Who would like George Bush tried for War crimes?

[Gandalf]

miles....since when is Neil Young smart? He's a Canadian too....one of the worst kinds

In his own way he is very smart. He has his head screwed on when it comes to US politics and the environment. He writes very good songs when his mind is on it. But yeah, he is Canadian.

[El Kabong]

In his own way he is very smart. He has his head screwed on when it comes to US politics and the environment. He writes very good songs when his mind is on it. But yeah, he is Canadian.

Folk singers and musicians in general know fuck all, they are idealistic and usually stoned out of their minds. You may as well have said you were listening to Kanye West.

[Nameless]

For all the dead he caused, from innocent civilians to the american soldiers, to have lied publicly to America about the WMD (that never existed), he should definitely. According to the Geneva convention, there is no way he'd get out from it. He's not as bad as the nazis though, that's an exaggeration but what he did was horrible. Unfortunately, I don't see the day that a G8 leader will ever be trial for war crimes, the day we'll see W or Putin (for the atrocities of Chechnya) or the Ju Jintao/Yang Ziming (for Tibet) Hens will have teeth. the La Haye tribunal was a very interesting addition and a necessary one for our era but it has been instrumentalized to serve the interests of the strongest.

[VictorCharlie]

I think the term lied is thrown around a little loosely. In retrospect obviously the Iraq invasion was a complete farce. Saddam didn't have WMD, didn't pose a serious security risk to the US and was largely contained. I think Bush and his advisors clearly created an enviroment that fostered finding intelligence to justify the invasion rather than decide if it was necessary or warranted at all. I know to some of you this is purely splitting hairs. I just don't believe that Powell gets up in front of the UN and knowingly tells them bold faced lies. I think if Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz etc knew he was misrepresenting the facts it would have come out by now. Saddam revealed during his debriefings that he did destroy or get rid of all of the WMD after the Gulf War but needed his military and nation at large to believe he had them to maintain power and further more needed the Arab nations to believe to keep his rep. Is it any less tragic the outcome being due to over zealous incompetence rather than malicious deceit? Not really...but since speculating should Bush be tried for war crimes is on par to speculating if Tyson would beat Ali it really doesn't matter

[pacfan]

Junior was just fulfilling his daddy's unfulfilled mission. Too bad he had to lie for it. I just want to say to the US to just finish what you've started, or you have no right to mess up other countries. Hope Iraq won't be another Vietnam. Maybe Afganistan was justified though. Another thing I want to say to Americans is that if you're afraid to commit soldiers to tough combat jobs, just don't send 'em. It ain't right to blast civilians to save your soldiers, call it a collateral stuff, and pretend nothing happened. But don't get me wrong, I usually support US intervention when justified. If people are masacred by thousands, like in some African countries, it's time to stop 'em. I know America has always been willing and I'm all for it, but unfortunately, they hardly get support from others, and sometimes, are even bitterly opposed by some countries, likes France. And some even come up with these same 'ol musty conspiracy theory stories revolving around oil. Somalia's one example. US has been doing it alone, fellas, what a sad story. Millions died in Rwanda several years back while the whole world just watched. Well it's just a poor, black country which amounts to nothing so who cares, right? Wrong, babe.

[El Kabong]

Junior was just fulfilling his daddy's unfulfilled mission. Too bad he had to lie for it. I just want to say to the US to just finish what you've started, or you have no right to mess up other countries. Hope Iraq won't be another Vietnam. Maybe Afganistan was justified though. Another thing I want to say to Americans is that if you're afraid to commit soldiers to tough combat jobs, just don't send 'em. It ain't right to blast civilians to save your soldiers, call it a collateral stuff, and pretend nothing happened. But don't get me wrong, I usually support US intervention when justified. If people are masacred by thousands, like in some African countries, it's time to stop 'em. I know America has always been willing and I'm all for it, but unfortunately, they hardly get support from others, and sometimes, are even bitterly opposed by some countries, likes France. And some even come up with these same 'ol musty conspiracy theory stories revolving around oil. Somalia's one example. US has been doing it alone, fellas, what a sad story. Millions died in Rwanda several years back while the whole world just watched. Well it's just a poor, black country which amounts to nothing so who cares, right? Wrong, babe.

By all means we're not doing that....we COULD just bomb the crap out of Iraq or Afghanistan and not worry about civilian casualties the way we bombed Japan, Germany, or Vietnam, but we're trying to be more surgical with our attacks.

As for Africa, the entire continent has issues and it's sad because they are blessed with so many natural resources.

[Nameless]

Junior was just fulfilling his daddy's unfulfilled mission. Too bad he had to lie for it. I just want to say to the US to just finish what you've started, or you have no right to mess up other countries. Hope Iraq won't be another Vietnam. Maybe Afganistan was justified though. Another thing I want to say to Americans is that if you're afraid to commit soldiers to tough combat jobs, just don't send 'em. It ain't right to blast civilians to save your soldiers, call it a collateral stuff, and pretend nothing happened. But don't get me wrong, I usually support US intervention when justified. If people are masacred by thousands, like in some African countries, it's time to stop 'em. I know America has always been willing and I'm all for it, but unfortunately, they hardly get support from others, and sometimes, are even bitterly opposed by some countries, likes France. And some even come up with these same 'ol musty conspiracy theory stories revolving around oil. Somalia's one example. US has been doing it alone, fellas, what a sad story. Millions died in Rwanda several years back while the whole world just watched. Well it's just a poor, black country which amounts to nothing so who cares, right? Wrong, babe.

