I am fairly certain, Ezekiel, that your knowledge of the "Law of Armed Conflict"; Geneva Conventions; The Hague Conventions, & etc., is pretty limited, which is why I prefer not to engage in these discussions. Any effort to actually apply the law to the discussion is usually dismissed off hand, because, as I said, it is not applicable - these quickly become a hermetically sealed discussion based upon previously formed opinion and ideological posturing unrelated to actual application to real world circumstances. I appreciate those who are anti-war - am even quite sympathetic - but that does not equate to anyone who engages in warfare being a "war criminal." When we lose the capacity to make distinctions - even fine distinctions - discussion becomes irrelevant. Broad-brush, nonsensical, divorced-from-reality-or-fact assertions such as "the U.S. being a major offender" demonstrate the shallowness of the analysis. I used to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to educate and discuss, but it became too frustrating.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich