Your rebutal is like saying should we have persecuted Hitler, if he was alive, for mass genocide. (No)
So were Japanese leaders, aboard the Missouri, or some battleship. Saddam Hussein was tried for his war crimes against his own people, and Kuwait (and I think Iran) and he was executed.
My intent was to use the term game as a metaphor. What is a game but stratagies complied in an attempted to overcomb the opposing force(s).
So, if in a hypothetical war, we lost, you would be more then willing to allow members of our army to be tried in these moronic trials.
^Agreed.... War crimes are particularly heinous ways of killing and such. As scene in the film Schindler's List (Which focus' on many of the ways Jews were mistreated) the people ordering the torture and killings were executed... Not the man who pulled the trigger. It's like this... If a man has a gun to another mans head and in the hand of the man who's head he is pointing it at he places a knife, telling him to kill the helpless victim laying at his feet, promising life if he complies. Can you really blame the man with the knife or is the death of the helpless victim more the fault of the man with the gun? I say the man with the gun.
wow i just had to accept some thing... nvm anyways there should be war crimes on both sides, winners and the losers. That way people would know that no matter the outcome they will be held accountable for their actions.