"I didn't "single them out". They did that themselves, with their farcical "indict Bush" campaign."
So a country is forbidden, forever, for trying to do the right thing or at least set a good example against people (who normally assume they cannot be held responsible for their policies), because it did not do the right thing several decades in the past?
Here is another question- would you actually have preferred NO country proved it was willing to hound an ex-president responsible for war-crimes, than the Swiss being the only bunch willing to step up and doing it?
What if instead of Switzerland, it was actually Germany, Austria, Italy, or Japan that were pressing charges?

""Moral high ground" and "Switzerland" simply don't go together in my opinion."
Note to self- permitting your companies to trade with the dictatorship most countries abroad are enemies with in the 30s and 40s, is much worse than actually allying with the Soviet Union, Taliban, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, participating, inflating or instigating in the Vietnam War and the Gulf Wars, installing Shahs and dictators?

"Nowhere did I defend any country's reputation."
You most certainly give the impression that you feel the Swiss have less moral fiber than the Americans (esp Bush) in your statements insinuating their negative grounds for making this stance.

So, assuming we were not going to ignore history, but establishing there is no outstanding basis to single the Swiss out based on such, the only thing that stands out about the Swiss is that today, (aside from being the only actual democracy in the world) is that they are THE ONLY country in the world, that is actually doing the right thing.

Meanwhile, we wage wars and toady up to and trade with the worst dictators of today, and persecute people for actually taking the First Amendment seriously (and similar clauses in other countries)- and remind ourselves how terrible this other country setting the better example now, USED to be so we can feel better about ourselves and continue with our heads held high.

Not quite, King Hazza.

>>So a country is forbidden, forever, for trying to do the right thing or at least set a good example... because it did not do the right thing several decades in the past?<<

We are at least - finally - in agreement that collaborating with the Nazis, at a time when most of the rest of Europe was putting its young men in the line of fire to fight them, was not "the right thing" to do.

However it appears that your view is that the deeds of George Bush in his capacity as president of the United States were on the same level of criminality.

That's your view, fair enough.

But it is worth reminding you, I think, that the country that you now agree did not "do the right thing" has never had to answer to a Human Rights court, as you believe that Bush should.

So even if you believe that the two acts are equivalent in terms of culpability - which, by the way, I do not - you are still in the position of arguing to ignore the one crime (because it was so long ago?) but prosecute the other.

With those double standards, you should be a Swiss prosecutor.

The problem is I still don't actually see where the specific crimes are, as trading with a dictatorship during wartime, permitting persons from said dictatorship to do banking with their corporations and establishing a ruthless and racist border control policies are all, arguably, legal, and each within a country's right to do it seems.

Invading a country on false evidence, extraordinary rendition, and committing torture, are each, arguably, NOT- as the Swiss have done none of these things, they thus hold perfect grounds to make their stance.

That certainly is a problem, King Hazza, I can wholeheartedly agree.

>>The problem is I still don't actually see where the specific crimes are, as trading with a dictatorship during wartime, permitting persons from said dictatorship to do banking with their corporations and establishing a ruthless and racist border control policies are all, arguably, legal, and each within a country's right to do it seems.<<

Perhaps you should share your view with a Jewish refugee who was sent back to Germany by the Swiss government during the war.

Oh, wait...

I stand by that rejecting refugees or even sending them back to a place they will likely face death is still not as bad as waging wars (killing, maiming thousands and creating an environment for criminal gangs to cause further damage) and authorizing torture- they simply ARE more evil.
Do explain to me how they are each less so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_the_World_Wars

This article is perhaps a little more objective, then Pericle's
"evil Swiss" scenario.

It seems like the Swiss took in more Jewish refugees then any
other nation and interned a total of over 300'000 refugees during
the war.

But Switzerland is a very small mountainous country and was already
under stress from shortages of food and fuel for its own 4 million
people.

The point came where their view was that "the boat is full".

A bit like Australia really, saying that we can take 13'000
refugees a year, although Australia would not have the case to
make, as the Swiss did during the war.

Switzerland could not be expected to save the world, nor can
Australia.

Self preservation in times of extreme threat makes perfect sense.