Were you gazing lovingly into your bathroom mirror when you wrote these words? “Until then, I suppose you will continue to be the arrogant, self – absorbed prick you are now.”

Truly a man of his word.

Sure it is.

Let’s watch the fun, ladies and gentlemen.
1) “you exemplify the root of the problem.” This should mean that I am an example of the problem. This, despite the fact that I said, “as one soldier, I did what little I could to stem the tide. Stopping it was impossible.”

2) He says, “you say this after having condemned the Vietnamese to rape, murder and torture because they didn t smile enough” Of course, I said, or even implied, no such thing. He made that up.
{Here’s where it gets good, folks. Ready?}

3}He says, “it goes without saying that when Frank D explains ‘what it was about’ it s to be commended. But when someone like say, Rep. John Murtha, explains ‘what it was about’ it s anti-American propaganda.
Now, this will take a little while to unravel — it is, after all, a “frameone special” — but, here goes:

a) I didn’t say, “this is what it’s about”. I said, “I was just explaining  partly  what it was about.” I said that because, any sentient being should know that the explanation is much more complicated than to be arrived at in a few paragraphs. Also, I’m not sure what is to be commended. Look at both possibilities: i) My explanation is to be commended. I doubt that he meant he was commending my explanation, since he wouldn’t commend anything I did, if I discovered a cure for cancer. Perhaps he meant that I thought my explanation was to be commended. Well, that’s not true, because I made it quite clear that my explanation was a partial one, and I also made it clear, his nonsensical accusations notwithstanding, that I did not approve of, or even condone such actions. I, in fact, fought to end them.

So, then we have possibility ii) Which is that the actions of the soldiers were to be commended. Well, of course, I already said that wasn’t so — more than once, in fact, but frameone doesn’t believe in context. Like a two – bit hillbilly lawyer, he thinks he can pull a clause or phrase out of thin air, and make a case with it.

b) (Yet another windmill awaits the lance of Don “Frameone” Quixote) “But when someone like say, Rep. John Murtha, explains ‘what it was about’ it s anti-American propaganda.” Now, of course, I didn’t mention Rep. John “Sgt. Fury” Murtha, so at no time could I have said that his remarks were anti – American propaganda. Having said that, I know that frameone the First, will dust off his spectacles, and go looking for all the remarks I’ve ever made about Murtha (which, I already know, have all been negative), and find the one that suits his fancy, and say this “proves” that I said Murths made “anti – American” remarks. What I did say about Murtha, I will repeat right here:

Now, Murtha, knowing full well Iraq will fall to pieces, and not giving a damn, would have US troops who are dedicated and motivated, pull out.

.
As you can see, my statement implies that Murtha is wrong about the troops being “under pressure”, and states clearly that he doesn’t care about what happens to the Iraqis. This may be vaguely construed as anti – American, but that’s only if one views the future of Iraq and the future of the US as being inextricably linked. While I would like that to be the case, I am certain that frameone would find this proposition loathsome.
Thus, this statement can not be viewed as anti – American.

So, what will he do?
For frameone, there are, as always, three possibilities
1) Try to persuade me, and, by extension, you, that I meant something else;
2) Go elsewhere, outside the thread, for evidence that he is right and I am wrong; or
3) Deal me a dismissive, finishing coup de grace: “Total fucking idiot”. “Classic.” “Priceless.”

Finally, please note that the barbarous Paul Malcolm lacks the grace to accept an apology, since he was raised by wolves.

And you say this after having condemned the Vietnamese to rape, murder and torture because they didn’t smile enough:

“… a lot of people undoubtedly felt that their lives were interrupted for a war they weren t thrilled about. The Vietnamese weren t always helpful in this regard, because like you and I, we want to go about our daily lives as best we can. Thus, the Vietnamese, not given to ostentatious displays of emotion in any event, were not inclined to appear very grateful.”

You can twist and misinterpret my words, if you choose, in that inimitable style, we have all come to know, and find obnoxious.
I really don’t care.

Perhaps when you have lived some of the life you go on and on about, you will encounter real people with real problems, and get to know what real life is about.

Until then, I suppose you will continue to be the arrogant, self – absorbed prick you are now.

Good luck.

And by way of summary (see posts above awaiting moderation), war crimes include “willful killing” which include reprisal killings:

“6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.”

From the article cited above:

“One military official says it appears the civilians were deliberately killed by the Marines, who were outraged at the death of their fellow Marine.”

If this was, indeed, a reprisal killing, it’s a war crime.

“Thus, the Vietnamese, not given to ostentatious displays of emotion in any event, were not inclined to appear very grateful.”

So if only the Vietnamese were capable of appearing more human US soldiers wouldn’t have felt so inclined to rape, murder and torture them. What a wonderful sentiment. Thank goodness the Iraqis appear to be actual human beings with their “effusive displays of affection and appreciation.” I guess we should just hope that they keep that up, otherwise, well, they go right back to being inhuman abstractions and then, watch out.

Chapter II. Civilians and civilian population

Art. 50. Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.

Art. 51. – Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

war crimes

War crimes are againt the customary laws of war which are applicable in any conflict, regardless of whether the country in question is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. They include the rights listed in the common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Convention I, Article 3) and the basics of human rights law  freedom from torture, mutilation and rape, slavery, and willful killing. Customary law also forbids genocide, crimes against humanity, as well as war crimes.

willful killing

See indiscriminate attacks.

indiscriminate attacks

Indiscriminate attacks are those which are not directed at a specific military objective or those which use a method of attack that cannot be directed at or limited to a specific military objective. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 4)

This includes area bombardment, where a number of clearly separated military objectives are treated as a single military objective, and where there is a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 5a)

This also includes attacks where the expected incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects is excessive to the military advantage anticipated. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 5b)

Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 4)

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)

If it becomes apparent that an objective in an attack is not a military one, or if that attack could cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects, then the attack must be called off. (Protocol I, Art. 57)

http://www.genevaconventions.org

There are posts awaiting moderation above but Ijust point out the ultimate in Frank’s idiocy.

Nimrod asked: “So how many dead people are needed for this to qualify as a war crime?”

Frank responded:  How many people does it take? is not the question.”

Later Frank responded to me: “I guess in your haste to cut and paste, you overlooked this: crimes committed in armed conflict but directed against a civilian population. Not individuals, Perry Mason.”

This of course raises the question, if 15 people do not constitute a “civilian population,” how many people do? So after denying that numbers had anything to do with his understanding of war crimes, Frank suddenly turns around and decides in the same thread that they do.

What ever argument is convenient Frank, eh? I guess that the difference betweem wanting to superficially win an argument and being morally right. Total idiot.

But there was a draft, and a lot of people undoubtedly felt that their lives were interrupted for a war they weren’t thrilled about. The Vietnamese weren’t always helpful in this regard, because like you and I, we want to go about our daily lives as best we can.

Thus, the Vietnamese, not given to ostentatious displays of emotion in any event, were not inclined to appear very grateful.

In Iraq, on the other hand, the soldiers are volunteers, they are highly motivated, and the Iraqis are effusive in their displays of affection and appreciation for the American ouster of Saddam Hussein.

So it’s not “Same shit, different war.”
I’m sorry I was such an instigator to make a small point.