> Not really.
>
> To answer your question, they did. Early studies showed some iritation,
but
> did not suggest long term affects. If they had then thousands of US
> servicemen could have and would have suied the US governemnt and won. All
of
> the suits that have gone through have been on lack of treatment BTW.
>
> We have done the same thing many times. Asbestose was widely used up unitl
> 1980.
>
> Led until the mid 70s.
>
> Gasolen aditives that were in high use in California and were actualy
> required by law to reduce polution have been found to be high cancer
causing.
>
> Should the senators who voted for the use of these be tried for War
Crimes?
>
> There was a time that the tobaco industry did not know what harm cigarets
> cause. We now know that someone sitting next to you smoking a cigaret is
> poinsining you.
>
> Should we arest every smoker for a War Crime?
>
> This is exactly why the US is staying out of the ICC. The regulations are
not
> sufficient to guarentee that they will not be abused.
Actually, there still aren't very many tobacco executives who would
willingly state that their product harms people, are there?
One might argue that the Vietnamese were not using herbicides so extensively
at the time, and certainly never asked to have it forced upon them in such
quantities. And aren't such chemicals now subjected to long-term studies
before being approved?
(It is tempting to ask who the US government was purchasing herbicides from
and what they got in exchange.)
-J
[Sponsored by:]
_____________________________________________________________________________
The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
