I have been thinking about the entire Stolen Honor issue, especially the comment by the NYT, and I'm trying to understand it. But then, I never understood Vietnam.
During WWII, WE (the Allies, the victors) called Nazis war criminals PRIMARILY when they were involved in mistreating or killing non-combatant civilians (which the Jews were.)
And then, we signed the Geneva Convention documents....
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htmAnd the definitions of criminal acts were pretty clearly documented. No torture, mutilation or killing of civilians. No torture, mutilation or killing of prisoners of war.
So herein lies the problem...
1.) If Vietnam Vets purposely killed innocent men, women or children because IN THEORY, they might have retaliated, then they are war criminals.
2.) If Vietnam Vets burned down entire villages, then they are war criminals.
However, since we associate the term "war criminal" with Nazi's, the term is bound to offend veterans who were doing what they were told -OR- simply trying to deal with a truly f*ed up situation.
It seems to me that Kerry's accusations that some Vietnam vets are "war criminals" are technically accurate... but highly inflammatory.
Is that why so many vets are upset with him?
Am I getting it right?