Agent Orange's aftermath
Friendly fire in combat occurs because of misdirection and/or errors in identifying friendly and enemy forces. Often friendly fire is investigated by higher authority. Attempts are made to better identify between friendly and enemy troops.
The grim outcome of friendly fire ranges from unintentional injury to death.
Weapons used in wartime come in many forms other then conventional. One such weapon is chemical. The most recognizable chemical weapon used during the Vietnam War was tactical herbicides. These were used to defoliate the forests and jungles, affording the enemy fewer places to hide and to reduce the enemy's food supply. The most common was Agent Orange, the most deadly of the so-called rainbow of herbicides.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has concluded that exposure to Agent Orange can cause health hazards that may be crippling and life-threatening. The Institute of Medicine reports Agent Orange can cause serious diseases. This undermines previous statements by the Department of Defense, stating that Agent Orange is relatively nontoxic. Therefore, it took no precautions to prevent exposure, as stated by the U.S. comptroller general in November 1979.
Tactical herbicides as chemical weapons were authorized and deliberately used, causing illness and death among our troops. This is not friendly fire but deliberate fire by use of chemical weapons.
Our government should be held responsible and accountable for its actions.
Congress needs to recognize this by passing a non-loophole law affording care and compensation to all Vietnam veterans affected by Agent Orange poisoning.
John J. Bury
The writer is a U.S. Navy Vietnam War veteran.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Ambrosini’s logic lacking
- Better stores needed
- Treat UNC like PSU
- Intelligent discussion overdue
- Superstition’s role
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Gross in 45th
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Watson in 33rd