War on Iraq - The Hypocrisy Revealed

bonkey

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
Agent Orange was a 50-50 mix of two chemicals, known conventionally as 2,4,D and 2,4,5,T. The combined product was mixed with kerosene or diesel fuel and dispersed by aircraft, vehicle, and hand spraying. An estimated 19 million gallons of Agent Orange were used in South Vietnam during the war.

You get your facts straight.

Now look...

if you're going to rip a quote straight out of the first google hit from searching "agent orange", then you might as well supply a link as well.

Here it is : http://www.lewispublishing.com/orange.htm
Same punctuation and everything.

Secondly, if you actually read the rest of the information on the same page, you would notice that in not one place is the word weapon used. No-one has denied that Agent Orange was made from chemicals. What they have denied is that it was designed or used as a chemical weapon in Vietnam.

Indeed, had you checked further down the google list, you would have come across this : http://www.vvvc.org/vvvc/agntor.htm

Here, we even get to find out that these two chemicals that were used to make Agent Orange, were....wait for it....herbicides! (Phenoxy herbicides to be precise). So, you are arguing that two herbicides were combined to build a "weapon" that had SFA immediate effect and caused problems years to decades later, whilst we are arguing that two herbicides were combined to produce a better herbicide, which turned out to be not too healthy for us humans after we had a chance to witness long-term effects, (especially on people who were not always in a position to thoroughly remove the stuff from their person and clothes within a short period.)

Bit of a crap weapon, wouldnt you say, unless you wish to somehow imply that it was part of a generation-spanning US program to cripple the population of a foreign nation through the use of chemical warfare.....and thats just ridiculous in my opinoin.

So before going off on a crusade telling people to get their facts straight, I would suggest you have more than a partial amount of copied technical information which you are then combining with what appears to be a conspiracy theory of truly monumentous proportions.

If you want to believe that AO was a chemical weapon, then thats your perogative. Hell, you can believe it was a candy bar for all I care.

However, if you want to try and argue your case, then maybe you should supply some information which actually backs it up, rather than just looking impressive.

jc

Johnmb

China currently wouldn't stand a chance in a conventional war if it had to move its troops any distance. Their numbers would most likely win a conventional war fought on Chinese soil, but they don't have the means to project those numbers abroad, and they don't have the technology to match the US without superior numbers.

Dancing Monkey

Originally posted by bonkey
Now look...

if you're going to rip a quote straight out of the first google hit from searching "agent orange", then you might as well supply a link as well.

Here it is : http://www.lewispublishing.com/orange.htm
Same punctuation and everything.

Secondly, if you actually read the rest of the information on the same page, you would notice that in not one place is the word weapon used. No-one has denied that Agent Orange was made from chemicals. What they have denied is that it was designed or used as a chemical weapon in Vietnam.

Indeed, had you checked further down the google list, you would have come across this : http://www.vvvc.org/vvvc/agntor.htm

Here, we even get to find out that these two chemicals that were used to make Agent Orange, were....wait for it....herbicides! (Phenoxy herbicides to be precise). So, you are arguing that two herbicides were combined to build a "weapon" that had SFA immediate effect and caused problems years to decades later, whilst we are arguing that two herbicides were combined to produce a better herbicide, which turned out to be not too healthy for us humans after we had a chance to witness long-term effects, (especially on people who were not always in a position to thoroughly remove the stuff from their person and clothes within a short period.)

Bit of a crap weapon, wouldnt you say, unless you wish to somehow imply that it was part of a generation-spanning US program to cripple the population of a foreign nation through the use of chemical warfare.....and thats just ridiculous in my opinoin.

So before going off on a crusade telling people to get their facts straight, I would suggest you have more than a partial amount of copied technical information which you are then combining with what appears to be a conspiracy theory of truly monumentous proportions.

If you want to believe that AO was a chemical weapon, then thats your perogative. Hell, you can believe it was a candy bar for all I care.

However, if you want to try and argue your case, then maybe you should supply some information which actually backs it up, rather than just looking impressive.

jc

What does it matter where I obtained the information from?

I've seen your posts around here, and your self righteous 'I'm right, never wrong, the definitive beacon of official knowledge' bollocks.

Answer me a simple question.

Was Agent Orange responsible for any deaths?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
Was Agent Orange responsible for any deaths?

Not what you originally argued though, is it?

Johnmb

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey :
Was Agent Orange responsible for any deaths?

It was, but if you want to compare its usage to the 1988 Kurdish massacre, you need to show that the US knew in advance what the effects on humans would be. You haven't done that.

Lemming

Originally posted by Johnmb
China currently wouldn't stand a chance in a conventional war if it had to move its troops any distance. Their numbers would most likely win a conventional war fought on Chinese soil, but they don't have the means to project those numbers abroad, and they don't have the technology to match the US without superior numbers.

