Are war criminals always on the losing side of a conflict?
by 
steelhamster@aol.com
ANSWERS: 6
-
No. Look at George Bush and Dick Cheney. They skipped the draft just when they were going to be sent to Vietnam. Now look at them. (Due to point deductions, I'll try to be a bit less biased.) It's hard to tell whether or not it's ALWAYS like that, because in Darfur, the criminals are clearly winning, while in Iraq, we have been conivcted of these crimes as well (remember the tortured prisoners?). The Iraqis have participated in crimes too. Don't say they haven't.
-
I sure hope so - Though now a'day's we never know
-
I would think that it would usually be the case that they are, as the winner writes history. But, in recent times, soldiers on the US and British side of the Iraq conflict have been charged with war crimes, which is a good sign. Just because your side wins, should not mean that those who have done wrong will get away with murder, literally.
-
It all depends upon what atrocities were committed. The USA committed some war crimes in Viet Namn and they were convicted, but I'm sure that doesn't count as a victory The US has also committed atrocities such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, well who's winning this. Can't complain about your question's validity. I suppose when the war is going poorly, the losing side starts to vent its anger at defenseless members of its opposition and lets loose all their rage because they are angry that they are about to lose.
-
Well, not necessarily. Nazi concentration camps and gas chambers are a disturbing example of war crime commited by an immensely powerful and invading country. Germany eventually lost, but it wasnt until about 40 years after the war, that they were all tracked down and brought to justice.
-
Might makes right! It is always the victor who prosecutes the vanquished and thus hides their own guilt.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC