News Justice for Victims of Agent Orange

[fisipavia]

George W. owes us an apology then for Clinton lying to us about Monica Lewinsky.

Sorry, but those that actually committed the acts are the only ones that are guilty.

WHAT?!I don’t see the connection. I am sorry, but I really don’t care with whom the president sleeps. We are talking here about lifes that have been affected. And besides, if you read what I wrote in your quote you will notice that what I said was: “ When they accept to become presidents they certainly do not become guilty of the bad things done by other presidents”

And as for how long I think should be given the compensations… the thing is that I’m not saying that they have to paid Vietnam forever… but the reality is that although the war is over, the problem caused by orange agent is still a thing of the present… Babies are still born today with deformities because of orange agent. What I am trying to say is that it has been zero days for this people since the effects of orange agent. Ahhh…I’m sorry if I am being redundant but I want to make my point clear. I must also say that I do not think that giving money is the solution in all cases, they are times when nothing can be done. But the fact is that these people have health problems and in many cases are unable to study and work, so financial help will be very useful for them and their families. About the taxes… I don’t think that you will loose a fortune by the money that will be given to them…how much can it be? $10 per year (as much)? That would not affect you…but to them the sum of this money can really have a positive effect. And besides… you annually pay a lot more for a lot of wars in which US participate in the name of justice and protecting humans that are being oppressed by a number of regimes…. so it is not a responsibility, the moral and logical thing to do to help those who are directed affected by your actions first?

I want to make clear that I don’t see money reparations as the solution but it can help. This is how I see it…
If a person fall because of you… you should say I am sorry and help him get up. In this case the person is still in the ground. Obviously, if the effects of an action are things of the past, there is nothing that you can do to help. …ahhh! I don’t know if I am expressing myself correctly! And about the question of the apology…this one is very important to me. It’s never to late for an apology…accepting that you did something wrong internationally, for me this is very important…this gives credibility and respect to any country that believes in protecting the human rights. Otherwise you will be “predicando la moral en carzoncillos” = “talking about moral in underwear” (ja,ja…I don’t know if that proverb can be translated). A good example of this (no matter if I am atheistic, catholic or what) is when the pope officially apologized by all the persecutions done by the Catholic Church…. By he admitting that it was wrong he is letting us know that this is no longer the position of the church and that things like that should never happen again. An apology serve to give a closure as well to help us remember because one can forgive but should never forget since if one forgets it is most probable to repeat the same error.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm sick of ultar-nationalists who think that their country can do no wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Woa there, buddy. Who said the US could do no wrong? We're talking about whether or not civilians harmed by Agent Orange should be paid from US coffers. I'm sure the US did plenty of wrong. I will not, however, accept reparations as a reasonable request unless it can be shown that the military was ordered to intentionally harm innocent civilians.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Sorry fisi, I misread your post.

But does Vietnam owe certain citizens of our country reparations because it refused to fight under the laws of the Geneva Convention and for the way it treated our POWs?

 

[fisipavia]

Sorry fisi, I misread your post.

But does Vietnam owe certain citizens of our country reparations because it refused to fight under the laws of the Geneva Convention and for the way it treated our POWs?

You know what I have notice? and please don't take it wrong...but all of you are just making me question after question as you are waiting for me to contradict myself...I am just saying what I think and you can also say what you think... this question I would said that is actually a tricky one and answering it would involve our perceptions of how a war must be fighted... ?...By your personality I am thinking that you are in favor of the war in Iraq...if so that's ok, I am not here debating that...but the US didn't take in consideration the opinion of the ONU... you can think there is no wrong in doing so...so why do other country (in this case Vietnam) should take in consideration what have been said at the Geneva Convention. Another tricky aspect is the one with respect of the POWs. Afterall for some taking a life is the worse thing that can be do to a person and for other torture is worse...a war is a war and I am not saying which of these (death or torture) is worse...(personally I reject both)... but some people think, like looseyourname, that if you are willing to fight you should accept the consequences...I am just saying this because I want you to notice that the concepts of how opponent militars should be treated is a different story with its own complexity. But in this case we are talking of CIVILIANS
Don't attack me now by saying that it was right to not follow the laws of the Geneva convection...I am not saying that... what I want to say is that this would lead us into a debate that at the end will diverge from the original question (should the US make compensation to vietnam citizens affected by orange agent or at least make a public apology?) and we will end contradicting ourselves.
I am certainly not an expert in law and I am not presuming of that. Afterall, there are so many inmoral laws... I am just saying how I think a country should act.

