Sorry to any Asian readers.

[Jimmywax]

I see I probably didn't win any friends with that one post. Those of you who read it know what I am talking about. I personally do not hold any animosity towards any race or creed. Yet I stand by my opinion of the link I posted. I believe it is an excellent example of what hell war is.

Derogatory trms have been used in every single conflict that has happened since the beginning of man. Scientists have proven that it is simply man's way of coping with the fact that they are killing another human being. I certainly did not mean to upset anybody by posting this.

I still believe in my opinion and believe that everybody else is entitled to theirs. When I read the story I knew it was a horrible act just like hundreds of other atrocities that happen everyday in war zones around the world. When I read the story I did get a knot in my stomach when I read it, but I understand that when you are in combat you probably will make choices that seem right at the time. He merely thought he was protecting his fellow soldiers and avenging the death of the slain 34th.

[Scott F]

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?

[Mao]

On a side note: WV used "case closed", trying to ursurp Ming's power...so he'll have to be dealt with...

[kobayashi]

I must say the title of this thread already shows some lack of understanding. Asians do not really identify with each other so you needn't say apologize to all Asians - the same way you wouldn't say sorry to all European readers for insulting the Polish.

Also, I am Asian but I do not feel insulted by anything you have posted so far and I think the world owes the US a huge debt for keeping communism in check when it was at its peak and even today. (that's not to say the US isn't quietly taking over the world by promoting values and concepts which it is bound to dominate)

As for blowing up the bridge thing - I would have done the same thing (i.e. let as many people get across and blow it at all costs before it was too late)

[Jimmywax]

Thank you scott for writing that, I do remember seeing that and I had that in mind when I replied to Tecumseh. I just wanted him to see deeper into the story, not just subject and language.

Also to Koby, I am sorry that I made a generalization. I was just worried that people would get the wrong idea about me and I went and stuck my foot in my mouth again.

[master on high]

*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.

[Scott F]

Um, what master on high said.

[MagyarCrusader]

On a side note: WV used "case closed", trying to ursurp Ming's power...so he'll have to be dealt with...

Mao, I'm surprised you haven't figured it out by now. The forums exist for power trips and competitions for the chief **** award. I've won it a few times in my day, but never excelled enough to achieve the legimate power of a moderator. See where our consitution that men died for has gotten us now?



AND btw Jimmywax, not only have you insulted asia, but you've insulted us quasi-asians as well, and we are extremely upset! We demand a public apology and several billion deustchmarks in reparations!

[Case]

Originally posted by Scott F
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).

I wouldn't consider Ambrose a historian, let alone a well regarded one.

His book on D-Day was the biggest pile of s**t I've ever had the misfortune to borrow from my university library. He presents the D-Day landings as the key to the defeat of the Nazis, claiming that the Soviets were getting bogged down on the Eastern Front! (I gues no-ones ever told him about Operation Bagreton, which was launched on the 22 June 1944 and destroyed an entire German Army Group!). As well as this, despite his claim that the book is a history of everything which happened on D-Day, he only allocates about three chapters to the British and Canadians, who made up half of the invasion force!

I read about 4 chapters then returned the book to the library (after defacing it to warn others )

Based on his track record of boosting American achievements, I don't think that Ambrose's opinion on American 'war crimes' is worth considering.

[techumseh]

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":

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:

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.

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.

A reasonable rationale was issued by the poster of the link.

gasp... Really?

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.

- 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.

[MarkG]

Neither the first or this thread had anything to do with civ2 and scenarios, therefore this thread is closed

please try to keep things on-topic

thanks