 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Scott F
|
|
Indiana
Oct 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
About a year ago, there was a big stink about American troops committing a war crime during the Korean War. Apparently, if memory serves, the UN force in Korea was in retreat from the advancing North Koreans (and maybe Chinese, I don't remember if it was before or after Inchon). As they retreated, they were accompanied by tens of thousands of refugees fleeing south to escape the advancing communist armies. Some American troops were told to guard a vital bridge across a very wide river and to destroy the bridge before it could fall into enemy hands. The Americans guarded the bridge and thousands of UN troops, RoK troops, American troops, and Korean refugees fled southward over it.
After the military forces had already passed, refugees continued to clog the bridge, fleeing south. The Americans guarded the bridge. Thousands made it to safety through their efforts at guarding and holding the bridge. Eventually, however, the bridge came under fire from the communists, and the order came down to blow the bridge, because the enemy advance threatened to overwhelm and seize the bridge intact and apparently not all of the refugees were really refugees and some were communist infiltrators and guerillas. The American soldiers held off blowing the bridge for a while longer while some more people made it across, including the American guard team from the far end of the bridge. The bridge was then blown, with communist tanks nearing the northern approach of the bridge.
Unfortunately, the Americans blew the bridge while it was still clogged with hundreds of fleeing refugees (and some communist infantry as well by that point). Nearly everyone on the bridge either was killed by the explosive charges or fell into the water below and drowned. Hundreds of them. They all perished because of the actions of those soldiers.
The families of the dead Koreans called this a war crime by the Americans. CNN, being enterprising on a slow news day, sent a crew out to arrange an interview with Stephen Ambrose (a notable and well known and regarded American historian on the Korean War and the Second World War). The CNN infobabe asked Ambrose if this was a war crime, her tone clearly implying that in her opion it was. Ambrose replied something along the lines of, "War is hell. People do terrible and unspeakable things in war. The difference between these American troops and say the SS and the Germans (to which the Korean family members had likened the situation), was that the German government specifically ordered war crimes and their soldiers followed the orders. These Americans weren't ordered to commit a war crime. They were ordered to blow a bridge. Is that a war crime? I suggest you ask the families of the tens of thousands that had already escaped southward over that bridge and might have been overrun, captured, or killed had it not been blown in time. Like I said, war is hell." For once, the CNN infobabe did not know what to say.
Now, would you call that a war crime?
Also, does anyone here remember the famous photograph of a South Vietnamese officer shooting another Vietnamese person in civilian clothing?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
master on high
|
|
San Francisco
Apr 1999 time: 05:15
|
|
*shakes head*
Let's look at the facts for a moment
*pulls out posterboard*
- A link was posted to a story that presented a moral dilema in the form of deciphering material clues to identify a man's allegiences.
- That man was apparently shot in the story.
- We weren't there. We don't know if this actually happened. (I never touched this gun, this man, or even stepped foot on this land they call "Korea")
- It's not up to us to debate whether or not this "qualifies" as a "war crime."
- One posted expressed their distaste for the link.
- A reasonable rationale was issued by the poster of the link.
- "Unkind words" were slung in response by the "offended"
- A moderator who doesn't actually post, or contribute to the civilization community closed the thread without, what I consider to be, a reasonable rationale.
What the hell is there to be sorry about? People leapt to conclusions. I read the story and found it interesting, although I don't accept or condone war, murder, racism, bigotry, atrocities, binding civilians by their hands ( ), etc., etc.
- how fascist.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
techumseh
|
 |
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999 time: 22:15
|
|
I don't know how much energy to spend on this "debate", since one of my major points was that this belongs on Off Topic, not on Scenario League. But since a number of people evidently are more offended by the closing of the thread than by the promotion of war crimes, I'll have another go.
Let's look at some of master on high's "facts":
quote: A link was posted to a story that presented a moral dilema in the form of deciphering material clues to identify a man's allegiences. |
I'm sorry, but if the author sees a moral dillema at all, it's not whether it's OK to shoot an unarmed and bound captive without a trial; it's only about whether he made the right guess or not. It may be a dillema, but not to someone with morals.
Here's a bit of the "moral dillema" as expressed by the author of the story:
quote: His upper lip curled slightly, then the expressionless mask fell back into place. I lined my carbine on that upper lip and clicked the safety back off. His mouth opened in sudden realization, just as I fired full automatic into it, blowing off the back of his head.
It was just bad luck that the major had looked back at us a second or two before I fired. |
Just bad luck, indeed.
quote: It's not up to us to debate whether or not this "qualifies" as a "war crime." |
This is the biggest copout since Bill Clinton redefined "sexual relations". I'm sorry, the shooting of unarmed prisoners without a trial is a "war crime", as defined by every accepted standard, including the Geneva Convention, the Nuremburg judgements, and the International Commission on War Crimes.
quote: A reasonable rationale was issued by the poster of the link. |
gasp... Really?
quote: If he would have been able to talk the officer into letting them keep the prisoner, the prisoner would have suffered a more grusome fate at the hands of ROK troops. If the officer had taken him then there would be two dead U.S. soldiers and an armed troop behind enemy lines. He could have walked up to the next check point and taken out several of our boys. |
Here Jimmywax justifies the murder by suggesting the prisoner was better off being shot by an American. And that's reasonable? Or that prisoners cannot be restrained while being transported in custody? Until I read his response to my post, I only thought he'd posted an offensive story. But his response was nothing but a justification of the action portrayed in the story. Your response (and others) is pure rationalization.
quote:
- how fascist. |
You don't even know the meaning of the word.
Contrary to popular misconception, the holocaust could not have occurred without general public consent or at least apathy and rationalization. And geocides have happened since, in the lifetimes of everyone on this forum, in Rwanda and Bosnia. Attitudes such as those expressed in this thread make it possible.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|