 

[jcsd]

Mai Lai was a crime and those responsible should be (were?) punished. No one has said otherwise. But it is also a fact that the tactics of the enemy contributed to the incident. Had we only been fighting against uniformed soldiers, Mai Lai would not have happened. This has been said before, but Agent Orange was not a chemical weapon, it was a pesticide. That doesn't make it right to use it, but it is certainly also not right to mischaracterize it.

One of those responsible was given life imprisonment, but was released a few years after due to an outcry by the American public.

 

[jcsd]

Your grandfather was probably not compensated by the Japanese government:



http://www.expows.com/GA-HR142.htm

Agent Orange was a herbicide, actually. Still, not a weapon.

By the way, Vietnam refused to fight under the laws of the Geneva Convention. Fighting in uniform is one such requirement that was broken by countless civilians.

I am pretty sure it was the Japanese government (tho' it was actually not paid to him, as he had been dead for quite a few years), but as I say he was not a soldier but a civilian.

 

[JohnDubYa]

What if someone said that the US should only offer reparations to Vietnamese civilians if the Vietnamese government offers reparations to wronged US soldiers?

Essentially, my argument is that we should strive for some consistency in the way we deal with reparations. It is very convenient to ignore those atrocities committed against Americans and simply say that we should focus exclusively on our use of Agent Orange.

 

[Adam]

Your grandfather was probably not compensated by the Japanese government:

http://www.expows.com/GA-HR142.htm

Agent Orange was a herbicide, actually. Still, not a weapon.

Are you saying nobody has ever been killed with a pick or shovel?

By the way, Vietnam refused to fight under the laws of the Geneva Convention.

When invaded, why should they stick to the invader's rules?

Fighting in uniform is one such requirement that was broken by countless civilians.

Wrong.

 

[Adam]

Feel free to read: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

 

[JohnDubYa]

Are you saying nobody has ever been killed with a pick or shovel?

Irrelevant. Agent Orange was not used as a weapon, but as a defoliant, in the same manner that bulldozers are used to clear a field of fire. Agent Orange was no more a weapon than the barbed wire strung about defenses.

Now, if the bulldozer is used to attack an enemy, then the bulldozer is a weapon in that instance. IMO, such was not the case here.

By the way, I found some info on the Web that, if true, may affect our judgment regarding the US responsibilities in this matter:

In 1961, President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam asked the United States to conduct aerial herbicide spraying in his country. In August of that year, the South Vietnamese Air Force initiated herbicide operations with American help. The request by Diem launched a debate in the White House and the State and Defense Departments. On one side were those who viewed herbicides as an economical and efficient means of stripping the Viet Cong jungle of cover and food.

Others doubted the effectiveness of such a tactic and worried that such operations would both alienate friendly Vietnamese and expose the United States to charges of barbarism for waging a form of chemical warfare [<i>naturally, I disagree with this charge</i>].

Those who protest the use of Agent Orange as a chemical weapon (in their words) who also admire JFK have some serious explaining to do:

Both sides agreed upon the propaganda risks of the issue. In November 1961, President Kennedy approved the use of herbicides, but only as a limited experiment requiring South Vietnamese participation and the mission-by-mission approval of the United States Embassy, the Military Assistance Command Vietnam, and South Vietnam’s government.

Operation Ranch Hand, the designation for the program, began in January 1962. Gradually, limitations were relaxed; the spraying became more frequent and covered larger areas. The Air Force used C-47s, T-28s, B-26s, and C-123s equipped to spray herbicides for the defoliation missions. By the time Ranch Hand ended nine years later, some 18 million gallons of chemicals had been sprayed on an estimated 20 percent of South Vietnam’s jungles and 36 percent of its mangrove forests.

In other words, if Agent Orange is really a chemical weapon, and JFK authorized the use of this weapon, and this weapon killed thousands of Vietnamese, then could JFK not be considered a mass murderer?

Adam, what is your opinion of JFK if the information I provided here is true? Should JFK go down as a repugnant violator of crimes against humanity?

When invaded, why should they stick to the invader's rules?

We did not invade Vietnam, because Vietnam as a single country did not exist. We were invited to fight by the South Vietnam government.

And to answer your question, you should abide by the rules for the reason the rules were created in the first place.

My quote: Fighting in uniform is one such requirement that was broken by countless civilians.

Wrong.

Nope, true. The Geneva Convention requires combatants to display their armed forces association prominently at all times when engaged in combat. Fighting in civilian clothes with no such identifiers is prohibited.

EDIT: I was mistaken. The Geneva Convention requires that in order to be treated as a prisoner of war, "soldiers" must abide by the above requirement.

