Talk:My Lai

My interest in this case, beyond mere humanitarian considerations of course, is its appearance in a US army training manual on military ethics. I'm also interested in how the case came to light. I seem to recall that a helicopter pilot saw what was going on, told the US troops to stop by radio, and even stopped and used the threat of force to stop (or slow down) the killings. I think he hesitated to report the crime through official channels while on active duty but informed his congressman after discharge.

Ethical questions center on whether either side in the Vietnam War (or more generally, any war) were told by higher ups to massacre civilians (or other unarmed people or noncombatants). And if so, which countries are most guilty of these kinds of war crimes.

Other questions, perhaps more easily answered with respect to the (democratic) West, are the means available for individuals of conscience to protest illegal operations such as shooting unarmed detainees en masse.

A related question is whether the My Lai massacre proves that the US was "bad" (or worse than other parties in the Vietnam conflict), or whether it highlights how moral scruples can bring wrongdoing to light and therefore proves that the US is "good". Needless to say, but I'll say it any way, there is probably a big controversy about the meaning of the My Lai massacre.

Stop me if I'm writing too much on controversies, but I feel that learning about both sides of issues can teach us a lot. History is boring if it's nothing more than a recitation of facts and dates. --Ed Poor 20:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)