I guess that means you're going to need to show him!  Start advocating rampant genocides?

it s asensitive topic and it alwaays will be

there is a whole generation who d rather forget about nam, for several reasons

everyone dies. the crime in murder and genocide is not that the people die, but that they are robbed of their potential in life.  the US was fighting to increase the potential people in the region could achieve in their lives; while Stalin was covering his own back, thats teh difference. Stalin and other Soviet Leaders are why Russia has the standard of living they have and not that of most European countries. North Korean and Chinese leaders of the Past is why North Korea has its standard of living and not that of South Korea's. those are the real crimes.

the US was in Vietnam to keep it from becoming a communist state

A lil something called the Red Scare too.. or one of the Red Scares rather

> avogadro wrote:

and keeping it from becoming a communist state would of increased their quality of life if they were successful.>

Maybe that would have been a byproduct, but it wasn't America's motivation for going to war. We just don't give a crap about other people's happiness.

here this explains stuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfi4s8cjLFI

>>You raised the point of who started it, I answered it.

Ah I see, you misunderstood I was talking more about war in general not specifically Vietnam.

>>"Does the term "slippery slope" mean anything to you?"

>>Not in that context. They shelter guerrillas, they're legit targets.  if you don't like that, take sides as a combatant, don't bore me with "this isn't our war but crimes against humanity are something else" which is total crap.  I agree with Gen. Yamashita, he was hanged because Japan lost the war.  If Japan had won the war no Japanese generals would have hanged--they didn't bother with "crimes against peace".

You're ok with targeting civillians who voluntarily shelter the enemy, what about civillians involuntarily sheltering the enemy (let us stay here or die, or a national leader putting a military base in a civillian area), what actually qualifies as "sheltering" the enemy? Families who hide their own? Hospitals who take in wounded soldiers?  Religious organizations offering sanctuary?  How you state it is fine I certainly agree, but the concept of accepting the deliberate targetting of civillians because they're providing cover for your enemy can be taken to dangerous lengths.