Yes we do agree. I am just playing the semantic game that most readers want to hear.
In my heart of hearts I have no problem in defending myself in any way that works. Since I will not the the aggressor in the hypothetical battle I don't really care if I am going to commit a so called "war crime" all that would matter in that situation is winning and living. This seems like a contradiction of terms - it may well be. But I do know for sure that most of my enemies in the real world will not be constrained by the concept of a war crime either.
A lot of hidden history has come out in the past 30 years. Smedley Butlers "War is a racket" is also very enlightening as to the illegitimacy of US wars.
Life is very much interconnected in ways that most do not see. For instance: If we did not have the Federal Reserve we would have not been able to wage a lot of the wars we were in. If we did not brain wash the youth with nationalism as in requiring them to repeat the Pledge of Allegiance, and if we did not have the threat and acceptance of a draft, illegitimate wars would be much harder to wage. As Thoreau said we must strike at the root rather than hack at the branches of a problem.
Does anyone else have a problem with the words "one nation indivisible" in the pledge? Is that not the opposite of the federalism that we are supposed to be? I am a patriot and Christian that dislikes nationalism, even the constitution. I see the latter as Spooner did:
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
-- Lysander Spooner
My allegiance is to freedom and God not to a country or a document.
Blessings
Joe