Should the US be made to pay for deformed children?

Ok so the war in Vietnam. I was watching a documentary on deformed children in Vietnam. Most of their parents were exposed to chemicals that the US dropped. Now they are living their entire lives with no one to care for them. Vietnam did absolutely nothing to the US yet they deform their kids and get away. I say they should at least take care of the kids.

And no.. americans were only looking out for their own economy... not bc they wanted to be nice

  • Yes they should
    Vote A
  • No they shouldn't
    Vote B
  • Other
    Vote C
Select a gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy


Most Helpful Guy

  • Yeah. That agent orange was a fucking chemical warfare tactic shit..


Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 1

  • They should.


What Guys Said 4

  • People get very confused about international relations. Imagine that you're Irish, and you're walking down the street, and you see one Greek start punching and kicking another Greek. You move to intervene, and the attacker says, "We are both Greeks. You are not. I never did anything to you. So, you have no right to intervene". Is the attacker correct? Of course not!

    Now it's another question whether it is in the Irishman's interest to intervene. I would say 'no'. But, he wouldn't be violating the attacker's rights by intervening.

    I take the same view of the United States and Vietnam. The United States did not violate the right of any Vietnamese person by intervening. A Vietnamese person doesn't have the right to violate the rights of another Vietnamese person just because they are both Vietnamese. However, the United States should not have intervened, because it was not in the interests of United States citizens to intervene. If the United States should compensate anyone, it is the citizens of the United States, in particular the military personnel. The deformed Vietnamese children were indeed innocent. They should be compensated by the Vietnamese government, just as the Greek attacker would be liable for any damage caused to the Irishman, the Greek victim or any passers-by.

    • And, in answer to your question about the American Civil War, any third parties that had intervened in that war to defeat the Confederacy and had poisoned Confederate citizens would not have been to blame. Any innocent Confederate victims should have blamed the Confederacy in that scenario.

    • Show All
    • @Viperkiss No, he wouldn't, actually (unless the killings were blatantly wanton). And most people (though evidently not you) would say that the Greek attacker should bear legal responsibility for all deaths and injuries.

      Well, if your attitude is that it is wrong to kill innocent people in a war, then you might as well surrender before you even start fighting. But, as I say, that is not going to stop innocent people from suffering. Once your enemies find out that that is your policy, they will drag more innocent people into the situation to prevent you from fighting. See, for example, Hamas's use of Palestinian human shields in the Gaza Strip. So, the suffering of innocents can't be what really bothers you. What really bothers you is the ethics that underlie genuine defence.

    • @Viperkiss (Continued) Hundreds of millions of Japanese and Germans (and billions worldwide) have benefited from the fact that the Allies fought WWII properly. Compare what happened to them post-war with what has happened in the aftermath of the 'softly-softly' nation-building 'wars' in Afghanistan and Iraq, and tell me again that pulling your punches is really about caring for the innocent!

      Merely failing to win majority support in an election is different from being seen as illegitimate. The British government for instance is considered legitimate by virtually everyone in Britain, regardless of party-political opinion. And even the very small number that disagrees manages to cause serious insecurity.

      Refusing to hold elections is not evidence of a lack of support.

      Of course different people have different opinions. That doesn't make morality subjective, any more than disagreement about a scientific theory makes science subjective.

  • i don't think so...

    • Could any country come during the US civil war, drop poison and get away with it?

  • In the meantime the UK'll pay reparations to Iceland for the invasion in WWII.

    • It was for their own good... them or the germans. Plus ww2 was worldwide... nearly. Vietnam is just one country. Yeah ik iceland was neutral but better than hitler getting there

  • casualties of war are the soldiers and the people but not the government.

    • The Vietnamese people... not the US

    • nope the you're basically asking the us people to pay for these vietnamese people because the government doesn't pay for anything they tax us then pay with that money.

    • That makes no sense...
      Wait you're the guy who said there's only one country in north america. I'm done