Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[quote=CFH;816713]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

In war all parties engage in actions which could be described as "war crimes" (depending on your personal definition I guess). However, only the losers get tried. To paraphrase Robert McNamera, if the U.S. had lost the Second War War those responsible for the firebombings of Japan would considered war criminals...

For my answer: No, they should not be tried. It would be absurd and who has the political authority to prosecute them? Surely not the U.N. Any kind of "trial" would just be a useless exercise of political showmanship.

---

They had no authority to invade a country that had not attacked them, made no attempt to attack them, didn't have the ability to attack them.

Well done George and Tony for making the West out to be the bullies - which in fact we are.

---

That means absolutely nothing in terms of their being classified as war criminals. That same logic could be applied to literally hundreds of wars in which no one is termed a war criminal.

By that logic Nixon and LBJ and Kennedy should all be posthumously tried for Vietnam.[/quote]

maybe they should.

What was the pretext for war? Defence? Bollocks was it.

The basis for invasion was a pack of lies. They've caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Sounds like a criminal act to me.

[quote=Howlin Mad Missy;816740]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

They had no authority to invade a country that had not attacked them, made no attempt to attack them, didn't have the ability to attack them.

Well done George and Tony for making the West out to be the bullies - which in fact we are.

---

That means absolutely nothing in terms of their being classified as war criminals. That same logic could be applied to literally hundreds of wars in which no one is termed a war criminal.

By that logic Nixon and LBJ and Kennedy should all be posthumously tried for Vietnam.[/quote]

maybe they should.

What was the pretext for war? Defence? Bollocks was it.

The basis for invasion was a pack of lies. They've caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Sounds like a criminal act to me.

---

Aside from the Second World War, which is debatable, name some wars with justifiable or truthful pretexts. There are almost none and it means nothing in terms of defining someone as a war criminal, unless you want to define almost everyone who makes war in that fashion.

Like I said, I'm fundamentally opposed to the likes of Bush and Blair and everything they represent, but they've done nothing that hundreds of others before them have done. The only reason people are whining about it is because it has turned into a protracted struggle. My sympathies lie with those Iraqi's who want nothing but peace and who are dying at alarming rates, if I was one of them I would gladly take up arms against imperialistic aggression, but saying the leaders who started the war should be tried as war criminals, thereby implying they have done something more egregious than those who came before them is ridiculous. They are no more or less guilty that any who came before them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Holland, has the authority to try them, like it tried Slobodan Milosevic for ethnic cleansing. Every country in the world is a signatory to the ICC treaty and accepts its authority in these matters apart from the failed state Somalia and the rogue states North Korea and, uh, America.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/4...a7b6d6fa_o.jpg

---

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

---

On your final point, there is no doubt that the political elite would fight tooth and nail not to allow it to happen as it would set a scary precedent for them. But I'm sure that if you were to conduct polls amongst the general population of both the U.S and U.K you would see a lot of people indicating that these men should be held accountable for the acts they have commited. As far as I recall most polls showed that support for the war was wavering prior to the invasion and world wide there was little support for the actions the U.S. and Britain were about to embark upon. In the eyes of the world, these people probably are war criminals.

---

I would be absolutely astounded if any more than a very small minority of Americans felt that Bush should be tried for war crimes. I have no idea what the sentiment is like in the U.K.

No they should not.That judgment will have to come at a much higher ...level.The precedent set would be shuttering and set up a constant revolving door of kangaroo courts as each country and its paper pushing leadership is held in check once its costly and permanent actions have been enacted.The real responsibility sits in the hands of a country's citizenry,and with Bush that is where Imo we as a country rolled over with cold feet and stopped demanding answers,playing into a massaged and fed wave of fear.The ones that pay the ultimate price are the men and women sent into war based on flimsy evidence,shallow rhetoric and simple minded catch phrases...as well as the many who never signed up in the first place.A question needed to be asked is if we put the leaders of a country on the stand to face charges how far are we from the military personnel they command following them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

---

On your final point, there is no doubt that the political elite would fight tooth and nail not to allow it to happen as it would set a scary precedent for them. But I'm sure that if you were to conduct polls amongst the general population of both the U.S and U.K you would see a lot of people indicating that these men should be held accountable for the acts they have commited. As far as I recall most polls showed that support for the war was wavering prior to the invasion and world wide there was little support for the actions the U.S. and Britain were about to embark upon. In the eyes of the world, these people probably are war criminals.

