So what is the point if the other side won't play by the rules? There is no referee to give them a 10 yard unsportsmanlike penalty here. If the other side is not interested in following the rules and plays "no holds barred", why should we abide by this code of chivalry? What will it achieve?

IIRC, when either side breaches the Geneva Conventions it is the right of the offended belligerent to determine an appropriate response. The rationale is a sort of "tit-for-tat" logical constraint. It doesn't always work but in the engagements in which the Conventions have been followed by both sides, civilians have suffered less than in wars in which they were not followed.

B

How would we sue the other side for the breaches?

True. However, what happens when only one side follows it and not the other?

That's where the "appropriate response" thingie comes into play. For the British during WWII, the bombing of London justified Hamburg, etc. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

B

But in this case, what is the point of it all? We can't go after Al Qaeda and bring them to court.

So we convince the Iraqi/Pakistani/Afghani civilians to stop protecting and harboring them.

Has it worked so far?

Somewhat. It will take several lifetimes of coordinated effort.

So in the meantime, we should not hit below the belt while the enemy keeps doing so? Assuming it works at some point in infinitum, that is. Sounds masochistic to me.

It works by attrition. Kill the malefactors whenever possible, popping them out of their culture and gene pool. This serves to limit their persuasive influence at the family and clan levels.

Your objectivity is, uh, lacking.

We are the good guys? Oh really? Do you think anyone else on the planet is under that impression about themselves?

Your post a few days back about the only reason we lost Vietnam was because commies in the US had free speech was another one that wasn't really worth a response.

Clueless, utterly clueless. I saw barefoot peasants being bombed in their rice paddies. A few naive souls at the time like myself had thoughts that went something like, WTF?!?!?!?

Most of us knew next to nothing about that country or what was going on, but plenty were convinced that it was time to nuke the gooks to show them who was boss. Thank God cooler heads prevailed.

The interrogator I spoke of was on NPR's Fresh Air, so of course it was lying BS. Worked in Vietnam and the middle east. I can't find the link. Would you listen to it if I did?

Do your own research. You might make a move towards rationality a few lifetimes from now.

Word I've come across many times is that many targets that we bombed were not legitimate military targets. Ever seen the footage of hamlets being napalmed, one after the other? It's sorta (in)famous, was at the beginning of Herzog's "Rescue Dawn," a good movie if you've not seen it. His earlier film about the same guy, a docu., "Little Dieter Needs to Fly, " (IIRC) was also good.

I like McCain in many ways but I think he was and is mistaken about Vietnam. Dieter Dangler (sp) forgave his captors completely. McCain said he never will.

Part of the point with my post about war crimes trials, or lack of them, is that Vietnam didn't really win the war in any classical sense. They did not divide up American territory or booty, save that which was abandoned in country. They had no ability to prosecute war criminals, or those they thought to be same. They did manage to survive a massive, unprovoked attack by the largest military in history to that point.

As for legitimate military targets, there were some of those in Vietnam? A country we lied our way into fighting in an undeclared war? A country that couldn't have harmed us if they wanted to which they didn't?

A war crime from start to finish.

I didn't ask about all bombs dropped everywhere in Vietnam, I asked about McCain's missions. McCain was following orders to bomb specific targets. If he knowingly bombed non-military targets then he was a war war criminal.

If you want to bring charges against the war itself then you have to bring charges at the appropriate level -- Johnson, MacNamara, & Congress. And the people who elected them, of course.

These questions are ponderable but never can be conclusively answered.

I like to try to find understanding of the big picture. I also like to try to think what folks were thinking in that village in Vietnam as our jets swooped in and dropped death and destruction.

To folks with no stake in the discussion it must look something like Italy's invasion of Ethiopia does to us. Planes dropping bombs on spear wielding warriors with shields and loincloths.

One of my favorite movies is "The Wind and the Lion". It stars Sean Connery and Candice Bergen. It is based on actual events (in a hollywood way I am sure) that occurred in Morrocco during TR's administration. It is an interesting contrast in cultural values. There is a place in which the Ratsuli (The berber chief played by Connery) discusses European military methods. In describing the Machine Gun he said "There is no honor in having a gun that discharges bullets promiscuously....now swords, there is honor in swords".

I may have the quote wrong but the point is that having technical superiority in armament certainly makes the other side feel that you are fighting unfairly. If the other side feels that guns that discharge promiscuously or planes that drop napalm are unfair then they may well decide that chopping off heads is fair in comparison.

In McCains case we had jet fighters and helicopters and they had ak 47s and land mines. If one of our pilots was shot down they had a tendency to treat them as if they were war criminals, because in their minds that was what they were.

Who is to say they are wrong?

Tom W

So maybe we should just dispense with the GC rag we signed and just say "No Holds Barred". What is it you suggest? Swords at dawn?