1) The US is not the only country to deploy chemical weapons. Are you forgetting all of WW1? It's the whole reason chemical weapons are a no-no now.

2) The US didn't use chemicals weapons in Vietnam. Agent Orange was used to kill off foliage, not as a weapon against people, and the side effects were unintentional and affected US troops as much as Vietnamese.

Edit: I originally noted WW2, but I was thinking of WW1's widespread use of things like mustard gas, and the resulting Geneva agreements.

▲

dubcanada 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

2 - is a little pedantic, they used agent orange to kill foliage to kill people...

They didn't gas people with chlorine or mustard, but they mass destroyed crops and foliage, to kill people.

And "affected US troops as much as Vietnamese" is just completely incorrect, US covered a nation in herbicide, went home, got cancer. Is completely different then having your soil destroyed for decades.

▲

BobbyJo 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> is a little pedantic, they used agent orange to kill foliage to kill people...

Is a wheel a weapon because a tank uses it? I wouldn't consider the difference pedantry.

	▲	dubcanada 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It does look like the general consensus is agent orange is not a chemical weapon, or at least was not used as one.

▲

Scea91 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

2) Unintentional side-effect affecting millions of Vietnamese people? Hundreds od thousands of children born with birth defects.

▲

BobbyJo 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Is your argument that the resulting birth defects were intentional? If not, I'm not sure where you're going with your response.

	▲	Scea91 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The civilian cost was intentionally not part of the equation. The toxic effects were known and the numbers show that it was not a few isolated accidents but a intentional disregard for the human cost.

▲

nbhkvl 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Chemical weapons didn't work well in WW1. The reason we don't see any chemical weapons around is because they are not really effective. Germans accidentally gassed a bunch of their own guys, while failing to use chemical weapons to achieve anything in the war.

▲

well_ackshually 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"no see they didn't use it to give people cancer, they merely wanted to make the land they lived in so uninhabitable and devoid of life that staying there would mean death either by starvation or bombing"

War crime apologists are always funny

	▲	BobbyJo 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not sure what you're responding to. If you are making the claim that Agent Orange was indeed a chemical weapon, I'd disagree, but I think either perspective has points.

▲

fhejfnenjdcn 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

WW2 is notable for not seeing widespread deployment of chemical weapons. Hitler had been subject to gas attacks as a foot soldier in WW1 and forbade the use of chemical weapons as inhumane.

	▲	btown 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chemical_warfare#Wo... this (a) overlooks the widespread use of chemical weapons in the Pacific theater, and (b) ascribes the non-use by Germany to humanitarian reasons, which is largely speculative. Actual quotes from officers discuss far more practical reasons: Germany feared chemical retaliation, and the horses relied upon for logistics could not be outfitted with sufficiently performant gas masks.
	▲	fintler 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Hitler had been subject to gas attacks as a foot soldier in WW1 and forbade the use of chemical weapons as inhumane. He didn’t seem to have a problem using them against civilian targets.

▲

FpUser 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	BobbyJo 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not arguing we were the good guys in Vietnam, just that calling Agent Orange a chemical weapon is a shaky claim. Not sure why you're putting so many other words in my mouth.