villages....
US GI's werent any G.I holy mary's there either.
US commited SEVERAL war crimes in vietnam.
WOW a finnish J Kerry!!
you go girl..
-
Any lawsuits being filed for land mines?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
How about bombing of cambodia, that whatever special force team doing attrocities against suspected VC's... butchering couple of villages....
US GI's werent any G.I holy mary's there either.
US commited SEVERAL war crimes in vietnam.
This is such a libral response. US GIs are terrible monsters while the freedom loving good hearted VC and NVA promoted prosperity, wealth, and peace to the vietnamese people. They never burned entire villages. They never killed babys. They never rounded up doctors mayors teachers and religious figures and sumarily educated them for political reasons. They never went through and conscripted the sons and fathers of familys shooting the ones that refused. They never raped and killed entire villages just cause they didnt fit into their political agenda
NO the GIs were monsters....
this type of attitude really pisses me off. FYI only a small percentage of GIs ever committed atrocities. FYI atrocities happen in war!
US commited SEVERAL war crimes in vietnam.
THE NORTH COMMITED MORE!
-
Gunslinger: THE NORTH COMMITED MORE!
Against whom? Vietnamese? So let them sue each other. How does one excuse another?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Gunslinger: THE NORTH COMMITED MORE!
Against whom? Vietnamese? So let them sue each other. How does one excuse another?
miko
"Against whom?"
South vietnamese, US GIs, and their own people.
All I was saying in my comments was that vietnam complaining about human rights violations is irony at its best. It would be like japanese sueing boeing for manufacturing the planes that fire-bombed tokyo and dropped the A-bombs.
In adition I'm tired of this attitude that US vietnam vets were complete monsters the north was just as bad if not worse.
-
The south vietnamese did not care about the US. They didnt want us there anymore then they wanted the french.
Go read some history gunslinger. We were there to continue to support of a corrupt puppet government.
If the people of south vietnam didnt want them there, they would have fought back. Instead many joined the north faction.
-
Gunslinger: "Against whom?"
South vietnamese, US GIs, and their own people.
They did not invite US GI's ti visit. so they hardly bear any obligations to them like, say, a tourist agency would to its clients.
As for their own people, they will sort it out.
All I was saying in my comments was that vietnam complaining about human rights violations is irony at its best.
You must be confusing this case with something else. They do not sue for "rights violations". They sue for specific damage caused to their health by the use of illegal chemical terror-weapon.
It would be like japanese sueing boeing for manufacturing the planes that fire-bombed tokyo and dropped the A-bombs.
Right. The companies bear no responcibility to vietnamese. On the other hand if the US Government gets sued and is found liable for damages, and if the companies claimed that the stuff was safe to spray on people, then the Government could sue the companies to recoup the losses.
In case of Japan, I believe all US liabilities were cleared when the peace treaty was signed.
Of course when US was a victorious side, it had no problem suing and punishing the company managers for the use of their products by the government - just check the Nuremberg trials.
In adition I'm tired of this attitude that US vietnam vets were complete monsters the north was just as bad if not worse.
I am not sure that has anything to do with any alleged monstrocities of US troops. The stuff was sprayed from the airplanes, not by infantry.
miko
-
Originally posted by Fishu
US commited SEVERAL war crimes in vietnam.
But not nearly as many as the VC or NVA.
-
miko since when is agent orange an "illegal chemical terror-weapon" ? Check your history. It was a chemical used to clear some of the jungle foliage. A LOT! different than mustard gas and nerve agents
You must be confusing this case with something else. They do not sue for "rights violations". They sue for specific damage caused to their health by the use of illegal chemical terror-weapon.
This was an argument with somone else in this thread. Related but not directed to the subject
Right. The companies bear no responcibility to vietnamese. On the other hand if the US Government gets sued and is found liable for damages, and if the companies claimed that the stuff was safe to spray on people, then the Government could sue the companies to recoup the losses.
but that's the whole point the companies IE dow corning ARE the ones being sued
-
Fine. Vietnam, completely convert to a Democracy or Republic, then we'll talk.
Until then, you can piss off.
-
It's never who did more, it's always bad.
The attitude that US should not be seen as responsible of war crimes just because the other side is accused of doing more, is simply said stupid and naive thinking.
I've never claimed of all of US GI's doing so, even though Gunslinger seems to have some trouble understanding it.
The fact is there were (and still are!) US troops and people in the goverment responsible of war crimes, not whether it was none or all of them.
Theres no comparison to the enemy, war crime is always a war crime and the responsible people are guilty of a war crime, regardless was there 1000 or 100000 war criminals on the other side.
-
I think they need to point there little fingers up to there north!
-
Originally posted by Fishu
How about bombing of cambodia, that whatever special force team doing attrocities against suspected VC's... butchering couple of villages....
US GI's werent any G.I holy mary's there either.
US commited SEVERAL war crimes in vietnam.
and
The attitude that US should not be seen as responsible of war crimes just because the other side is accused of doing more, is simply said stupid and naive thinking.
I never acused u of anything. I just get really tired of GIs being veiwed as baby killers and VC/NVA being portrayed as saints. That has allways been the general attitude of librals since the war.
