Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

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

---

1) I agree that peoples like CurtisLemay and CIe who did organize the Dresden bombing etc should be sentenced for Warcrime too, now the question was about W and Blair so I answered that part only.

2) They put a tyran in power knowing that he was mangling Shiites and Kurdis is absolutely unacceptable and to remove him because they need to finance a war for their friends interests is even worst as it killed I don't know how many millions innocents including 500 000 young children. If you put a maniac in power to serve your even more maniac interests, you cannot justify to swap him off killing millions to serve, once again, your own interests.

3) The talk with Saddam was a long time planned PNAC plan The Pontifical North American College, America's Seminary in Rome, this doesn't care about moral or whatever else, it's only about self interests, which is unacceptable too.

4) No, according to AMnesty International, Human Right Watch, the UN and even the Red Cross, situation in Iraq since the invasion did deteriorate to a chaotic degree, just the education itself went down by like 75% or something like that, I can find you back the exact numbers if you don't believe me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Kirkland:



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.


:)

---

Don't you think that creating phony proofs to go suck somebody else oil, killing a few millions lives including 500 000 innocent children, waging a war that should have never happen because there was no threats is one of the extreme cases?

All of that stuff you wrote whether people agree with it or not is erroneous. So what War is bad so is starvation, poverty, and drug abuse, but those aren't going to stop just because people think they are bad.

W and Blair are not War Criminals they simply didn't do enough and they didn't act with enough malice to earn that status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

All of that stuff you wrote whether people agree with it or not is erroneous. So what War is bad so is starvation, poverty, and drug abuse, but those aren't going to stop just because people think they are bad.

W and Blair are not War Criminals they simply didn't do enough and they didn't act with enough malice to earn that status.

---

Well, in my opinion, being responsible to kill millions peoples for a false reason (a forged argument to create a war for their own benefits) is more than enough. What else would it take?

Well I don't know what to tell you, they didn't ethnically cleanse any specific group of people, they actively tried to avoid civilian casualties, and they put the leader they were trying to get rid of in power to begin with so if they have the power to put him in office they should have the poiwer to take him out of office. And they are trying to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq too.

And I fail to see how we have benefitted from this war

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Kirkland:



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.


:)

---

Don't you think that creating phony proofs to go suck somebody else oil, killing a few millions lives including 500 000 innocent children, waging a war that should have never happen because there was no threats is one of the extreme cases?

---

Unfortunately, I think it's pretty common in regards to war. That doesn't make it right, I probably cannot accurately express how opposed I am to this type of war (and almost all wars to be honest), but I don't think what has happened in Iraq is uncommon in any way regarding the ways wars are conducted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Well I don't know what to tell you, they didn't ethnically cleanse any specific group of people, they actively tried to avoid civilian casualties, and they put the leader they were trying to get rid of in power to begin with so if they have the power to put him in office they should have the poiwer to take him out of office. And they are trying to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq too.

And I fail to see how we have benefitted from this war

---

West have benefited by oil, selling more weapons and building the infrastructure back up of Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Well I don't know what to tell you, they didn't ethnically cleanse any specific group of people, they actively tried to avoid civilian casualties, and they put the leader they were trying to get rid of in power to begin with so if they have the power to put him in office they should have the poiwer to take him out of office. And they are trying to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq too.

And I fail to see how we have benefitted from this war

---

Well, bombing the center of Bagdad with intelligent bombs isn't what I call trying that much to avoid civilian casualties but anyway... millions of peoples dead for a wrong war, for something they knew didn't exist (WMD), trying to remove Hussain, their ex puppet, to put a new one instead (Paul Bremmer among others) isn't that enough? Sure they want to repair the infras, no infras, no money from petrol plus it is just normal to rebuild what you've wrongfully destroyed, no? Especially when you make money with the companies re-building it (Halliburton, KBR, Carlyle Group) when YOU have shares into these companies and your friends too...
THE US didn't benefit from the war for sure, it went all wrong despite the poor Rumseld and Cheeney's claims. HOwever, these peoples, Cheeney, Rumsefeld, Bush, Rice, made hundred of millions of profit from the shares into their companies and stuff. They do not exactly worry about the economic crisis, losing a loved one to war or even how they will pay their life insurance, these are details for them.
You know Lyle, you don't have to make a ethnical cleansing to be sentenced to war crime trials, killing a few thousand peoples is plainly enough. And they killed more than 2 millions. Just because they wanted their oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Kirkland:



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.


