 |
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
As far as I know they found him guilty of command responsability.
|
IIRC, they found him indirectly responsible - ie, he could have tried to prevent it from occuring. Also, after Time accused Sharon of OKing the massacres with the Phalangists, Sharon sued them for libel in an American court and won.
Interesting to note that at the time, the biggest outrage of the incident was in Israel. The arab world was pretty silent about the incident at the time. Also interesting to note that no one ever seems to put any of the blame on the Phalangist themselves, and that no one seemed as outraged at all the other massacres by the Phalangists against the Palestinians and vice versa.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
I'll remind you of what command responsability is. You don't have to plan or order a crime, but your failure to prevent it if you were in position to prevent it (ie command position), your failure to stop it or your failure to properly punish the perpetrators afterwards all get you a guilty sentence.
You don't even have to have known about it but if you are in position where you should have known you are guilty.
One case I know, a guy in Hague is serving 45 years for something like what Sharon did. I do admit I don't know much about Sharon case though, only what I read on Apolyton and few other sites.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
As I recall, Bush didn't use Saddam's breach of UN resolutions as the reason for attacking. While I disagree with Bush's decision, its based on his belief that Iraq is a threat and he doesn't want to risk a situation worse than 9-11.
Israel of course is no threat to the US. Even dictators like Castro are left alone if they aren't a threat. I think we'd be much more likely to attack the biggest threat to world peace, France.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackStone
|
|
London England
Aug 2000
time: 05:27
|
|
Ambro2000
You are quite right about Israel but it is pointless trying to explain it to the US posters. For them Israel can do no wrong and they are quite happy to pour billions of dollars into supporting the worlds new apartheid regime.
It does not matter to them that everyone else in the world holds a contrary view, their minds are made up. Israel knows this and that’s why they increase their demands year on year, and good luck to them I say it not everyday you find someone who is rich and gullible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
GWB used the 1441 violations to convince the UN to do its job. The UN violations are reason for the UN to attack, not the US, so GWB had to come up with something else to justify going in without the UN.
The sad thing is that it is now fair game to even ask the question who the US going to attack next. We have become the bully of the world, ready, more than willing, and soon we shall see how able to take on countries around the world.
Even sadder is the UN. France, Germany and Russia among others are like parents threatening their child with some outlandish punishment that they have no intention of backing up. The result is a spoiled child who will no longer listen. 1441 said immediate disarmament and severe consequences for failure. If they didn't mean it, they shouldn't have voted for it.
The failure to back up their own resolution is pathetic and France is worst of all, vowing to veto if they lost the vote. France's shameful cowardice and greed in the face of the UN's most difficult time should be enough to throw them off the security council. How secure do you feel knowing you have to rely on France to protect you? No wonder GWB feels threatened. France was sticking up for Saddam 6 months after GW1 and are practically guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism. Who knows, maybe we really will attack them. I know a lot of Americans would like to see it.
Last edited by Frogman on 25-03-2003 at 19:58
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frogman
The failure to back up their own resolution is pathetic and France is worst of all, vowing to veto if they lost the vote. |
Backing up? Backing up what? Consider that the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said to the Security Council:
quote:
There is not 'automaticity,' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken." |
Also consider what Colin Powell said:
quote:
[Saddam Hussein] hasn't complied in the past, and that's why we put it in this resolution that this is a last chance, because if he doesn't comply this time, that lack of compliance goes right to the Security Council, who are to convene immediately to consider what should be done. |
Seeing that there is no evidence of non-compliance, according to the inspectors, what's there to back up?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm more interested in the lack of evidence for full compliance. |
Why? The UN roadshow was put on while the troop
build up was proceeding. GWB would have liked to get a
UN warrant, but the UN yea or nay was'nt going to
change the scheduled attack date.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-03-2003 04:44
|