Now, my question should be this.....why should the US (GOVT/CORP.) be expected to pay a dime to a country for hanus acts and antrocities when the same country also commited hanus attrocities?
Just brings to mind those in glass houses.
I'm not saying either country's hands are clean. I'm just tired of the slanted view on-sided view.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
It's never who did more, it's always bad.
The attitude that US should not be seen as responsible of war crimes just because the other side is accused of doing more, is simply said stupid and naive thinking.
I've never claimed of all of US GI's doing so, even though Gunslinger seems to have some trouble understanding it.
The fact is there were (and still are!) US troops and people in the goverment responsible of war crimes, not whether it was none or all of them.
Theres no comparison to the enemy, war crime is always a war crime and the responsible people are guilty of a war crime, regardless was there 1000 or 100000 war criminals on the other side.
Fishu you are missing the point. They are suing the US companies. Why aren't they suing their own people, who did much more damage to the South than the US ever did in the North? If they are suing a company it should be Kalashnikov or Simonov or Norinco.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Now, my question should be this.....why should the US (GOVT/CORP.) be expected to pay a dime to a country for hanus acts and antrocities when the same country also commited hanus attrocities?
I've read the article quite fast, but isn't the lawsuit filled in the US and so it will be judged with your legal system ?
If so be very affraid :)
-
Gunslinger,
And im tired when people goes to generalize what I say.
I didn't either say ANYTHING at all about NVA's, so that was all your imagination to even distantly think I viewed them as saints or anything distant to that.
Other thing is when they put down attrocities by their own country by claiming "hey, they did it thousand times more!", that is so 'responsible' way to approach it.. makes sometimes wonder do they allow it in the future if this is the answer. (not like I too much care but.. guantamo? :D )
I don't like communism per se.
Neither did my grandpa or his father.
I don't even have to go through all the things that communism has caused, since most here anyway knows it all already..
Some just doesnt seem to know that US has commited war crimes, which were just as bad...?
It's never who does more... it is just an excuse to accuse the other side of doing more.
Responsibility should be carried and learn not to accept it in the future.
Thats the only way we'll get better... not the excuses.
Every case of attrocity is one too many, that is the point.
-
The US did not bomb Cambodia, they bombed the camps vehicle depots and supply bases in Cambodia that the NVA were using to supply South Viet Nam. The NVA did not respect borders and used the absurb rules of conduct to their advantage every chance they could.
The NVA and Viet Cong commited more attrocities in a day than the US forces did in the war. If a pilot was shot down and caught in the south the NVA would build a bamboo cage and make the prisoner carry it on his back the whole march back to the north. They would starve him and not allow him to bath so they could showcase the pathetic figure in rags to all the villages they passed on the long march. Showing ho much superior they were over the US people. At night they would put him in the cage he was forced to carry.
Anyone who takes the NVA side in this thread is just a total idiot who has no clue. The US were fighting the Russians and Chinese in Viet Nam. The north was every bit a corrupt as the south. The US action in Viet Nam stopped the spread of communism in Indonesia and Malaysia and Brunei all of which had very active Communist movements at that time.
By tieing up all the resources of Russia and China in Viet Nam the local governments of those countries could put down the movements and did very effectively.
Furthermore if the US had been less worried about civilain casulties and world opinion they could have ended the war in 1967 or 68. All they had to do was close the supply lines in the north by mineing the harbours and bombing all rail lines and roads into China. Instead they tried to leave the north alone and negotiate an end to the war. Big mistake and I am sure they would not do that again.
-
Fishu you are missing the point. They are suing the US companies. Why aren't they suing their own people, who did much more damage to the South than the US ever did in the North? If they are suing a company it should be Kalashnikov or Simonov or Norinco.
Don't make this generalization.
The NVA and VC would ruin entire towns even if one person was a closet anti communist. That's north **AND** south. There were no borders to these people.
-
DO NOT condem the very young men who for the most part were drafted and did not want to be there either!
I can assure you they would have been home with there girlfriends at the drive in than arse deep in mud and death.
to all those who made it home and those who are still there
Never forget the MIA.
-
Holocaust victims sued IBM... slave labourers sued german companies...the japanese govt. paid compenstation to allied pows...
so sueing a govt/company for conduct in wartime is hardly new
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Habu
The US did not bomb Cambodia, they bombed the camps vehicle depots and supply bases in Cambodia that the NVA were using to supply South Viet Nam. The NVA did not respect borders and used the absurb rules of conduct to their advantage every chance they could.
Okey.. I get it, there were a whole city full of unarmed NVAs in cambodia :rolleyes:
-
If you read "A Lonely Kind of War" or "Vietnam above the Treetops" you would not make such stupid comments.
The NVA used Cambodia as a highway to funnel supplies to the south. Look at a map of Vietnam and you will understand. The US could shut down the supply lines in country but were unable to bomb even 1 mile into Cambodia until the rules of engagement were changed.
Thus the NVA had a huge supply infastructure inside the border of Cambodia that was untouchable for most of the war.
You say the US bombed cities in Cambodia when in fact they were bombing visible targets identified by Special Forces on the ground supported by Forward Air Controllers flying low and slow with nothing more than smoke rockets to mark the targets.
The targets were training bases road and supply dumbs but mostly trucks that the NVA tried to hide during the day but ran suppies with at night.