4 ms·
You completely missed his point, which is that nobody was in a position to try the U.S. for war crimes after Vietnam. There are many kinds of defeat. To be char
by dionidium 12y ago
You completely missed his point, which is that nobody was in a position to try the U.S. for war crimes after Vietnam. There are many kinds of defeat. To be charged with war crimes requires utter defeat, not merely an unfavorable end to the conflict.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> To be charged with war crimes requires utter defeat Officials from all factions in (for one example) the Bosnian civil war have been tried by the ICTY. So unless all sides suffered "utter defeat", that is demonstrably untrue. One could argue that prior to the establishment of modern tribunals starting with the ICTY (but also including the ICTR and ICC), that was the case. And there might be other reasons that the US, in particular, is difficult to hold accountable. But its pretty clear that it is no longer the case that "to be charged with war crimes requires utter defeat", or even mere defeat.
- dionidium 12y agoYou should read "utter defeat" to mean "subject to the decisions of others." Nothing more, really. You can charge anybody with anything. I'm talking about enforcement.