11 ms·
"On May 10, the Summer Olympics were inaugurated at the Greek birthplace of the ancient games. A few days before, virtually unnoticed, the government of Vietnam
by Create 14y ago
"On May 10, the Summer Olympics were inaugurated at the Greek birthplace of the ancient games. A few days before, virtually unnoticed, the government of Vietnam addressed a letter to the International Olympic Committee expressing the "profound concerns of the Government and people of Viet Nam about the decision of IOC to accept the Dow Chemical Company as a global partner sponsoring the Olympic Movement."
Dow provided the chemicals that Washington used from 1961 onward to destroy crops and forests in South Vietnam, drenching the country with Agent Orange.
These poisons contain dioxin, one of the most lethal carcinogens known, affecting millions of Vietnamese and many U.S. soldiers. To this day in Vietnam, aborted fetuses and deformed infants are very likely the effects of these crimes - though, in light of Washington's refusal to investigate, we have only the studies of Vietnamese scientists and independent analysts.
Joining the Vietnamese appeal against Dow are the government of India, the Indian Olympic Association, and the survivors of the horrendous 1984 Bhopal gas leak, one of history's worst industrial disasters, which killed thousands and injured more than half a million.
Union Carbide, the corporation responsible for the disaster, was taken over by Dow, for whom the matter is of no slight concern. In February, Wikileaks revealed that Dow hired the U.S. private investigative agency Stratfor to monitor activists seeking compensation for the victims and prosecution of those responsible."
America's Rank Hypocrisy, By Noam Chomsky, AlterNet 05 June 12
- peterwwillis 14y agoSo Vietnam is opposed to a company sponsoring the Olympics because they made a product that the USA used to deform and kill their people. How does that make sense? Shouldn't they be angry at the country that actually dumped the chemicals on them? If somebody gets a gun and shoots you, you sue the guy who shot you, not the company that made the bullets. (Well, unless you just want more money, which in our litigious society might actually work for you...)
- Roboprog 14y agoIt's possible they are pissed at both. Just sayin'.
- Retric 14y agoAre you suggesting that people who design and manufacture biological or chemical weapons have zero responsibility for how they are used? Bullet's at least have the potential to be used harmlessly, something like VX gas does not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_(nerve_agent)
- freehunter 14y agoIt might make a bit more sense when you add in that Agent Orange wasn't supposed to cause these effects in humans. Dow and Monstanto were struggling to keep up with the demand from the US military and quality control suffered. This led to Agent Orange being contaminated with TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin). True Agent Orange should be 50/50 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. It was the contamination with the carcinogen that caused the disaster. With this in mind, you could blame Dow and Monsanto for lack of quality control leading to human suffering. This would be a litigious offense in almost every nation. Even if you want to believe malice put the poison there rather than incompetence, guns aren't made or sold with specific intent to kill people. If they were (outside of war), you would be able to sue for the damage they caused.
- colanderman 14y agoguns aren't made or sold with specific intent to kill people. So handguns and machine guns are manufactured for deer hunters?
- peterwwillis 14y agoYou know, i've always wondered why some targets for target practice show a humanoid form... y'know, if people aren't practicing to shoot other people. Maybe they were trying to paint a deer and got confused.
- nsxwolf 14y agoAvid shooter here. Yes, those humanoid targets are made for practicing the shooting of humans. That should not be controversial. Some humans are a threat and occasionally it is required that you shoot them. Shooting innocent humans is bad.
- bostonpete 14y agoZombies are roughly the same form too.
- ramchip 14y agoIt's more like someone selling a case of bullets while knowing that the buyer will use it to kill someone. I can't say if it's legal or not, but it's certainly not very ethical.
- peterwwillis 14y agoThis has got to be the most naive statement i've ever read on the internet. First of all, it's not illegal to sell arms to your own government's military, and the whole point of the military buying them is to kill people with. (Sorry, "defend our freedom") Second, products aren't manufactured just for fun. They're made so someone can buy them and use them. The market's demands are the reason the product exists. So if you don't like the product, you have to direct your attentions to the market for the product, not the manufacturers or salespeople. You can get mad at the salesmen all you want - they'll still just collect their big fat paycheck and the market will keep on killing people. Assuming it's the killing and maiming you don't like, I highly recommend you get angry at the USA and not Dow, since the USA is the reason Dow invented and sold chemicals to begin with. You can call Dow unethical if you want - they don't give a shit. And it is completely meaningless in the context of wanting people to stop getting hurt.
- rokhayakebe 14y agoThis has got to be the most naive statement i've ever read on the internet. If so then you are certainly on a different internet. His statement is very valid or logical. He never said DOW was responsible, but they were acted unethically. Someone could write a computer virus that would wipe out the US government dataset for $1B then proceed to say "I was paid for it, I should not go to jail because I did not click START." They would be right, but they would also rank high on the list of most unethical individuals.
- colanderman 14y agoMaybe I'm thick, but I don't see what Dow has to do with Monsanto or this story?
- Maxious 14y ago"[Agent Orange] was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical."
- omonra 14y agoAnd what does THAT have to do with THIS story?
- neuroelectronic 14y agoI guess we'll just wait and find out...
- CWuestefeld 14y agoWikileaks revealed that Dow hired the U.S. private investigative agency Stratfor to monitor activists seeking compensation This is the kind of inflammatory reporting that creates divisiveness rather than informing people. I don't doubt that Dow hired Stratfor. But isn't that exactly what a responsible corporation ought to do? Knowing that they've got some potential exposure to huge legal losses, they owe it to their stockholders (and are probably required by the SEC) to keep an eye open for the degree and size of that risk. There is no reason to read that as anything more than responsible, prudent business. We can see that the "reporter" is prone to think of this in one way, but we might just as well assume that they're keeping tabs on things in order to find ways to satisfy those affected without exposing themselves to huge liabilities. In my opinion, Chomsky and Krugman both ought to turn in their writing tools, and go back to the scientific pursuits that they're proven to be great at. (to be fair, there are hacks all across the political spectrum, but for some reason it seems that many people believe that these people, perhaps because of their excellent -- but unrelated -- scientific credentials, are above being manipulative)
- pessimizer 14y agoI don't understand your objection. Are you complaining that mentioning that Dow hired a private intelligence agency to monitor people expressing grievances makes Dow sound evil because most corporations would (or even should if they are "responsible") do the same, so it's not a particularly evil act amongst corporations?
- sp332 14y agoYes. If you knew someone was trying to bring a legal case against you, wouldn't you research them and keep an eye on them? It would be irresponsible not to.
- pessimizer 14y agoBut you can see how people (non-corporate persons) might think that sort of extra-judicial asymmetry in dealing with questions of injury between individuals and corporations highly detrimental to any idea of regulating anything that a company wants to do to anyone, right?
- cschmidt 14y agoWhat on earth does this have to do with the original post? I don't think propaganda from Noam Chomsky has any place on HN. I don't agree with a single sentence. The original post seemed very biased in an anti-business way, and this is even worse. Dow made Agent Orange at the request of the US military decades ago. Are they supposed to be considered evil because of that? Union Carbide clearly screwed up in a huge way over Bhopal, but they settled with the Indian government, and tied up all liability before they were acquired. If you disagree with me, take it somewhere besides HN. Disclosure: I grew up in Midland, MI, headquarters of Dow, and much of my family worked there.
- gurkendoktor 14y agoI agree that this isn't directly related to the OP, but: > Dow made Agent Orange at the request of the US military decades ago. Are they supposed to be considered evil because of that? If you observe how even passing information to the gov't is condemned on HN, this almost seems like a rhethorical question.
- cschmidt 14y ago[Edit: parent said he felt Dow was unethical, and then edited it to the statement above. That's what I was responding to.] I agree completely that businesses must act in an ethical way. However, I don't feel that Dow was unethical. The wiki pages on this are very one sided, making it appear an open and shut case. Dow disagrees, and I've heard that from toxicologists that I knew and respected personally. To quote from http://www.dow.com/sustainability/debates/agentorange/ http://www.dow.com/sustainability/debates/agentorange/ ____________________ Agent Orange The jungles of South Vietnam were ideally suited for providing enemy cover for the guerilla tactics employed by troops battling South Vietnamese, American, and other allied forces during the Vietnam War. To offset ambush attacks and protect allied forces, the U.S. military sought to defoliate combat areas by developing and using the herbicide Agent Orange. U.S. military research developed Agent Orange, and the product was formulated based on exacting military specifications. Companies supplying Agent Orange to the government included The Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto Company, Hercules Inc., Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company, Uniroyal Inc., Thompson Chemical and T-H Agriculture and Nutrition Company. Public concern over Agent Orange has centered not over the product itself, but an unavoidable by-product that was present in only trace levels of one of the product's ingredients. The unavoidable trace by-product was the dioxin compound 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Dow's Position As a nation at war, the U.S. government compelled a number of companies to produce Agent Orange under the Defense Production Act. The government specified how it would be produced and controlled its use. The scientific investigation on Agent Orange has gone on since the Vietnam War and continues today. There have been extensive epidemiological studies of those veterans most exposed to Agent Orange. Today, the scientific consensus is that when the collective human evidence is reviewed, it doesn't show that Agent Orange caused veteran's illnesses. ___________________ You are of course free to disagree with me, and Dow. However, this is such a political topic it boggles my mind we are discussing this on Hacker News. So how do you feel about Mitt Romney's chances, while we're at it?