My last post today. Gotta play tennis.
>>Saddam lies. So does Bush. What's the point? <<
The point is that crimes against humanity require action tom prevent other crimes.
I agree that, ideally, the Iraqia should try Saddam. Given the consequences and his political control, it won't happen.
Hypothetically, let us say that one dictator, with popular support, determines that green eyed people are a threat to the national purity and must be gassed. Everyone in his nation agrees. There are seven million people with green eyes, and we watch them go to the gas chamber. Is that a crime against humanity? Or is a local issue that should be handled nationally, rather than internationally?
I know that the example I used is, of course, absurd and would never happen. If one thinks that it is indeed a crime against humanity, what course of actions should international organizations take? What now, hypothetically, if the international organization is weak and mired in indifference, would be the ideal action for a countries that aren't indifferent to take?
What now, if this hypothetical country had a history of attacking other countries, even sending missles to neighbors, and they did not abide with disarmement resolutions of the international body, and they eluded their own treaties, should we allow their own population to decide course of action?
fred |
