>Um Doug you're the one who forwarded Hitchens' comments which Joanna
>Sheldon then astoundingly interpreted as a reasonable defense of the
>manner in which the war criminal Kerrey conducted himself in a free
>fire zone (though it seems all the firing was in one direction). So
>was I wrong to read the comments which you forwarded that way? You
>seemed irked by them yourself, but now you get angry at me for also
>finding Hitchens irksome! It's this kind of "argumentation" which I
>have come to expect from you.
>
>Moreover, it stands unrefuted that Hitchens somehow forgot that
>Kerrey's account was contested.
Well, I actually do have some sympathy for the 'handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500' argument. For about a century now, it's been true of war that a lot more civilians die in them than do soldiers - that's just a given (mind you, (1) what the moral difference between a conscript and a civvie is, I'm not sure - and (2) even most of those dead soldiers typically never had a chance to shoot back at the artillery, armour and airpower that pulverised 'em). By definition, to conduct a war is to conduct a process more accurately defined as the mass-killing of innocents than anything else. That's the most important point.
The blowtorch of social scrutiny should always be levelled at those who start wars before it is on the people who fight in 'em. One thing war ALWAYS does is brutalise its younger participants (it might even be a conscious process for many - with the youngster thinking, 'either I get brutal or I'm bound for a bodybag'). So, those who send 'em to where the bleeding's done, are knowingly sending (mostly) adolescent boys to where the brutalising is done. That's the second most important point.
Anyway, 'war crime' is a BIG term, and I'd not be throwing it around whilst our state of information is as limited as it is (which it will probably ever be, of course). I reckon our state of information is a lot healthier about the 1969 WhiteHouse than it is about the 1969 Kerrey. And I reckon our state of information is a lot healthier about the 1999 pilot than the 1969 Kerrey, too. That we're still arguing exclusively about the Kerrey killings tells me the professional framers of debate have yet again had their wicked way ...
Cheers, Rob.