 

[hiphys]

I want to tell you a story.
Nam was a three-year old boy. His family traveled to the sea.He could not swim.So he drank a lot of sea water.Sea seems to be too dangerous for him.When he came back home, he tried his best to take all the fishes out of water because he thought that fishes couldn’t live in water like him.As the result, all of the fishes died.
In my opinion, American has the same thinking as Nam. The American thought that they brought freedom to Vietnam . They sent troops, B52, tanks … to Vietnam to “help” Vietnameses.Actually, at that time, Americans were not welcomed. Americans used their ”American Democracy standard” to judge the world. Every country has self-determination. Others have to respect it.
That’s the reason why American troops was attacked everywhere in Vietnam and American troops became the Conquerer in Vietnamese eyes.
I have read many evidences which show that US government and American Chemical Companies did know the terrible effect of Agent Orange but they all ignored it. So, in this case, Agent Orange is not only herbicide but also a mass-killer weapon, actually.

 

[hiphys]

Woa there, buddy. Who said the US could do no wrong? We're talking about whether or not civilians harmed by Agent Orange should be paid from US coffers. I'm sure the US did plenty of wrong. I will not, however, accept reparations as a reasonable request unless it can be shown that the military was ordered to intentionally harm innocent civilians.

Agent Orange has killed not only Vietnamse soldiers but also their children. Vietnamese children aren't soldiers but they are still affected by Agent Orange.
Do you think there is a law that soldiers ' children have to wear uniform ?

 

[Prometheus]

Agent Orange was not used as a weapon, but as a defoliant, in the same manner that bulldozers are used to clear a field of fire. Agent Orange was no more a weapon than the barbed wire strung about defenses.

If an arson incident causes the death of someone inside, would you contend that there was no murder because fire was not used as a weapon? Don't you think that there should be any repsonsibility at all for the extreme deadliness of Agent Orange?

In other words, if Agent Orange is really a chemical weapon, and JFK authorized the use of this weapon, and this weapon killed thousands of Vietnamese, then could JFK not be considered a mass murderer?

Are you saying that since Bush authorized the use of weapons that, however inadvertantly, killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, he shold be considered a mass murderer?

We did not invade Vietnam, because Vietnam as a single country did not exist. We were invited to fight by the South Vietnam government.

Can you provide evidence to support this? The Republic of Vietnam, also known as South Vietnam, was created by the partition of Vietnam in 1954 after the defeat of France at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. By this time, US aid to the French had reached $1.4 billion, which constituted almost 80% of France's budget for the war. I do not consider your statement valid.

And to answer your question, you should abide by the rules for the reason the rules were created in the first place.

Please elaborate. The U.S. invades a tiny country, with little justification other than fear of that country, and you claim that they should follow rules that they were not party to the creation of. By the way, I think that the U.S. did not become bound by the Geneva Convention until the signing was ratified by Congress in 1977.

 

[kat]

None of this tells me why I should put my name on a petition for a case that is already in court and proceeding in the system. Petitions aren't allowed as evidence of guilt or responsibility. The only purpose at this point of a petition would be to harvest names and emails to spam for?

 

[JohnDubYa]

If an arson incident causes the death of someone inside, would you contend that there was no murder because fire was not used as a weapon? Don't you think that there should be any repsonsibility at all for the extreme deadliness of Agent Orange?

Okay, here goes: AGENT ORANGE WAS NOT USED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF KILLING SOMEONE.

Are you saying that since Bush authorized the use of weapons that, however inadvertantly, killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, he shold be considered a mass murderer?

I'm not saying anything. I asked a question. Do you want to answer the question? What exactly is your opinion of JFK as a human being?

Can you provide evidence to support this? The Republic of Vietnam, also known as South Vietnam, was created by the partition of Vietnam in 1954 after the defeat of France at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. By this time, US aid to the French had reached $1.4 billion, which constituted almost 80% of France's budget for the war. I do not consider your statement valid.

What does all this have to do with an "invasion"?

Please elaborate. The U.S. invades a tiny country, with little justification other than fear of that country, and you claim that they should follow rules that they were not party to the creation of.

That's right, they should follow the rules for the same reason the rules were put in place.

Prometheus, are you going to try and disagree with every point I make? This is getting tiresome.

 

[JohnDubYa]

hiphys, read the word "intentionally" in loseyourname's post. And if you really think freedom is not necessarily a good thing, say so. That is what you are suggesting.

Actually, at that time, Americans were not welcomed.

They were welcomed by some, not by others. Your post is therefore disingenous.

And it's FISH, not fishes.

 

[Prometheus]

They were welcomed by some, not by others. Your post is therefore disingenous.

You did not even consider his post. Your post is therefore disingenuous.

And it's FISH, not fishes.

Do you own a dictionary? Open it.