China, afaik, HAS the numbers to offset technology. It has the largest land-based army in the world, and it's airforce isn't lacking either, although isn't at the size of the USAF

Anyway, this particular line of debate is WAYYY Off-Topic

Dancing Monkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Not what you originally argued though, is it?

I said it was a chemical weapon.

And it is a chemical weapon.

It comprises of chemicals, and it kills.

Simple.

Dancing Monkey

Originally posted by Johnmb
It was, but if you want to compare its usage to the 1988 Kurdish massacre, you need to show that the US knew in advance what the effects on humans would be. You haven't done that.

So by your rationale, a nation can lump together a few toxins, spray it over a population and beg fools pardon when it 'accidentally' causes death?

Wonderful.

Johnmb

China, afaik, HAS the numbers to offset technology.

That is what I said, but they don't have the ability to project those numbers at the moment, not like the US. That is the advantage the US has over the world, so only economic sanctions could do any damage. But they are above international law, so it would be very difficult to organise sanctions to be effective. As a result, it would seem the the UN in its current form is pointless, it cannot do anything to stop the most aggressive nations on the planet (i.e. US, Isael, China). That is why nothing is being done to stop the US, because nobody can do anything (just to bring it back to the original topic )

Johnmb

So by your rationale, a nation can lump together a few toxins, spray it over a population and beg fools pardon when it 'accidentally' causes death?
{/QUOTE]

No, but you are the one trying to make a comparison between something that may have been accidental, and stopped when the truth was realised (i.e. AO use) and something that was known to kill and used for that sole purpose. It wouldn't surprise me if the US knew AO would kill, or at least suspected it, but if you want to claim they did, you need to provide proof.

bonkey

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
What does it matter where I obtained the information from?

It doesnt...I just thought it funny that you try using partial information from a site to prove a point, when the rest of the information on the same site more or less goes against what you're trying to say.

It shows how strong your research is, thats all.

I've seen your posts around here, and your self righteous 'I'm right, never wrong, the definitive beacon of official knowledge' bollocks.

You might also have seen the posts where I put on my "moderator of politics" hat and warn poeple about attacking posters, as per the rules on this board. You might take heed of those - this is a discussion board, and if you are not willing to discuss, then you dont belong here.

Answer me a simple question.
Was Agent Orange responsible for any deaths?

Yes, it was. Then again, I'm sure that some of the medicines used in the Vietnam war were also responsible for deaths...as they are in every hospital in the world. Does that make them chemical weapons? Gosh....maybe we should be out looking to have these medications banned.

The point is that Agent Orange was not intended to cause deaths, and there is no strong evidence that the US were aware at the time that it would cause deaths, or even adversely effect humans.

At best, you could argue that the US were irresponsible in using something that they did not understand the long-term health risks from, but you're still a very long way from showing any sort of deliberate use of it as a chemical weapon. You would also have to show that there is any sort of connection between US policy 30 years ago and US policy today before any of this would become relevant.



jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
I said it was a chemical weapon.

And it is a chemical weapon.

It comprises of chemicals, and it kills.

Simple.

So's detergent. I don't see anyone bombing Procter & Gamble though

I think you're stretching definitions a bit to suit your own ends.

bonkey

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
I said it was a chemical weapon.

And it is a chemical weapon.

It comprises of chemicals, and it kills.

Simple.

So everything that kills is a weapon?

That means pretty much every substance and material, object and construction on the planet is a weapon, which isnt simple, its farcical.

jc

Dancing Monkey

In early 1965, the State Department published a White Paper whose centrepiece was the 'provocation' of the 'Gulf of Tonkin Incident', together with seven pages of 'conclusive proof' of Hanoi's preparations to invade the South.

This was cited as justification for war, despite it being a complete lie.

And you're asking me to trust that the US military didn't know of the effects of AO?

Johnmb

And you're asking me to trust that the US military didn't know of the effects of AO?

I don't think anyone is asking you to trust that, most are just saying that if you don't have any actual proof that the US DID know the effects of AO, then don't claim they did as a fact. You can say that you suspect they did if you want, and as I said earlier, it wouldn't surprise me if they did, but there is no evidence to support your suspicion as fact, so don't present it as fact otherwise people will take all your other arguements less seriously.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
And you're asking me to trust that the US military didn't know of the effects of AO?

In which case you are speculating that Agent Orange was designed as a weapon, based upon your opinion of the honesty of the US military to declare it as such.

And then you are stating this speculation as fact.

As I said, I think you're stretching definitions a bit to suit your own ends.

Dancing Monkey

Fair enough.

I stress that this is only my opinion, and it is not formed on the back of conclusive proof.

(The proof, I suspect, is classified information).