Quote Originally Posted by Tribesman
Charges that would of stuck against the actions of the Serbs - not against the UN soldiers.

Red you know the conventions and treaties , they would have stuck against both groups , different charges and different categories .
Using the High Horse of Moral outrage against war in Iraq - but defending the actions of soldiers because of some rule of the United Nations when they did not prevent a massacre of civilians - well is hypocrisy as it is defined.
Yeah right ....hypocracy .... Yep oh look I agreed it was morally repugnent . But unless the Serbs fired at the Dutch they were not allowed to take any action were they .An absolutey crazy situation , but unfortunately it is a fact .
Actually the Dutch action as far as IMDHO comes under aiding the crime. There is also no excuse that they were ordered not to do anything, if you can see a crime you have to react to it.

The Dutch if they wanted to could have protected the villagers and not let them go. Then the Serbs would have had to escalate the situation and use force to get them. The Dutch instead watched on. To use burecracy as an excuse is every bit as craven as those in WWII who claimed helping at the deathcamps was an order... war crimes are not mitigated by being ordered to do something, nor are they mitigated by being told to watch when you have the ability to counteract that.

In the end of the day the Dutch let the people they were supposed to be protecting get massacred.

The Americans at Fallujah attacked an enemy held city. As I recall incendiary devices were used against the enemy held cities in WWII.

One attacked the enemy the other aided them.