---

I would be absolutely astounded if any more than a very small minority of Americans felt that Bush should be tried for war crimes. I have no idea what the sentiment is like in the U.K.

---

I could see the U.S. arguing more highly for it than you are suggesting, but that is just speculation on my part. I have no actual polls to go on, it would be interesting to find out. Amongst the UK, I would speculate that it would be far higher. We were far less willing to go along with the war and sentiments were far more in line with international sentiment. Even with all the drivel coming from the media and the government trying to build it all up, we were just not so into it. The fall out was inevitable and with all the bullshit now having been made known, I imagine people are angrier than ever. The U.S. population was seemingly far easier to dupe and I struggle to see the fallout having the same kind of impact.

Iraq inquiry told U.S. mentioned link to Saddam Hussein within hours of 9/11 attacks | Mail Online

Even if this inquiry doesn't lead to anything more, it has at least been quite damning. We don't have access to polls showing public sentiment right now, but at each of the newspapers there are scores and scores of comments from people and 95% of them are angry and upset at what has taken place. Some seem to be arguing that war crimes charges should go ahead out there too.

[quote=CFH;816746]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

That means absolutely nothing in terms of their being classified as war criminals. That same logic could be applied to literally hundreds of wars in which no one is termed a war criminal.

By that logic Nixon and LBJ and Kennedy should all be posthumously tried for Vietnam.[/quote]

maybe they should.

What was the pretext for war? Defence? Bollocks was it.

The basis for invasion was a pack of lies. They've caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Sounds like a criminal act to me.

---

Aside from the Second World War, which is debatable, name some wars with justifiable or truthful pretexts. There are almost none and it means nothing in terms of defining someone as a war criminal, unless you want to define almost everyone who makes war in that fashion.

Like I said, I'm fundamentally opposed to the likes of Bush and Blair and everything they represent, but they've done nothing that hundreds of others before them have done. The only reason people are whining about it is because it has turned into a protracted struggle. My sympathies lie with those Iraqi's who want nothing but peace and who are dying at alarming rates, if I was one of them I would gladly take up arms against imperialistic aggression, but saying the leaders who started the war should be tried as war criminals, thereby implying they have done something more egregious than those who came before them is ridiculous. They are no more or less guilty that any who came before them.

---

NO! People round the world were saying it was wrong / unjust / we know we're being lied to before the war. And some people have never stopped saying it.

That's a bit like arguing for slavery. Nothing wrong with it, we did it before. The difference now is in the 24/7 media culture we have now. We have much greater access to information and people can research for themselves. Mass media still has a large role in play in public (dis)information but there is a more gloves off attitude out there.

Winners write History ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

Winners write History ;D

---

true dat.

And everything to do with prevailing episteme.

e pist eme?

Missy we've lost interest in your depraved love life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

e pist eme?

Missy we've lost interest in your depraved love life.

---

Really? :detective:

I was actually talking to the intellectuals on the thread i.e. Miles, but please feel free to contribute with the golden shower gag as you see fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

e pist eme?

Missy we've lost interest in your depraved love life.

---

Bahahahahahahahahaha ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

e pist eme?

Missy we've lost interest in your depraved love life.

---

Bahahahahahahahahaha ;D

---

Memphis is sulking because he's not involved in my depraved love life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

e pist eme?

Missy we've lost interest in your depraved love life.

---

Bahahahahahahahahaha ;D

---

Memphis is sulking because he's not involved in my depraved love life.

---

I'm loving your transformation into Forum Slut :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

e pist eme?

Missy we've lost interest in your depraved love life.

---

Bahahahahahahahahaha ;D

---

Memphis is sulking because he's not involved in my depraved love life.

---

Fucking right, we're finished!

Anyway how about those war crimes? ;D

This is turning into a bit of a funny thread! ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

They should definitely!

1) Bush and his teams did falsify and wrote a false report about uranium transaction between Niger and Iraq, they got debunked:

CNN.com - Diplomat: U.S. knew uranium report was false - Jul. 7, 2003

2) Joseph Wilson went over there, he claimed it was false, he got pressured to change his speech, he didn't do, fucker lewis Libby/Rove did blast the cover up of Valerie Plarme, his wife to punish him, destroying so her CIA career and putting, for evident reasons, their life in danger.

