Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (198741)	8/23/2006 12:07:29 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Apparently you didn't read very carefully. Maybe bolding the important point would help. "If your imposing war crimes tribunals on nations, courage and leadership would be useful, and integrity might help keep the tribunal from being a farce, or being revenge rather than justice; but what you need first is a lot of force." If a country accepts an international tribunal, or if a country tries its own war criminals than little or no force is needed. If your going to impose such a tribunal on a country that doesn't accept it a lot of force might be needed. The rest of my post dealt with the possibility of the US or Israel putting on their own war crimes trials. - "If your talking about countries trying their own people for war crimes, well first they have to believe that war crimes have been committed by their people, and secondly they have to be willing to hold such trials, and third they need evidence, unless your suggesting kangaroo courts. The main thing that would keep the US or Israel from holding wide spread war crimes trials is that unlikely you they don't think that their military actions where themselves or war crimes, or where rife with war crimes. I happen to agree with them and disagree with you on this one."