:)

---

Don't you think that creating phony proofs to go suck somebody else oil, killing a few millions lives including 500 000 innocent children, waging a war that should have never happen because there was no threats is one of the extreme cases?

---

Unfortunately, I think it's pretty common in regards to war. That doesn't make it right, I probably cannot accurately express how opposed I am to this type of war (and almost all wars to be honest), but I don't think what has happened in Iraq is uncommon in any way regarding the ways wars are conducted.

---

It is not that common either and if you ask me, all those creating wrong reasons, leading to the demise of millions of peoples (or thousands) based on a lie they knew was a lie only for their oil and ideological ideas are guilty. I am not expressing this thought only to Bush and Blair but to all the sordid dictators in the world, present past and future and thosw who would do the same. The present debate was about Bush and Blair so I did reduce my opinion only for these 2 for the occasion.

Well, spoken Nameless.

To suggest that Bush and Blair "haven't done enough" to be deserving of war crimes charges is somewhat ridiculous in itself. The death of well over a million people is blood enough.

The wars were ill-concieved, founded upon fairy tale evidence and resulted in chaos and mass murder. The war was illegal under international protocol. We had no right to go ahead and impose our will unilaterally. The world was opposed to Iraq because most knew it was wrong. Bush knew that and simply didn't want to sit around waiting any longer. He knew that it was unlikely repurcussions would come back to bite him, what with being President of the USA. What was the world going to do? Call him a naughty boy? He could live with that just as long as his nations vested interests were served.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

West have benefited by oil, selling more weapons and building the infrastructure back up of Iraq.

---

OK #1 oil prices have gone up since the war started #2 Selling weapons has hurt us in the past #3 We benefitted by building THEIR infrastructure??? Maybe some contracted firms have done well in that regard but not our government. #4 Iraq is now closer to Iran politically than it used to be so that in the end is a bad thing IMO they will soon turn into another Syria.

The war in Afghanistan was 100% legal and 100% deserved, Iraq was a rush to judgment but hell me trying to explain that to you guys is just going to get all of us irritated. The battle plans we had never took nation building into account and that was Rumsfeld's fault, every general that suggested that we needed more troops until Rummy resigned got fired.

miles were those million people killed by the US/UK or the enemy? Were they civilians? Were they combatants? What makes it a war crime? Define what is a war crime and I'll tell you of numerous other people that deserve the title far more than Bush or Blair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

West have benefited by oil, selling more weapons and building the infrastructure back up of Iraq.

---

OK #1 oil prices have gone up since the war started #2 Selling weapons has hurt us in the past #3 We benefitted by building THEIR infrastructure??? Maybe some contracted firms have done well in that regard but not our government. #4 Iraq is now closer to Iran politically than it used to be so that in the end is a bad thing IMO they will soon turn into another Syria.

The war in Afghanistan was 100% legal and 100% deserved, Iraq was a rush to judgment but hell me trying to explain that to you guys is just going to get all of us irritated. The battle plans we had never took nation building into account and that was Rumsfeld's fault, every general that suggested that we needed more troops until Rummy resigned got fired.

miles were those million people killed by the US/UK or the enemy? Were they civilians? Were they combatants? What makes it a war crime? Define what is a war crime and I'll tell you of numerous other people that deserve the title far more than Bush or Blair.

---

Anywhere between 100,000 - 1,000,000 civiliians. Depending on what your argument is. I agree, there are people who deserve the title more, but it doesn't excuse what we've done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

West have benefited by oil, selling more weapons and building the infrastructure back up of Iraq.

---

OK #1 oil prices have gone up since the war started #2 Selling weapons has hurt us in the past #3 We benefitted by building THEIR infrastructure??? Maybe some contracted firms have done well in that regard but not our government. #4 Iraq is now closer to Iran politically than it used to be so that in the end is a bad thing IMO they will soon turn into another Syria.

