From: bobh@troy.uucp (22131-hettmansperger)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 20:04:08 GMT

In article <81002@ut-emx.uucp> wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:

>Unless you were there, you cannot really judge what that person did. This is 
>especially true if you have information that the person who fought in combat
>may or may not have known. 

That's fair.  Can I at least try to understand why I react differently to the
three following events:

1) Soldier shoots an attacking soldier point blank in the head
2) Soldier in bulldozer buries alive another non-attacking soldier
3) "Soldier" in office in Washington DC nukes Iraq

Contrary to popular belief on the net, I wasn't advocating using nukes, but
using it an en example of a US action that I thought would be generally 
considered to be extremely offensive.  

Personally, I find all three events above to be offensive.  The point I was 
trying to make (and not doing a good job of it apparently) was that I found
number 2 *more* offensive and less heroic than number 1, and that I found
number 3 *more* offensive and less heroic than number 1 or 2.

In addition, I was using as my basis for number 2 the original post which,
true or not, described the bulldozing of Iraqis who were POWs (or at least
well on their way to being POWs).  If it was not actually true, then it at
least makes for a useful thought experiment to try to understand the
emotional reaction to acts of war. 

>If a soldier shoots up a helpless village and 
>gleefully brags about it afterwards, hang him since he damn well knew that
>place was not defended. Unfortunately, the fog of war is very thick when you're
>inside it and things may not be completely clear until long after you take
>actions. 

Damn it, I understand that and I didn't think that's what we were talking
about with the bulldozing story.

>Only war crimes 
>should be criticized (if you can prove it, to some people everytime the
>military farts is a war crime :).) Trying to judge a decision when you were
>not there with fragments flying around you and facing the general confusion
>that surrounds even modern combat is impossible to do fairly. 

Well, gee, then I apologize to every single soldier on *any* side of any war.
Apparently, they *all* were just acting in the general confusion of combat
and therefore shouldn't be held accountable or criticised for any of their
actions. (note to the sarcasm-impared: I not serious here). 

Just what do you consider a war crime?  Should an army using nerve gas on an
enemy be criticised more than an army bulldozing troops off the front line?
Should *any* form of indiscriminate killing be considered a war crime?  What
does it mean for an action to be a war crime anyway?  Who made up "the rules"
and why?

Hell, I don't know, but at least give me some credit for trying to figure it
out.  Not everone who questions "our side" of a war is just a frothing at the
mouth anti-patriot.

>No, only truly 
>heroic efforts in war should be celebrated. Like Leonidas and the Three Hundred
>at Thermopylae; the defenders of Bastogne; the injured captain of a submarine
>who orders his ship to crash dive to avoid a Japanese destroyer, despite the
>fact that he is stuck on the tower and won't make it below; the countless acts
>of heroism by common soldiers who keep their comrades alive but go unnoticed 
>when medals go out; O'Hare launching his lone fighter against a Japanese
>bomber force attacking his carrier group; the SAR people in Vietnam who pulled
>out pilots who were heartbeats away from becoming POWs. Do any of these acts
>of war qualify as heroism to you? 

Yes.  Did you think that they wouldn't?

I'm trying to understand the emotions of war, which is inherently a bizzare
mix of good and evil.  I'm also trying to examine what we did without a blindly
patriotic bias, which is a damn hard thing to do.  

-Bob