We were discussing that any american combatant is Vietnam was a war criminal, even if they were only engaging enemy combatants, due to the fact they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Even if Forrest Gump was exploited by American imperialism, would he still be a war criminal.
This is sincerely not a bait post, I just wanted to hear some input on the nuance of the situation.
If you were a US soldier in Vietnam, you absolutely were fighting for a nation that did war crimes in Vietnam and was the bad guy.
But I feel like the war criminal label has to actually be reserved for the people that actually did the killing of civilians, and specific acts, like the solders that did the Mai Lai massacre.
Like if you harmed civilians, yeah war criminal.
But if somehow you managed to fight just armed combatants (bear with me here), even if you were fighting for a colonial aggressor (France or the US in Vietnam) that doesn't rise to the level of war crime. That's just you being part of an imperialist aggressor (which is STILL BAD) and for some reason it just feels like calling every US soldier a war criminal just dilutes the label and makes the idea of war crimes less serious and prosecuting those people who did them less likely to happen.
Like, to put it another way: every war crime is immoral, reprehensible, and evil, but not every immoral, reprehensible and evil thing rises to the level of a war crime?
Some Vietnam vets I’ve spoken to who regret their actions really seemed to feel they were basically brainwashed at the time, (our govt lied to us etc) in terms of what they were told communism was and what America was doing in Vn. Obviously I can’t say how true that is but it’s what they seemed to believe
level headed take i think. it's easy to sit at the computer and bemoan conscripts from the previous century when none of us have any idea what we would have done under those conditions.
people on here love to post about how every member of the us military gets the wall or whatever, and i really do get the impulse, but you are straying from materialism at that point. it would be a completely untenable position in a revolutionary situation. to continue the counterfactual, good luck doing a new american revolution with zero troops on board.
We were discussing that any american combatant is Vietnam was a war criminal, even if they were only engaging enemy combatants, due to the fact they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Even if Forrest Gump was exploited by American imperialism, would he still be a war criminal.
This is sincerely not a bait post, I just wanted to hear some input on the nuance of the situation.
So, I'm willing to step on this landmine here.
If you were a US soldier in Vietnam, you absolutely were fighting for a nation that did war crimes in Vietnam and was the bad guy.
But I feel like the war criminal label has to actually be reserved for the people that actually did the killing of civilians, and specific acts, like the solders that did the Mai Lai massacre.
Like if you harmed civilians, yeah war criminal.
But if somehow you managed to fight just armed combatants (bear with me here), even if you were fighting for a colonial aggressor (France or the US in Vietnam) that doesn't rise to the level of war crime. That's just you being part of an imperialist aggressor (which is STILL BAD) and for some reason it just feels like calling every US soldier a war criminal just dilutes the label and makes the idea of war crimes less serious and prosecuting those people who did them less likely to happen.
Like, to put it another way: every war crime is immoral, reprehensible, and evil, but not every immoral, reprehensible and evil thing rises to the level of a war crime?
Some Vietnam vets I’ve spoken to who regret their actions really seemed to feel they were basically brainwashed at the time, (our govt lied to us etc) in terms of what they were told communism was and what America was doing in Vn. Obviously I can’t say how true that is but it’s what they seemed to believe
level headed take i think. it's easy to sit at the computer and bemoan conscripts from the previous century when none of us have any idea what we would have done under those conditions.
people on here love to post about how every member of the us military gets the wall or whatever, and i really do get the impulse, but you are straying from materialism at that point. it would be a completely untenable position in a revolutionary situation. to continue the counterfactual, good luck doing a new american revolution with zero troops on board.
Exactly my thoughts.