The war in Afghanistan was 100% legal and 100% deserved, Iraq was a rush to judgment but hell me trying to explain that to you guys is just going to get all of us irritated. The battle plans we had never took nation building into account and that was Rumsfeld's fault, every general that suggested that we needed more troops until Rummy resigned got fired.

miles were those million people killed by the US/UK or the enemy? Were they civilians? Were they combatants? What makes it a war crime? Define what is a war crime and I'll tell you of numerous other people that deserve the title far more than Bush or Blair.

---

wars, generally, are fought between armies and not against civilians. How about that for a starting point.

regarding Afghanistan. It would do 'the war on terror' a world of good if the US/UK invaded Pakistan. Won't happen though will it ;) Much better to pick on a country without the bomb/we think we can bully/most people can't find on a map it's so far away so who really cares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

West have benefited by oil, selling more weapons and building the infrastructure back up of Iraq.

---

OK #1 oil prices have gone up since the war started #2 Selling weapons has hurt us in the past #3 We benefitted by building THEIR infrastructure??? Maybe some contracted firms have done well in that regard but not our government. #4 Iraq is now closer to Iran politically than it used to be so that in the end is a bad thing IMO they will soon turn into another Syria.

The war in Afghanistan was 100% legal and 100% deserved, Iraq was a rush to judgment but hell me trying to explain that to you guys is just going to get all of us irritated. The battle plans we had never took nation building into account and that was Rumsfeld's fault, every general that suggested that we needed more troops until Rummy resigned got fired.

miles were those million people killed by the US/UK or the enemy? Were they civilians? Were they combatants? What makes it a war crime? Define what is a war crime and I'll tell you of numerous other people that deserve the title far more than Bush or Blair.

---

1) a)oil price skyrocket because the idiots neo-cons thought and planned that after 3 weeks/one month the war would be over and that the IRaquis would welcome you open arms for giving them "democracy". Now they face the harsh reality of Iraq with its 2 ethnical groups not exactly at peace with each others.
b) They don't give a wuut if we pay our oil more expensive, their friends made billions in contracts sucking off oil, supplying the troops etc. That the common citizen pays more is the least of their concern.

2)Selling weapons profit greatly to the US, one of the biggest weapon seller in the world, do you know how many billions and billions has been given to Northop Grunmann, Carlyle Group, Boeing and such? If you want, I can even make you a list of the peoples having share into these companies (*hint* Dick Cheeney's wife is on Boeing chairboard, Douglas Feith, Papa Bush and Wolfowitz have huge shares in Carlyle and N.Grunmann* among other things)

3) well, companies making billions to rebuild, that's already a good start as they are mostly American.

4) Casualties include around 2 millions civilians plus 500 000 kids who died because their embargo ill designed didn't allow them to get drinkable water and other stuff they badly needed to survive, stuff they had access to, before the war.

Only for the children they should be life sentenced. And I am not even taking in account all the rest... just to be nice.

In a perfect world, yes they should. But, I don't see why it should happen & it could set a dangerous precedent. I certainly feel there should be some form of punishment, but the truth is whilst they are truly despicable individuals & I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, they can't be blamed completely & there would be just enough doubt in the guilt for me that they shouldn't. I think what happened in the Secret Detentions programme is far more worthy of a trial in a way, because there it was far clearer that they were defying the Geneva convention & International Law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

In a perfect world, yes they should. But, I don't see why it should happen & it could set a dangerous precedent. I certainly feel there should be some form of punishment, but the truth is whilst they are truly despicable individuals & I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, they can't be blamed completely & there would be just enough doubt in the guilt for me that they shouldn't. I think what happened in the Secret Detentions programme is far more worthy of a trial in a way, because there it was far clearer that they were defying the Geneva convention & International Law.

