Which Of These Men Are Heroes?

Make up your mind first, then post whatever real statement you have to make.

Bush-bashing here is meaningless. Iraq is not another Vietnam, and opposition to the war was in too many cases opposition to this nation and its interests in favor of its enemies and theirs.

Shaun - I am of the age where the above picture galvanized my anti-war attitude. Remember the picture of the naked little girl running down the road after a napalm attack? These are the two pictures which seared my soul forever. I became convinced that in war there are NO HEROS ever. It's just ordinary people doing what they are told by power hungry, dupicitous and immoral leaders.

Regardless of what side someone is on - there are no real good guys and bad guys. It's usually just immature young men or brain washed men killing similar people on the other side. In the end it is not the soldiers who are rewarded it is the elite on the winning side. The expression "cannon fodder" is the real world for both sides of a conflict. I am not a pacifist but I will never pretend that killing another human being, no matter how demonized they might be, is heroic much less moral.

"Were the women heroes?"

Only someone who equates Al Qaeda with the South Vietnamese rather than the North would even think to ask that. You always seem to find a way to express things in as anti-American a position as you can.

If someone had caught the bastards who blew those Iraqi women up, and shot them point blank and it was caught on film as this was, my guess is you would lead the parade to have them branded as villains as well.

"Said to be a Viet Cong captain". Jeez - he was caught just after he shot three Americans. I cannot label him the poor victim as you can Shaun.

jdledell:

A most thoughtful and worthy response.

Do I remember the photo of that little girl? Click on the link in the opening paragraph of the post to go to a story on the day I met that little girl.

AustinRoth:

I went out of my way to NOT label anyone anything other than Condi Rice and her ilk.

The overall post and links were meant to show how perspectives can vary, in this instance most notably those of two great photographers of our time -- Eddie Adams and Philip Jones Griffiths.

That a question designed to provoke thought instead provokes knee-jerk condemnation from some is no surprise to me any more. It's just the latest form of political correctness rearing its ugly, jingoistic head.

The anti-American standard political correctness, that is. You stand corrected.

Loan actually moved to Virginia and opened a pizzeria, I believe. He was harassed to his death a few years back.

Neither of the two men were heroes. Both were, technically speaking, war criminals. Had the dead guy had a chance to kill Loan he'd've done it.

As for the bombings, Shaun, the war is not the underlying reason, but the cause. The terrorists were killing innocents b4 the war. Connection does not always equate w causality.

Actually Loan was well within the laws of war by executing the man pictured. That it has been portrayed as a crime is a miscarriage that haunted Adams for years.

EE: Well, no, because S Vietnam had actually adopted laws drafted by the CIA that held out the same innocent till proven guilty clause we revere. So, no, execution w/o benefit of a trial is a war crime.

Nope not a war crime. It may be criminal based on the laws of the then South Vietnamese republic, but not by international law. Caught in the act, no uniform means yes you can be shot in the head.

Well, no, he was not caught in the act. He was 'accused' by others of the act. That is a war crime.

Damn, you do have trouble with reality, EE.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_Ngoc_Loan:

'General Nguyen Ngoc Loan Executing a Viet Cong Prisoner in Saigon is a photograph taken by Eddie Adams on February 1, 1968 showing South Vietnamese National Police Chief Nguyễn Ngọc Loan executing a Viet Cong officer in Saigon during the Tet Offensive. The event was also captured by NBC News film cameras, but Adams' photograph remains the defining image.
South Vietnamese sources said that Lém commanded a Viet Cong assassination platoon, which on that day had targeted South Vietnamese National Police officers, or in their stead, the police officers' families; these sources said that Lém was captured near the site of a ditch holding as many as thirty-four bound and shot bodies of police and their relatives, some of whom were the families of General Loan's deputy and close friend.'

Note the use of 'sources' and 'said'. These were all unidentified sources and would not stand up in court w/o corroboration.

War crime. Period.

