• tankiesmasher@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Terrorism is when not asking how the Vietnamese felt before using agent orange? Genius.

      Better questions if you aren’t 50iq:

      • Why was agent orange used?
      • What was the expected effect of agent orange when it was used?
      • Nath@aussie.zoneM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Using an example where the USA breached the Geneva convention against chemical warfare is not proving whatever your point is.

        To answer your question, they justified it at the time as a herbicide to kill the jungle the Vietnamese were using for cover. This was only a cover story however. They clearly knew how dangerous a toxin it was, given the safety protocols they had around the chemical for it’s troops. At best, if it were merely a herbicide, it’s use would still constitute a war crime for destroying civilian and non-combatant food sources.

        It’s actually a bit of an International scandal even today that the USA has not formally apologised for its use. They have at least provided limited compensation for their victims in Vietnam with long-term effects of exposure to Agent Orange. Though I’m not certain those programs continue today under their present administration.

        To be honest, the USA should apologise for being in Vietnam in the first place. It had no business being there, and nor did Australia.