---

The secret detention is a very very serious issue but I think that forging false proofs in order to justify an attack on a country is as despicable, especially when it is admitted that some serious neglecting did cost the life of millions of individuals including 500 000 innocent children. It is not that much because they declared war that I think they should be trial but because they forget on purpose false information to justify the thing. Now, though I am for a trial, I am not for their demise, I don't think you're any better than the "monster" if you act like him, plus making martyr is just good to fuel the fanatics on any side, which we don't need. A good prison sentence with no extra commodities would be plenty enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

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.

:)

---

2.Every other pollitician and military ruler has started a preemptive aggressive war?

3. Not semantics or posturing at all. And definitely not arbitrary rules. The Geneva Conventions are not arbitraryrules, are they? The whole business of going to war is codified into law, so the whole issue depends on law, not semantics or posturing.

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

West have benefited by oil, selling more weapons and building the infrastructure back up of Iraq.

---

OK #1 oil prices have gone up since the war started #2 Selling weapons has hurt us in the past #3 We benefitted by building THEIR infrastructure??? Maybe some contracted firms have done well in that regard but not our government. #4 Iraq is now closer to Iran politically than it used to be so that in the end is a bad thing IMO they will soon turn into another Syria.

The war in Afghanistan was 100% legal and 100% deserved, Iraq was a rush to judgment but hell me trying to explain that to you guys is just going to get all of us irritated. The battle plans we had never took nation building into account and that was Rumsfeld's fault, every general that suggested that we needed more troops until Rummy resigned got fired.

miles were those million people killed by the US/UK or the enemy? Were they civilians? Were they combatants? What makes it a war crime? Define what is a war crime and I'll tell you of numerous other people that deserve the title far more than Bush or Blair.

---

Why would oil prices going up be a bad thing for the people behind the war? Do you honestly think this war was started for the benefit of the American people? When was the last time the US government did something for the benefit of its people?

How will Iraq turn into another Syria? How would you describe Syria from a geopolitical point of view?

What about Bush and Blair actively plotting a preemtive war of aggression? Isn't that a war crime? In 1946 at Nuremburg the US considered that the worst war crime of all, the thing that created all the other Nazi war crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

In a perfect world, yes they should. But, I don't see why it should happen & it could set a dangerous precedent. I certainly feel there should be some form of punishment, but the truth is whilst they are truly despicable individuals & I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, they can't be blamed completely & there would be just enough doubt in the guilt for me that they shouldn't. I think what happened in the Secret Detentions programme is far more worthy of a trial in a way, because there it was far clearer that they were defying the Geneva convention & International Law.

---

How can they not be blamed completely? Not enough to stand trial?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

---

...actually you can be worse and still not be a war criminal.

Kirkland you can wish for Bush and Blair to be tried as war criminals in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first.

Do you people deny the slightest possibility that #1 Some of those "civilian casualties" were actually enemy combatants? or that #2 Perhaps the Allied Forces didn't kill those civilians but the enemy combatants did or that #3 MAYBE the enemy combatants hid themselves around civilians not only to try and blend in but to bait the Allies to attack in turn insighting hatred of the Allied forces by the very civilians they (the enemy) endanger???? Are those not plausable reasons behind any if not ALL of the civilians casualties???

And Kirkland don't you or anyone else fucking quote the Geneva Convention to anyone the terrorists don't wear uniforms, attack ANYONE civilians/reporters/medical personell, and they cut people's heads off when they have them held captive....but I suppose pouring water on someone who was part of 9/11 just makes us even.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

---

...actually you can be worse and still not be a war criminal.

Kirkland you can wish for Bush and Blair to be tried as war criminals in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first.

Do you people deny the slightest possibility that #1 Some of those "civilian casualties" were actually enemy combatants? or that #2 Perhaps the Allied Forces didn't kill those civilians but the enemy combatants did or that #3 MAYBE the enemy combatants hid themselves around civilians not only to try and blend in but to bait the Allies to attack in turn insighting hatred of the Allied forces by the very civilians they (the enemy) endanger???? Are those not plausable reasons behind any if not ALL of the civilians casualties???

And Kirkland don't you or anyone else fucking quote the Geneva Convention to anyone the terrorists don't wear uniforms, attack ANYONE civilians/reporters/medical personell, and they cut people's heads off when they have them held captive....but I suppose pouring water on someone who was part of 9/11 just makes us even.

