You telling me a country initiating a war has the right to then ask for reparations for the damages and destruction they caused on the country they initiated the war against? That's so freaking absurd that it is actually funny!
I can only guess the wikipedia article is only a summary and the real convention could be around who is to blame for the war and other factors. Otherwise that's just so ridiculous that it actually encourages declaring wars on countries!
If you’re upset that the war crimes of a country A against country B are left unpunished, it is still immoral to condone war crimes perpetrated by a country C against country D.
It was probably not worth it in the end, but I'm glad Saddam Hussein and Chemical Ali faced trial for genocide against the Kurdish people of Anfal. For me, genocide is a crime that justifies international response.
In my opinion, Bush should be tried in the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
Hundreds of thousands Iraqs were kill in and after the war, and nobody is responsible for it, only because the invaders are the most powerful and wealthiest countries in the world.
We must never forget that the American people murdered 5% of Iraqs' population on the basis of utter lies and have not faced justice for this atrocious abuse.
The moral authority that Americans claim, to justify their nations' heinous crimes against humanity, simply doesn't exist. Americans AND Russians ought to be shunned for their nations' war crimes.
You mean the USA invasion to ... and the USA war in... I assume. These crimes are crimes initiated and committed by the USA and the UK for which only Iraqis and afghans had to pay the price.
reply