Dom we can place an emphasis upon what happens here and pretend it changes what happens in several parts of the world. Or we can deal with what is
happening in several parts of the world bring it to an even keel with what is happening here and then go from there.
What is obvious with respect to the world is that atrocities committed specifically target civilian populations who are non-combatants (this is not
happening in the United States). WE as a world have
to set priorities, those priorities based upon a scale of what is the worst to what is the least worst.
I am not trying to brush anything under the carpet I even mentioned that the US/NATO policy of taking no prisoners was wrong.
The very fact that we are not calling herbicides chemical weapons when found in Iraq is one causative factor for not referring to them in the same
light with respect to Vietnam.
We may have killed as many people as you state in Vietnam but it was not the result of purposefully targeting civilians, to be more specific in
respect to chemical weapons use see attached link...
The issue exists today that non-combatant civilians are a target for military style assaults. This problem was in fact more of an issue in the 60s (
as a reuslt of the cold war) which ensued, when Stalin did what he did. In effect it is an effort to place the standards of war prior to the
industrial revolution back into effect. But as a reuslt of technology the scale of assault has changed dramatically.
We cannot sit by and allow such a policy to become a precedent and to be certain it is clear such an effort is being made. You feel that (for
instance) Henry Kissinger should be tried for war crimes because he supported the activities in Vietnam, which were wrong.
My response is before I took such an action I would have to take into consideration the realities of that decade.
In light of what is apparent today a realistic conclusion is that in the 60s, despite popular belief. The system which was Stalinism, was very much
more organized and engaged in many
more atrocities than it is an issue at present. Perhaps on as much as 70% to 100% more efficient (the 70%
being after Stalin died).
To say the very least Stalin murdered (some say) as many as10,000,000 to 20,000,000 people in the former Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact (had a college
professor which was from Checkoslovakia (sp) and lived there in those days, I am quoting his estimate).
My opinion is that the mindset of the administrations, which authorized the Korean and Vietnam war. Were
from the perspective that if Communism gained such a foothold that it controlled the US. 50,000,000 civilians dead as a reuslt of the transition of
power, would be the minimum (from the point of view of a peaceful surrender without the use of WMD).
Getting back to walking in another’s Moccasins what would you do to save 50,000,000 lives?