---

You're mixing a lot of different things together Lyle:

1) we never said that terrorists do not have to be trialed like Blair and Bush (they should like any other butchers and mass murder responsibles)

2)most peoples tortured aren't terrorists, every Mujaidin aren't linked to Ben Laden and god knows there is a lot of the alike in Guantanamo and other secret camps like that.

3) it doesn't change what Bush and Blair did and why they should be "forgiven" for the millions they killed on a simple signature and a few phony proofs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

---

...actually you can be worse and still not be a war criminal.

Kirkland you can wish for Bush and Blair to be tried as war criminals in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first.

Do you people deny the slightest possibility that #1 Some of those "civilian casualties" were actually enemy combatants? or that #2 Perhaps the Allied Forces didn't kill those civilians but the enemy combatants did or that #3 MAYBE the enemy combatants hid themselves around civilians not only to try and blend in but to bait the Allies to attack in turn insighting hatred of the Allied forces by the very civilians they (the enemy) endanger???? Are those not plausable reasons behind any if not ALL of the civilians casualties???

And Kirkland don't you or anyone else fucking quote the Geneva Convention to anyone the terrorists don't wear uniforms, attack ANYONE civilians/reporters/medical personell, and they cut people's heads off when they have them held captive....but I suppose pouring water on someone who was part of 9/11 just makes us even.

---

You can start more wars than Hitler and not be a war criminal?

Forget about civilian casualties. Let's just talk about planning an illegal war. That's an unambiguous war crime and it's clear that B and B did lots of planning before they started the war. So they're war criminals, no?

And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorist attack on America, don't change the subject to Saddam's nonexistent support of Al Quaeda. The reason I'm mentioning the Geneva Conventions is that America and Britain both signed up to them and B and B both clearly broke the laws enshrined in those conventions.

I'm busy as hell right now, so just can't get on and post like I want to. But it's good to see others keeping up the good fight!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

---

...actually you can be worse and still not be a war criminal.

Kirkland you can wish for Bush and Blair to be tried as war criminals in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first.

Do you people deny the slightest possibility that #1 Some of those "civilian casualties" were actually enemy combatants? or that #2 Perhaps the Allied Forces didn't kill those civilians but the enemy combatants did or that #3 MAYBE the enemy combatants hid themselves around civilians not only to try and blend in but to bait the Allies to attack in turn insighting hatred of the Allied forces by the very civilians they (the enemy) endanger???? Are those not plausable reasons behind any if not ALL of the civilians casualties???

And Kirkland don't you or anyone else fucking quote the Geneva Convention to anyone the terrorists don't wear uniforms, attack ANYONE civilians/reporters/medical personell, and they cut people's heads off when they have them held captive....but I suppose pouring water on someone who was part of 9/11 just makes us even.

---

You can start more wars than Hitler and not be a war criminal?

Forget about civilian casualties. Let's just talk about planning an illegal war. That's an unambiguous war crime and it's clear that B and B did lots of planning before they started the war. So they're war criminals, no?

And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorist attack on America, don't change the subject to Saddam's nonexistent support of Al Quaeda. The reason I'm mentioning the Geneva Conventions is that America and Britain both signed up to them and B and B both clearly broke the laws enshrined in those conventions.

---

:appl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

You can start more wars than Hitler and not be a war criminal?

Forget about civilian casualties. Let's just talk about planning an illegal war. That's an unambiguous war crime and it's clear that B and B did lots of planning before they started the war. So they're war criminals, no?

And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorist attack on America, don't change the subject to Saddam's nonexistent support of Al Quaeda. The reason I'm mentioning the Geneva Conventions is that America and Britain both signed up to them and B and B both clearly broke the laws enshrined in those conventions.

---

Vietnam and the Spanish-American War were planned and started "illegally" and neither JFK or William McKinley were called war criminals or were tried for war crimes.