 

[hiphys]

I know that my English is bad.
It's really difficult for me to express all of my ideas in English.
As you know, many Agent Orange Victims can't express their sorrow.
I just want to do sth to help them.I'm a student, I don't have so much money to help them, and I think I can send some messages to friends all over the world.I think that's the best way I can do to help them.
You may sign the petition or not, it's your determination.
The Court may disagree with us and the Agent Orange Victims may not get any reparations from American Chemical companies.
We know that money can reduce the difficulties in their daily lives but money can't cure their sorrow. So money is not everthing.
A sorrow will be reduced if it's shared by other warm hearts.
So, please do sth if you feel it's necessary.
On behalf of Agent Orange victims and Vietnamese people, I would like to thank those who sign the petition and support us.
I want to repeat that we only accuse American chemical companies, not American people.

 

[member 5645]

hiphys, your goals are admirable, even if I do disagree with you :)

 

[hiphys]

To Kat,
I know that your email address will be kept in secret if you want.
There are 3 secret options that you can choose when you sign this petition :
1. Your email will be kept in secret, just used to confirm your signature.
2. Your email will be kept in secret , just used to confirm your signature and kept in local system.
3. Your email will be shown to everyone.

 

[JohnDubYa]

We still don't know what our signature even accomplishes. I'm not against victims of Agent Orange getting their due, but what about our soldiers that were tortured in your prison camps? Are they not entitled as well?

 

[hiphys]

In your opinion, what is torture in prison ?
This is another topic about Vietnam war.I think we should discuss about this to make it clear.
This is the first time I hear about this.I'm not sure that I have enough information.So, show me some that you can.I will consider them unprejudicedly.
In Vietnam, there are many prisons that now become historical places.What I see there is terrible.Many Vietnamese war veterants have shown us the evidences about torture in South Vietnam 's prison.I believe them.
I know that many American POWs were returned to their motherland in good health. I believe that Ho Chi Minh performed the policy of humanity to POWs.
Nowadays, we still address the POWs and MIAs (personel missing in action).
Vietnam has even agreed in principle to allow American officials to seek information about US personnel listed as missing in the Vietnam war at its national archives centre.
There are over 10.000 missing Vietnamese soldiers, but we still help American to search for their missings.
What do you think about that ?

 

[JohnDubYa]

It looks like your problems in Vietnam may be continuing:

http://tassc.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=204

As for torture of American prisoners of war, just ask Sen. John McCain and Admiral James Stockdale.

"Stockdale wound up in Hoa Lo Prison - the infamous "Hanoi Hilton" -- where he spent the next seven years under unimaginably brutal conditions. He was physically tortured no fewer than 15 times. Techniques included beatings, whippings, and near-asphyxiation with ropes. Mental torture was incessant. He was kept in solitary confinement, in total darkness, for 4 years, chained in heavy, abrasive leg irons for 2 years, malnourished due to starvation diet and denied medical care, and deprived of letters from home in violation of the Geneva Convention."

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/sto0bio-1

 

[studentx]

they should have just lost the war and itd be Japan now ;)
"Quickest way to win a war, is to lose it" (i forgot who said this)

 

[russ_watters]

John McCain won't ever have normal use of his arms due to the number of times they were torn out of their sockets when he was a POW.

 

[Prometheus]

I'm not against victims of Agent Orange getting their due,

I do believe tht this is perhaps the first time that we have agreed about anything.

what about our soldiers that were tortured in your prison camps? Are they not entitled as well?

This is another question that deserves to be addressed, separately, in my opinion. I do not consider that the agent orange issue should be dependent upon a coincident resolution with this issue. Do you? Just offhand, what do you think they are entitled to, and who do you think is responsible for providing it?

 

[JohnDubYa]

I do not consider that the agent orange issue should be dependent upon a coincident resolution with this issue. Do you?

It is if you value consistency.

And you never did tell us your opinion of John F. Kennedy, who ordered the "chemical warfare" on the Vietnamese people.

 

[Prometheus]

It is if you value consistency.

From your response, it is clear that we must comletely disagree on what they are entitled to and who is repsonsible to provide it. I knew that our agreement could not last.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by consistency? You used the word, but I am not sure what you might mean by it.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by consistency? You used the word, but I am not sure what you might mean by it.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Atrocities were committed on both sides, so both sides are entitled to reparations.


And you still haven't told us your opinion of John F. Kennedy, who ordered the "chemical warfare" on the Vietnamese people. What's up with this?

 

[Prometheus]

Atrocities were committed on both sides, so both sides are entitled to reparations.

Are you suggesting that the atrocities committed by both sides are equivalent? In other words, both sides are basically equal to the degree that they committed atrocities, and neither is more culpable than the other? If one is more culpable, which one is it, and why, in your opinion?