Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Dragonlich · 04-23-2003, 11:04 PM

What potential war crimes are we talking about?

1) attacking a country without reason --- technically, the US and Iraq were still at war. We had a ceasefire, listing certain things Iraq had to do. Iraq failed to comply (UN inspections, disarm within x days, etc). The US was, again technically, at war with Iraq, and fully entitled to attack. Also, technically, resolution 1441 allowed war; "serious consequences" *can* mean war.
2) killing innocent civilians --- I'd think it would only be a warcrime if you do it on purpose? In reality, the US/UK tried to cause as little civilian casualties as possible.
3) parading Iraqi POWs on TV --- the US/UK did not do it, the *independent* media did it. The US/UK tried to stop it, they did it anyway. Again, not something that is really *that* bad.
4) not protecting certain infrastructure/cultural sites --- excusable, seeing the chaos that resulted after Saddam's demise. Also, is this law supposed to protect against looting by the invading army, or the conquered/liberated people?

I can't think of any other crimes here... Besides, if you look at the big picture, it's obvious that potential US warcrimes are nothing compared to Iraqi warcrimes, for example.

anyone comment?

04-23-2003, 11:04 PM	#9 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	What potential war crimes are we talking about? 1) attacking a country without reason --- technically, the US and Iraq were still at war. We had a ceasefire, listing certain things Iraq had to do. Iraq failed to comply (UN inspections, disarm within x days, etc). The US was, again technically, at war with Iraq, and fully entitled to attack. Also, technically, resolution 1441 allowed war; "serious consequences" can mean war. 2) killing innocent civilians --- I'd think it would only be a warcrime if you do it on purpose? In reality, the US/UK tried to cause as little civilian casualties as possible. 3) parading Iraqi POWs on TV --- the US/UK did not do it, the independent media did it. The US/UK tried to stop it, they did it anyway. Again, not something that is really that bad. 4) not protecting certain infrastructure/cultural sites --- excusable, seeing the chaos that resulted after Saddam's demise. Also, is this law supposed to protect against looting by the invading army, or the conquered/liberated people? I can't think of any other crimes here... Besides, if you look at the big picture, it's obvious that potential US warcrimes are nothing compared to Iraqi warcrimes, for example. anyone comment?