As for the Iraq-Al Quaeda ties...listen to YOUR BOY Al Gore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bogBwAby3so
And since I know you don't like watching videos I'll give you a summary Gore admits #1 Terrorist were in Iraq AND Saddam supported them and #2 Iraq was trying to further their nuclear capabilities

Point to Lyle

why shouldn't Iraq have nuclear capabilities?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

why shouldn't Iraq have nuclear capabilities?

---

Well at that point in time Missy one Saddam Hussein was in power and Saddam had conducted terrorist activities (so Gore says in that video) and had used POISON GAS on Kurds.....so I think it was just a good idea to keep WMD's away from him and most world leaders agreed.

Nothing wrong with Nuclear POWER but not everyone should have nuclear weapons and usually world leaders use Nuclear Power as the guise to achieve nuclear weapons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

why shouldn't Iraq have nuclear capabilities?

---

Well at that point in time Missy one Saddam Hussein was in power and Saddam had conducted terrorist activities (so Gore says in that video) and had used POISON GAS on Kurds.....so I think it was just a good idea to keep WMD's away from him and most world leaders agreed.

Nothing wrong with Nuclear POWER but not everyone should have nuclear weapons and usually world leaders use Nuclear Power as the guise to achieve nuclear weapons

---

1988, gas attack - the West DID NOTHING.

1990 1st Gulf War because he invaded Kuwait.

It wasn't until 2003 the west gained a conscience and used the death of the Kurds as one of the many smoke screens for invading Iraq.

This is the paradox for the US, do nothing in 1988 and get bitched at invade the country and take down their dictator in 2003 and get bitched at....we're CONSTANTLY in a no win situation it's either "Mind your own business!" or "Aren't you going to help?" and with every situation there are at least 2 sides and usually they'll say both of those things.

no Lyle. All of the West stood by and let Saddam do it but what people wont excuse is waiting 15 then use it as a justification for a phoney war.

That's the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

All of that stuff you wrote whether people agree with it or not is erroneous. So what War is bad so is starvation, poverty, and drug abuse, but those aren't going to stop just because people think they are bad.

W and Blair are not War Criminals they simply didn't do enough and they didn't act with enough malice to earn that status.

---

Well, in my opinion, being responsible to kill millions peoples for a false reason (a forged argument to create a war for their own benefits) is more than enough. What else would it take?

---

They need to look more menacing imo. They don't look like baddies. That's the problem.

Killing a shed load of innocent civillians isn't enough. You need masks and catch-phrases. A Vince McMahon like split-personality would also help.

What Bush and Balir really needed to do was to head to Iraq themselves, and hit a few civiliians with a folded up chair. Mass killings of innocent civilians just doesn't cut it these days. Not in the land of Lyle anyway. They're amatuer war criminals at best. Pussies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ono

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

All of that stuff you wrote whether people agree with it or not is erroneous. So what War is bad so is starvation, poverty, and drug abuse, but those aren't going to stop just because people think they are bad.

W and Blair are not War Criminals they simply didn't do enough and they didn't act with enough malice to earn that status.

---

Well, in my opinion, being responsible to kill millions peoples for a false reason (a forged argument to create a war for their own benefits) is more than enough. What else would it take?

---

They need to look more menacing imo. They don't look like baddies. That's the problem.

Killing a shed load of innocent civillians isn't enough. You need masks and catch-phrases. A Vince McMahon like split-personality would also help.

What Bush and Balir really needed to do was to head to Iraq themselves, and hit a few civiliians with a folded up chair. Mass killings of innocent civilians just doesn't cut it these days. Not in the land of Lyle anyway. They're amatuer war criminals at best. Pussies.

---

It helps if you look like this
http://hoyaparanoia.files.wordpress....pg?w=206&h=300

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ono

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Well, in my opinion, being responsible to kill millions peoples for a false reason (a forged argument to create a war for their own benefits) is more than enough. What else would it take?

---

They need to look more menacing imo. They don't look like baddies. That's the problem.

Killing a shed load of innocent civillians isn't enough. You need masks and catch-phrases. A Vince McMahon like split-personality would also help.