"Lém's widow confirmed that her husband was a member of the Viet Cong "
and
"Though some critics claim that Nguyễn Ngọc Loan's action violated the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war, the rights of POW status were accorded to Việt Cộng members only if they were seized during military operations (Nguyễn Văn Lém had not been wearing a uniform nor fighting enemy soldiers in the alleged commission of war crimes)."
From your source.
He was acting against the South Vietnamese govt and was not in uniform. If caught he could be shot under the laws of war. Since He was not covered under the Geneva Conventions what is the law of war you think was broken? Wishful thinking doe not facts make. Because you think it is wrong does not make it a crime. Plenty of things that are wrong, and in my believe evil, are not crimes.

'He was acting against the South Vietnamese govt and was not in uniform. If caught he could be shot under the laws of war. Since He was not covered under the Geneva Conventions what is the law of war you think was broken? Wishful thinking doe not facts make. Because you think it is wrong does not make it a crime. Plenty of things that are wrong, and in my believe evil, are not crimes.'

As you say, wishful thinkng does not make facts, and Lem was, by all accounts, accused by unnamed sources. There was no evidence ever presented of what he was accused of. Or, to make it short, what is it that yuo do not understand about the words 'sources' and 'said'?

<sound of a Homer Simpsonian D'oh! in the background>

Again his wife said he was Viet Cong, oh that's right just 'said'. The sources were unnamed to us but I doubt that was the case of the General. That somehow they forgot to check with you does not mean there was no evidence. It means they caught someone in a battlefield situation and executed him. Which is legal according to the laws of war. There is no requirement for a trial or restrictions on treatment. Repeat 15 times "unnamed sources", "accused", "said", "evidence" it makes no difference. Still not a war crime. If it was a war crime then he must of broke one of the "laws of war" so tell me which one.

Vietcong or Nazi, Red Army or Confederate, it makes no difference.

'The sources were unnamed to us but I doubt that was the case of the General.'

And I'm sure William Calley had good reasons, too.

'That somehow they forgot to check with you does not mean there was no evidence.'

Which was never presented to anyone, anywhere, at any time.

'Which is legal according to the laws of war.'

Well, no. And there has been no substantive diff in Int'l laws of engagement from Vietnam to Iraq.

Repeat 15 times 'legal', but it's still a war crime, legally, technically, and ethically- although that does not make Loan a bad human being. Unfortunately, the very dismissiveness with which you treat the legal process actually hurt his ability to exculpate himself in the eyes of the world. Hmm....perhaps if he had followed the rules of engagement.

Keep Googling.

Again what law of war did he break? I'm not treating the legal process lightly. He may very well of broken the laws of his own country, which neither you or I are qualified to judge. That being the case a war crime is a wholly different issue and you are ignorantly banding about with an obvious incomprehension of what they are.

'Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.'

Geneva Convention 3.

Rounding someone accused before cameras, w/o tribunal, much less a determination of status, and shooting them point blank thru the head.

The refrain:

Repeat 15 times 'legal', but it's still a war crime, legally, technically, and ethically- although that does not make Loan a bad human being. Unfortunately, the very dismissiveness with which you treat the legal process actually hurt his ability to exculpate himself in the eyes of the world. Hmm....perhaps if he had followed the rules of engagement.

Keep Googling.

Breaking the law, as Loan did, not only hurt Lem, but Loan.

BTW- I have little doubt that, like OJ, Lem was likely guilty. But, by subverting and bypassing International Law, Loan became a criminal, technically. The ethics are another debate.

Period.

But since he had nothing identifying him as a combatant article 5 exempts him from prisoner of war status. oops facts again.

But, as you state, he was caught in the act, supposedly, with weaponry. Even Loan stated, to reporters, before the tape was rolling, that the man was a member of the Vietcong, aka, the enemy, aka a 'combatant', and legally recognized as such.

So, let's see, I beat you in your own way, using facts gleaned from assorted online sources- including the man who committed the crime, directly quote from the article that definitively shows it was a war crime, and as I stated in the tax thread, all you can do is deny and pout.

I.e.- all your claims about wanting 'facts' are BS. All you want to do is justify your worldview.

Does baby want a baba?