Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals were obviously both cases of victor's justice.

> Justinian I wrote:

> Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals were obviously both cases of victor's justice.

Fine then, the Tribunals setup to prosecute perpertrators of the Rwanda massacres (noone got involved during the massacres, so there wasn't really a victor was there?)

"Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals were obviously both cases of victor's justice."

Furthermore, as there is no global law enforcement agency, it relies on states with the power to bring those who have commited against against humanity to justice. So in a way you are correct only from the sense that the US helped win the war, why people like Saddam Hussein could also be executed, etc. Many claims against the US have been brought forward (as you yourself mentioned) but very little becomes of it because noone has the power to actually bring those responsible to justice (since Bush was never arrested, and also your understanding that the US is at the top of the mountain and should remain untouchable). If Germany or Tokyo still retained some sort of power, the tribunals would never happen, and the victor would not be able to seek "justice". In the examples given, both countries remained defenceless, and trials could be established. A perfect example of where a war "somewhat" ended without persecution would be the Korean War as it ended in a stalemate (and I am sure that someone is going to point at that it only ended in a ceasefire, but simply because talks don't progress towards a more stable peace, a peace still currently exists)

the problem here is that both sides are right , but wrong at the same time.

human rights are a pain to at times as it can't allow you to do what is necessary for the country (but who decides what is right for a country) .at the same time human rights are a blessing for a country as well. it protects the people from the government.
look at camodja during the khmer ,there where a lot of poeple got killed just because they wore glasses and we're assumed to be scholars because of it.

and as saying that the US-A is the pitbull of europe is downright wrong .If i had a dog like the US-A i'd have it put down because it is far to aggressive.
in libya the US gave little troops , which is strange cause they advocated the participation of UN armed forces. as they did with Afghanistan and Irak, which let's face it is a purely US-A war. Europe had no real issue with either country and had nothing to gain by sending troops. essentially what this shows is that really europe is kinda the lap dog of the US-A and not the other way round.

now in all cases war does solve little but breed contempt and discussing such things really is pointless.

bear in mind justinian said the 75% of US-A population supports his idea of anti-cosmoplitanism. I really don't know what he means with that , but who believes a nations people who identify there own nations law foundation as a communist pamflet. which was as i believe the result of a poll an american did by asking them to read the declaration of independence.

and international law is rather neccesary but shouldn't be that tightly policed. how can you even. i mean saifal islam (khadaffi's son) should be prosecuted by international law rather the national law. because national law gets him killed and international law allows him to survive which for him would be the greater punishment .

but in all fairness that's just my crackpot opinion pay no heed to it

"They need a new home, because Scotland and Wales will declare their independence in the next years."
Its so stupid but maybe they do.

Obama is doing what most EU nations did, your friends get rich, make debt. We, the voters, have the power to stop this.