What Bush and Balir really needed to do was to head to Iraq themselves, and hit a few civiliians with a folded up chair. Mass killings of innocent civilians just doesn't cut it these days. Not in the land of Lyle anyway. They're amatuer war criminals at best. Pussies.

---

It helps if you look like this
http://hoyaparanoia.files.wordpress....pg?w=206&h=300

---

There we go...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

You can start more wars than Hitler and not be a war criminal?

Forget about civilian casualties. Let's just talk about planning an illegal war. That's an unambiguous war crime and it's clear that B and B did lots of planning before they started the war. So they're war criminals, no?

And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorist attack on America, don't change the subject to Saddam's nonexistent support of Al Quaeda. The reason I'm mentioning the Geneva Conventions is that America and Britain both signed up to them and B and B both clearly broke the laws enshrined in those conventions.

---

Vietnam and the Spanish-American War were planned and started "illegally" and neither JFK or William McKinley were called war criminals or were tried for war crimes.

As for the Iraq-Al Quaeda ties...listen to YOUR BOY Al Gore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bogBwAby3soAnd since I know you don't like watching videos I'll give you a summary Gore admits #1 Terrorist were in Iraq AND Saddam supported them and #2 Iraq was trying to further their nuclear capabilities

Point to Lyle

---

Forget about previous wars, we're talking about Iraq. B and B committed an unambiguous war crime according to international law, crimes that American prosecutors at Nuremburg previously declared were the worst of all war crimes. Shouldn't they stand trial for them?


And you need to show actual facts and evidence rather than yet another video. Here are some facts for you :

George Bush last night admitted that Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 9/11 terror attacks, but he asked Americans to support a war in Iraq that he said was the defining struggle of our age.

Bush: Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 | World news | guardian.co.uk


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon.

The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.
The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.




Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com








The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.
Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."


The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons (washingtonpost.com)


But answer the question. They should face a trial, shouldn't they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ono

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Well, in my opinion, being responsible to kill millions peoples for a false reason (a forged argument to create a war for their own benefits) is more than enough. What else would it take?

---

They need to look more menacing imo. They don't look like baddies. That's the problem.

Killing a shed load of innocent civillians isn't enough. You need masks and catch-phrases. A Vince McMahon like split-personality would also help.

What Bush and Balir really needed to do was to head to Iraq themselves, and hit a few civiliians with a folded up chair. Mass killings of innocent civilians just doesn't cut it these days. Not in the land of Lyle anyway. They're amatuer war criminals at best. Pussies.

---

It helps if you look like this
http://hoyaparanoia.files.wordpress....pg?w=206&h=300

---

You know how he got the job running Uganda? He was good at rugby. He was a Captain in the Ugandan army that the Brits used for domestic policing but played on one of the army teams and got known to the top brass. He was too placid before games though so they used to hit him on the head with a hammer before games to get him fired up. When we left we thought he'd make a malleable person to leave in charge, only it went to his head a little bit and his domestic policing methods got out of hand. Plus there was the people-y eat-y thing too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

This is the paradox for the US, do nothing in 1988 and get bitched at invade the country and take down their dictator in 2003 and get bitched at....we're CONSTANTLY in a no win situation it's either "Mind your own business!" or "Aren't you going to help?" and with every situation there are at least 2 sides and usually they'll say both of those things.

---

But you weren't minding your own business, you were actively backing Saddam because he was at war with Iran, a country whose regime you were trying to overthrow because they'd overthrown the previous Iranian dictatorial regime that you'd installed in power. And Reagan actually got the DIA to make a report blaming the gassing of the kUrds on Iran so that the US could still continue to support Saddam without getting criticised/sanctioned for it. You were minding your own business in the Middle East in the 1980s in the same way that Adolf Hitler was minding his own business in central Europe in the 1930s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

This is the paradox for the US, do nothing in 1988 and get bitched at invade the country and take down their dictator in 2003 and get bitched at....we're CONSTANTLY in a no win situation it's either "Mind your own business!" or "Aren't you going to help?" and with every situation there are at least 2 sides and usually they'll say both of those things.

