First, I thought mine was a reasonable, rational request for verification. I didn't intend any bullying, although pointing out the irrationality of your premise might be considered such by someone without a leg to stand on.

Now as I understand it, I should point out the value of war before judging war crimes - that war crimes must be judged against all the positive results of war.

Please help me understand the positive aspects of the war in Vietnam. Include all the cultural, societal and technological advances, and the costs of such. The reality is that the war in Vietnam was an unmitigated disaster. There are no positives against which to measure those war crimes.

Second, war crimes are not necessarily integral to war just as torture isn't integral to interrogation. Your premise falls apart.

Neither marijuana nor alcohol is necessary to life. The people who can handle them regard them as no more importand than green beans or strawberries. Their value is in screwing up people's minds. If screwing up one's mind is that important, if they can't take living with the brain God gave them, there is no sense in debating the value of a clear head. You will have to explain the value of alcohol and marijuana to me. And alcohol. I know there is a high value to addicts and alcoholics, I'm aware of that, but to a normal, functioning, content individual who values themselves and their minds, that's a bit harder to see. Help me.

And if one believes that because one drug which has contributed to the deaths of 20,000 Americans EACH YEAR in motor vehicle accidents alone, if that drug is legal, then the next one should be legal also so that some folks can foul up their consciousness, that to is a fools errand.

In short, there is no hypocrisy on my part that I can see on these issues. I think your arguments are based upon faulty premises.