Valerie Plame, the Spy Who Got Shoved Out Into the Cold - washingtonpost.com

3) Paul WOlfowitz ADMITTED by himself they all knew the nukes were not existent but used that excuse so everybody would use it as common excuse to attack Illegitimately Iraq: Wolfowitz Admits Iraq War Planned Two Days After 9-11

4) The embargo killed many millions of peoples in Iraq and they did jack and shit about it: Embargo brings death to 500,000 children in Iraq. - National Catholic Reporter | Encyclopedia.com

5) THey filled juicy contracts to Halliburton without calling for any offer and they did let them overcharge: Asia Times - Asia's most trusted news source for the Middle East (Cheeney used to be chairman over there and has still loads of shares into the company)

6) Black fuckin' Water went on a killing rampage, not respecting the rules and corrupted major officials and never got sentenced because they are budy budy with Bush and CIE http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/wo...lackwater.html

IT's nothing against Republicans, it's all about Bush being sentenced for what he did allow and ordered, same for most of his staff chief department persons.

---

Bump. They attacked a country to serve their only interests without any evaluation of other peoples life, especially innocent civilians. That can't get any worst than that, destroying the economy of a whole country, turning it into a maddening chaos, using lies to do so to serve one own's economic interests.

You say that like its a bad thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

You say that like its a bad thing?

---

Except if you can convince me about the opposite. I give you a chance because I am seriously that incredible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Bahahahahahahahahaha ;D

---

Memphis is sulking because he's not involved in my depraved love life.

---

Fucking right, we're finished!

Anyway how about those war crimes? ;D

---

It's not you it's me.

You're no longer man enough for me.

I've traded you in for three younger models.

Blair and Bush should hang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

You say that like its a bad thing?

---

Except if you can convince me about the opposite. I give you a chance because I am seriously that incredible.

---

No you're not.;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Bahahahahahahahahaha ;D

---

Memphis is sulking because he's not involved in my depraved love life.

---

I'm loving your transformation into Forum Slut :cool:

---

perhaps but I'm still fussy.:cool:

How did the self taster slip through the net then? ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

How did the self taster slip through the net then? ;D

---

that was just a viewing.:o I passed on that one.;D

Ah I see. I thought he'd infiltrated the Missy dungeon then turned on himself.

Anyway about these war crimes ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

Ah I see. I thought he'd infiltrated the Missy dungeon then turned on himself.

Anyway about these war crimes ;D

---

no, no, he didn't get near any dungeon! He, erm, popped up on a cam.
Pay attention will you. :rolleyes:

It would be cool if the country could participate in an x factor like phone vote. Like a military based reality tv show with veteran war criminals trying one last time for that shot at stardom. Like i'm a war criminal get me out of here, except with camoflauge and guns. And Joe Bugner.

Bugner would be out. No one likes him do they?:o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Memphis

You say that like its a bad thing?

---

Except if you can convince me about the opposite. I give you a chance because I am seriously that incredible.

---

No you're not.;D

---

I had a TM's moment. Sorry for that. ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Bugner would be out. No one likes him do they?:o

---

No. Quite sad really. I'd be nagging the fuck out of him. He shared a ring with Ali.

It's a shame that none of the other contestants seem to like him much. Can't imagine the easily influenced general public liking him either.

Still if it came down to a vote off between him and Bin Laden, i reckon Joe would survive.

[quote=Howlin Mad Missy;816814]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Aside from the Second World War, which is debatable, name some wars with justifiable or truthful pretexts. There are almost none and it means nothing in terms of defining someone as a war criminal, unless you want to define almost everyone who makes war in that fashion.

Like I said, I'm fundamentally opposed to the likes of Bush and Blair and everything they represent, but they've done nothing that hundreds of others before them have done. The only reason people are whining about it is because it has turned into a protracted struggle. My sympathies lie with those Iraqi's who want nothing but peace and who are dying at alarming rates, if I was one of them I would gladly take up arms against imperialistic aggression, but saying the leaders who started the war should be tried as war criminals, thereby implying they have done something more egregious than those who came before them is ridiculous. They are no more or less guilty that any who came before them.

---

NO! People round the world were saying it was wrong / unjust / we know we're being lied to before the war. And some people have never stopped saying it.

That's a bit like arguing for slavery. Nothing wrong with it, we did it before. The difference now is in the 24/7 media culture we have now. We have much greater access to information and people can research for themselves. Mass media still has a large role in play in public (dis)information but there is a more gloves off attitude out there.

---

Of course it's wrong, almost all wars are. All wars are based on lies and manipulation. I really don't see how slavery applies in that warfare has been a constant feature in human interaction forever, slavery was something which individual states had the means to eradicate.

I am against the war and I was against it in 2003 but to say that Bush and Blair should be tried as war criminals is just asinine. There is no rational way that could happen and it never will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

In war all parties engage in actions which could be described as "war crimes" (depending on your personal definition I guess). However, only the losers get tried. To paraphrase Robert McNamera, if the U.S. had lost the Second War War those responsible for the firebombings of Japan would considered war criminals...

For my answer: No, they should not be tried. It would be absurd and who has the political authority to prosecute them? Surely not the U.N. Any kind of "trial" would just be a useless exercise of political showmanship.

---

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Holland, has the authority to try them, like it tried Slobodan Milosevic for ethnic cleansing. Every country in the world is a signatory to the ICC treaty and accepts its authority in these matters apart from the failed state Somalia and the rogue states North Korea and, uh, America.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/4...a7b6d6fa_o.jpg

---

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

---

There is a huge difference. Milosevic was a rank amateur compared to B and B, death toll in the tens of thousands and only hundreds of thousands ethnically cleansed. They're clearly guilty of unambiguous war crimes, whether their countries would abide by the international laws that they're supposed to be the world's foremost upholders of and hand them over for trial is something else entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Holland, has the authority to try them, like it tried Slobodan Milosevic for ethnic cleansing. Every country in the world is a signatory to the ICC treaty and accepts its authority in these matters apart from the failed state Somalia and the rogue states North Korea and, uh, America.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/4...a7b6d6fa_o.jpg

---

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

---

There is a huge difference. Milosevic was a rank amateur compared to B and B, death toll in the tens of thousands and only hundreds of thousands ethnically cleansed. They're clearly guilty of unambiguous war crimes, whether their countries would abide by the international laws that they're supposed to be the world's foremost upholders of and hand them over for trial is something else entirely.

---

What is the definition of "war crime" that you are using? The deaths of innocent civilians happens in every war. Lies about the reasons behind the war happen in every war. Torture happens in every war. Executions happen in every war. And so on.

If you want to argue against the morality of the wars of the ruling class, then I can agree with you. But to say that the Iraq war is somehow worse or fundamentally different than previous conflicts is ridiculous.

And when has the U.S. ever presented itself as the "foremost upholders" of international law? They regularly ignore international agreements and anything else which would put constraints on them from the outside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

---

There is a huge difference. Milosevic was a rank amateur compared to B and B, death toll in the tens of thousands and only hundreds of thousands ethnically cleansed. They're clearly guilty of unambiguous war crimes, whether their countries would abide by the international laws that they're supposed to be the world's foremost upholders of and hand them over for trial is something else entirely.

---

What is the definition of "war crime" that you are using? The deaths of innocent civilians happens in every war. Lies about the reasons behind the war happen in every war. Torture happens in every war. Executions happen in every war. And so on.

If you want to argue against the morality of the wars of the ruling class, then I can agree with you. But to say that the Iraq war is somehow worse or fundamentally different than previous conflicts is ridiculous.

And when has the U.S. ever presented itself as the "foremost upholders" of international law? They regularly ignore international agreements and anything else which would put constraints on them from the outside.

---

Read the quote art thing I did. Planning to start a war under false pretences is a war crime, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, America's own prosecutors at Nuremburg. WW2 was America's finest hour, and after WW2 America felt so strongly about holding future criominals to account for their war crimes that

The French and the Russians had at first objected to the whole concept of crimes against the peace . . . But those Allies gave ground when [U.S. Chief Prosecutor Robert] Jackson made it clear that the criminalizing of, and the imposition of individual punishment for, aggressive wars, now and in the future, were so important to the U.S. that if the Charter failed to do so, the U.S. was prepared to abandon a joint trial.

Bernard D. Meltzer
The Nuremberg trials : a prosecutor's perspective
December 2002





The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

Crimes against peace: (i.) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii.) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

International Law Commission of the U.N.
Principles of the Nuremberg tribunal
1950





Certain binding legal principles, affirmed unanimously by the UN, emerged from the Nuremberg trials . . . It was made absolutely clear that law must apply equally to everyone. Putting the captive enemies on trial was seen by America's Chief Prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson, as "the greatest tribute that power has ever paid to reason." His successor General Telford Taylor, my chief and later law partner, was more succinct: "Law is not a one-way street."

Nuremberg Prosecutor Benjamin B. Ferencz
Remarks on the International Criminal Court
March 11, 2003

And the treaty the US and Britain were in violation of is the UN Charter, which both countries have signed up to, and which takes precedence over their respective domestic laws. Bush and Blair tried to get the UN to agree to sanction the war, failed, and went ahead anyway. After the war we were told by Bush that Saddam had refused to let the inspectors in, that previous UN resolutions against Iraq authorised the war, and a bunch of other stuff, all of which was a pack of lies. Just before the war Bush even admitted he didn't have the authority :

WASHINGTON — President Bush vowed yesterday to attack Iraq with the "full force and might" of the U.S. military if Saddam Hussein does not flee within 48 hours, setting the nation on an almost certain course to war.

Bush delivered the ultimatum hours after his administration earlier in the day admitted failure in its months-long effort to win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council to forcibly disarm the Iraqi leader. The United Nations ordered its inspectors and humanitarian personnel out of Iraq, and Bush urged foreign nationals to leave the country immediately....



Earlier in the day, British and U.S. diplomats, facing certain defeat on the Security Council, withdrew a resolution that would have cleared the way for war. Though Bush on Sunday vowed another day of "working the phones," it quickly became clear that as many as 11 of 15 council members remained opposed and the effort was abandoned by 10 a.m.
The withdrawal of the resolution without a vote was a double climb-down for Bush. On Feb. 22, he had predicted victory at the United Nations, and on March 6 he said he wanted a vote regardless of the outcome.......






Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," he said. "The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will."


http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/18/ln/ln11a.html




And the UN say the war is illegal :

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.



BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

And that's without going into all the torture stuff, another bunch of war crimes for which there are already dozens of cases being brought in European courts against B and B, something that will continue for years. Bush won't travel but Blair will spend the rest of his life having to check with any country he's flying to to make sure there isn't a warrant out for his arrest, like Henry Kissinger still has to.

And the US does claim to be the world's arbiter of international law, human rights etc. Do you know any other country that issues a yearly report card on how other countries are doing regarding respect of democratic institutions, human rights etc. ?

Kirkland:

1) I have no desire to play cut and paste patticake with you so save that bullshit for Lyle.

2) Nothing you posted changes my fundamental points that a) Bush and Blair (and their subordinates in Iraq and Afghanistan) did nothing that literally almost every other military ruler (politician or otherwise) hasn't done in the past and will do in the future in times of war; and b) that the United States would NEVER allow any foreign or international court to imposed any punishment on George W. Bush (or any other President).

3) War is inherently immoral and it (unfortunately) is a mainstay of human society. Trying to impose some arbitrary rules which classify some people as "war criminals", except perhaps in extreme cases, is a futile exercise in semantics and political posturing.

Those are my points. As I have mentioned, I loathe Bush but to try and paint him with the same brush as a Hitler or Stalin is absurd.

As for the other points that came up during our little chat, I have no desire to engage in a redundant argument with you over them.

:)

I voted no and even to suggest that they should be tried for war crimes is fucking idiotic.....all due respect miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

I voted no and even to suggest that they should be tried for war crimes is fucking idiotic.....all due respect miles

---

So you can create proofs to attack a country for wrong reasons, you can be responsible for more than 500 000 innocent children, give contracts without call offers to your friends, admit it publicly, ruin the job of the wife of somebody who did debunk a proof by refusing to say what they pressured him to say (his wife being a devoted CIA agent who gave her life for her country) and it is all candy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

I voted no and even to suggest that they should be tried for war crimes is fucking idiotic.....all due respect miles

---

No offense taken, but why do you think it is idiotic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

So you can create proofs to attack a country for wrong reasons, you can be responsible for more than 500 000 innocent children, give contracts without call offers to your friends, admit it publicly, ruin the job of the wife of somebody who did debunk a proof by refusing to say what they pressured him to say (his wife being a devoted CIA agent who gave her life for her country) and it is all candy?

---

Really we didn't need a reason....who put Saddam in power to begin with? If the US put Saddam in power to begin with then why shouldn't we be able to swap him out?

I also might remind you that the talk against Iraq was heating up before W got into power something was going to happen to Saddam whether W got elected or not.

If anything America has fought these two wars with one hand tied behind our backs, it could have been worse for those people over there.

Also these are not war crimes just based on past events that weren't considered war crimes, Fire bombing of Dresden, Sherman's March, Armenian Genocide etc. and those were far worse than anything W or Blair have done so let's not make a big deal out of something that historically speaking isn't a big deal