---

Never lost in sight that Rumsfeld and Saddam were buddy buddy at the time and that the US sold tons of weapons to IRaq knowing what they would do with it... chemical stuff too. England even sold a gaz factory to Iraq, keys in hands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPb-3zkh0c

OK first off let me say I was wrong.....I should have put LBJ instead of JFK in my previous post re: Vietnam being an illegally started war, man that has been bothering me all day ;D

Kirkland/Nameless those are erroneous points if we're talking about JUST George Bush and not American foreign policy as a whole which I assume this thread will eventually get into but either way the US isn't the bad guys and W and Blair are not war criminals and once again to suggest such a thing is idiotic, partisian, and doesn't help anyone except the terrorists....right now the terrorists are thinking "We think they are wrong because they do not follow Muhammed and they are occupying our countries" and if we even tried W and Blair for war crimes it would be "Even they knew they were wrong, let's kill them anyway"

The issue I have with liberals these days is that under NO MEANS is war ever acceptable and that is not only foolish and naive but it's dangerous because just 8 years ago we were at peace and we got blindsided by a group who was/is/and will always be at war with us and to not even attempt to fight back is mental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

the US isn't the bad guys and W and Blair are not war criminals and once again to suggest such a thing is idiotic, partisian, and doesn't help anyone except the terrorists....right now the terrorists are thinking "We think they are wrong because they do not follow Muhammed and they are occupying our countries" and if we even tried W and Blair for war crimes it would be "Even they knew they were wrong, let's kill them anyway"

The issue I have with liberals these days is that under NO MEANS is war ever acceptable and that is not only foolish and naive but it's dangerous because just 8 years ago we were at peace and we got blindsided by a group who was/is/and will always be at war with us and to not even attempt to fight back is mental.

---

The US started an illegal premptive war against a country that had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism? How are they not the bad guys?

Bush and Blair planned an aggressive preemtive war and there's endless evidence to show this. Back in 1948 planning aggressive wars was described by the head American prosecutor at Nuremburg as the worst of all war crimes, the kingpin that allowed all the other Nazi war crimes to happen. Bearing this in mind, shouldn't B and B be prosecuted for planning a war of aggression?

In 2001 you got attacked by people from countries where for decades you've been propping up tyrants, despots and dictators who've kept their people under horrible repressive conditions. Don't you think that after decades of keeping these guys in power, continuing to keep those guys in power and thus dooming hundreds of millions of people to live under endless repression, that it's understandable if some of those people might occasionally take their anger about it out on your office buildings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

the US isn't the bad guys and W and Blair are not war criminals and once again to suggest such a thing is idiotic, partisian, and doesn't help anyone except the terrorists....right now the terrorists are thinking "We think they are wrong because they do not follow Muhammed and they are occupying our countries" and if we even tried W and Blair for war crimes it would be "Even they knew they were wrong, let's kill them anyway"

The issue I have with liberals these days is that under NO MEANS is war ever acceptable and that is not only foolish and naive but it's dangerous because just 8 years ago we were at peace and we got blindsided by a group who was/is/and will always be at war with us and to not even attempt to fight back is mental.

---

The US started an illegal premptive war against a country that had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism? How are they not the bad guys?

Bush and Blair planned an aggressive preemtive war and there's endless evidence to show this. Back in 1948 planning aggressive wars was described by the head American prosecutor at Nuremburg as the worst of all war crimes, the kingpin that allowed all the other Nazi war crimes to happen. Bearing this in mind, shouldn't B and B be prosecuted for planning a war of aggression?

In 2001 you got attacked by people from countries where for decades you've been propping up tyrants, despots and dictators who've kept their people under horrible repressive conditions. Don't you think that after decades of keeping these guys in power, continuing to keep those guys in power and thus dooming hundreds of millions of people to live under endless repression, that it's understandable if some of those people might occasionally take their anger about it out on your office buildings?

---

That sums up pretty much my thoughts. Plus Lyle, know that such behaviors are just fueling the extremists ranks, it gives them gold arguments to recruit: "you see, America declare an illegal war on us because they hate muslims and want our demise" and such bullshit. The war made things worst toward extremists. Fact.