While using a somehow poisonous defoliant against crops and forests is certainly less atrocious than using a certainly lethal Zyklon-B directly against humans, destoying 85% of the crops is also somehow irresponsible.
All wars are bad things, purportedly waged to avoid even worse things. But the Vietnam War had something especially bad about it, probably that same feature that made the US fight for 10 years, ruin the country it tried to protect, and effectively lose the case. One thing I remember from a historical book about that war is a general saying (approximately) "Do you think we will change the entire way our military functions just to win a frigging war?".
This kind of mindset definitely leads to both atrocities and losing. NB: applies to project management in general.
Re:Legacy of Agent Orange
by tomaskafka on Friday April 24, 2015 @11:26AM
(#9433978)
What's the word for nazis causing intentional famines that wiped out at least 8 million russians and ukrainians? Also 'regrettable'? Not 'criminal'? And what's the difference then? Why was one side tried in Nuremberg and second one celebrated?
> What's the word for nazis causing intentional famines that wiped out at least 8 million russians and ukrainians?
Sadly, most partially or fully engineered famines have never been prosecuted. Witness an Gorta Mór or Holodomor.
With the benefit of 40+ years of hindsight, the use of Agent Orange was regrettable, no doubt.
However, I don't think it is responsible to compare the decision to use Agent Orange with the Holocaust.
The questions you should be asking are: What was the intent? What was known about AO at that time?