Was this considered 'war crime', or was it a too modern way of conducting war so that it was not covered by the international laws at the time?
If against international law or not, has it ever been a case in an international court for the tactics used in Vietnam during this war? If not, is there a documented reason as to why not?
However, great powers are exempt from being challenged by international law, because they simply don't permit it.
Or to put it another way, you can't have laws without a method of enforcement, and there is no way to enforce international law.
But the battle for compensation continues: http://www.globalresearch.ca/seeking-compensation-for-vietna...
It would however seem reasonable that, even if not expected at the time, people in charge could be held accountable after the fact as well. However this is perhaps way beyond what can be expected of international law.
No, on the contrary, it was made to deal with such cases.
But apparently only if you're not American.
I'm not sure about that, and if they weren't this was gross misconduct either way as issues related to dioxin contamination were either known or strongly hinted at before the operation started.
> This was an herbicide, not a chemical weapon.
The herbicide itself (actually a combination of two herbicides, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T) is relatively innocuous, but during manufacturing 2,4,5-T can be contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin — the colloquial "dioxin" (by accidental overheating which is a significant risk of high-temperature 2,4,5-T production).
This contamination was revealed in 1952 (by Monsanto) and the toxicity of TCDD was published/revealed as early as 1957 (and Boehringer who manufactured 2,4,5-T using a low-temperature process warned other producers of the high-temperature process's risk and provided mitigation suggestions).
Operation Ranch Hand started in 1962.
Yes, I'm pissed off on US, how they do what they want around the world in name of money and more power, and even try to lie to the face of the rest of the world about its motives. I don't see much change with present... methods changed, results not so much (ie Iraq poisoning with depleted uranium from those cool A-10 shells and thousands of kids with borne deffects). It's very hard to have much sympathy with events like 9/11 where +-3000 people died, when here we are talking about millions.
They only way I'll show my resent is try to NOT buy/use any US product, be it hardware spehere, or software. Of course, only when it actually makes sense and where proper non-US competition exists. In face of Snowden story, it should probably be agenda of many non-US companies nevertheless.
America gets most of the flak because it has the most power and influence. But out of all the hegemonies and empires in human history, I suspect the American one is among the most benevolent, if not the most benevolent.
That isn't to excuse its behavior if you find it abhorrent. But it is what it is. We are very lucky to live in the times we live in. The world was not nearly so kind only a few years ago. World powers now talk soft and pass all kinds of laws and treaties and human rights conventions and pay lip service and quite a bit more to principles that would have been laughed at for most of our history. To take this particular example, almost all historical generals would have laughed in your face and called you an idiot if you told them depriving citizenry of food was evil and they shouldn't do it.
What I wonder is how long this situation can last. We are a great aberration and I do not think it can last forever. We're already seeing some of the consequences: guerrilla warfare is effectively unstoppable as long as we have moral compunctions regarding civilians.
Iraqis (like other Middle Eastern Muslims) have high rates of birth defects because they have high rates of cousin marriage: http://www.marchofdimes.org/materials/global-report-on-birth...
Nicaragua did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
"The ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation."