<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>Persons committing atrocities upon innocent non-combatants should be held accountable for their actions. This holds regardless of what side of a conflict they may be on, or what the circumstances were that brought them into conflict to begin with.<p><hr></blockquote><p> Ah, I didn't realize we were dealing with a hypothetical fantasy world. A world where it does not matter why we are fighting a war, referees in striped shirts show up every time a gun is fired and decide who is good and who is bad regardless of why. A world where the losers as well as the winners have equal opportunity to discuss how they have been wronged during a war in an international court.<br><br>Are Easter bunnies used as jurors? <br><br>The United States has invaded a sovereign nation and will likely lose the overall conflict and is led by a President who has flaunted international law and flipped the international courts and the United Nations the bird. But you think, even with that totality of reality you then expect the referees to admonish and find guilty insurgents who are fighting against all of the above?<br><br>If that is true then we really are the most powerful country in the world and can do anything we want without any thought of regress upon us. Bush thinks this so I guess we all should.<br><br>Bravo America. Your arrogance knows no bounds.<br><br><br><br><br>
[color:blue]Application of calls for war crimes trials must apply equally to both sides of the conflict -- anything less than an equal application necessarily results in the implicit (if not outright explicit) support and approval of one of the sides continuing to commit those atrocities. </font color=blue><br><br>There's not necessarily a moral equivalence between two sides to a dispute as polymerase has pointed out so the same act could be an atrocity when committed by one side but not the other. For example if a burglar attacks a person in his home with a carving knife but the homeowner picks up a carving knife and in the ensuing struggle one of them loses their head in a pool of blood - it's a crime if the head belongs to the homeowner but not if it belongs to the burglar because the homeowner will have acted in self-defence.<br><br>This is rather similar to the situation in Iraq. The coalition were trespassers at the time of the invasion and later blew the legitimacy they gained by UN SC Res 1637 (2005) in exceeding the re-construction mandate by going around killing and torturing people - which made them trespassers all over again. As trespassers coalition forces are answerable for their atrocities but equivalent acts committed against them in proportionate self-defence are lawful by definition.<br><br>km<br><br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.