On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:53:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/17/14, 2:37 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:35:05 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Please. There is much documentation available on how and why Agent
Orange was used. It was chemical warfare. And my reference to landmines
was to our country's willingness to sell them.


By golly, you're right. Agent Orange, although not used to kill people, was used to kill crops
forcing farmers to move to urban areas and not support the NVA or Viet Cong. I would agree that
constitutes a form of 'chemical warfare'.

If we ever have to clear a minefield in Somalia, or elsewhere, I'd rather we clear our mines than
Russian or Chinese. Wouldn't you?


Whatever you wish to call it, it was in fact chemical warfare.

I believe I used the words 'chemical warfare' to describe it, didn't I?

As for
the mines, my reference was to selling them.

I know. But I'd rather clear mines that *we* sold than those that another country sold.

The USA has been a big-time
marketer of land mines. Some 155 countries have signed onto a treaty not
to use land mines. The United States is not a signatory.

A problem with minefields is that those who establish them many times
are not around to clear them.

Agreed. Clearing them is a bitch, especially if no records were kept and the mines were of
questionable origin. Disarming can be a bitch in that case. Blowing in place becomes the only
alternative. The Viet Cong were geniuses at building their own 'mines' - IEDs which tore up a lot of
tanks, bulldozers, APCs and other vehicles.