By all means we're not doing that....we COULD just bomb the crap out of Iraq or Afghanistan and not worry about civilian casualties the way we bombed Japan, Germany, or Vietnam, but we're trying to be more surgical with our attacks.

As for Africa, the entire continent has issues and it's sad because they are blessed with so many natural resources.

Have you seen the new leaks that prove that high military and secret services tortured willingly and killed way more people than what they wanted to state and tried to keep it secret? Surgical strike is one of the funniest concept: throw a 500 kilos multi explosive heads on a target and pray that nobody on a radius of 5 kilometers get killed. They try, sure, but.... really not that hard.

[El Kabong]

Have you seen the new leaks that prove that high military and secret services tortured willingly and killed way more people than what they wanted to state and tried to keep it secret? Surgical strike is one of the funniest concept: throw a 500 kilos multi explosive heads on a target and pray that nobody on a radius of 5 kilometers get killed. They try, sure, but.... really not that hard.

Nameless, we're not carpet bombing them, we're not fire bombing them, we're not repeating what happened in Dresden.

Civillians die in war, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prevent War ain't pretty no matter how it's fought. I'm all for engaging in total warfare against the Taliban and Al Queda but it's hard to do that against groups instead of countries with physical boundries.

[Violent Demise]

And if anyone would like to debate it, then I'm ready. But the good amongst you know that I am right anyway. George Bush is the most evil man of this century and part of the most terrible empire. It just so happens that America in this century has become all that it pretended to oppose in the last century. Basically a fascist state with a clever control of its media.

You do realize Bush is no longer President, right? Leave the man alone already. The war wasn't really his fault anyway. He was in a no win situation

He only went and instigated it and mustered up public approval with outright lies and as a consequence over a hundred thousand civilians lost their lives, thousands of soldiers were killed and perhaps upwards of a million people were injured.

Sure, he is no longer President. But that man has a lot of blood on his hands. And for what exactly? Oil? Influence in the region?

We live and die by the choices we make in life and must be held accountable for the wrongs we do to others. Just because Bush is an ex-president and from a wealthy family does not mean that his crimes should remain unpunished. He made his choices.

Bush's actions and the reasons for them date back to the early 90's. When his father was President. Bush Sr. defeat for reelection was largely due to his pulling out of the Gulf War without taking out Saddam. It was a costly mistake. Not only did it cost him reelection. But it left a black mark against him. And the Bush name. Bush Sr. always felt his Presidency was incomplete. The 4 years were not enough. So much he wanted to do. But couldn't. But someone else could. Bush Jr. became President with one personal agenda. Remove the black mark from the Bush name and finish up what his father started. No matter what. 9/11 gave him the excuse to get started. He went into Iraq and took out Saddam. Despite the reasons and excuses provided. It was all personal. Bush Jr. is looked at as a fool. But in reality he's not a stupid man. He just did what he thought was best. No matter what his advisors advised him. No matter how much the media crucified him. Or the public despised him. He didn't give a fuck. He was the President. He had the final say. And no matter how many young Americans had to die he was not gonna pull out of Iraq until he felt it was time. Bush Jr. took full advantage of his President power. He did whatever he wanted to do. Damn the consequences. If he had to win his reelection with shady moves. So be it. He's the fucking President. He can do that. And did. It's to early right now. But in years to come Bush Jr will be looked upon more favorably than he is now. A President who was not scared to get things done. Unlike the lame fuck who's currently in office

[Gandalf]

I disagree with pretty much everything you say here. You seem to be trying to justify a petty vendetta passed on from Daddy, outright fabrication of evidence, vote rigging and an ignorance and disregard for international law. Now this kind of behaviour is never acceptable, so I am going to assume that your post is tongue in cheek. There is surely no way that you believe all of that.

Though sometimes I have to wonder with you!

[Andre]

I disagree with pretty much everything you say here. You seem to be trying to justify a petty vendetta passed on from Daddy, outright fabrication of evidence, vote rigging and an ignorance and disregard for international law. Now this kind of behaviour is never acceptable, so I am going to assume that your post is tongue in cheek. There is surely no way that you believe all of that.

Though sometimes I have to wonder with you!

History remembers winners in a different light Miles. He has pointed out that Bush jr was/is a ruthless prick and thats how he got his work done.

Looking into history, bar a couple of victims who eventually came good,(Mandella for one) the rest is written from the point of view of and from the winning sides.
Losers dont get to write history is the point I took on board.

Im with you, by the way on it all being unacceptable though.

[El Kabong]

I disagree with pretty much everything you say here. You seem to be trying to justify a petty vendetta passed on from Daddy, outright fabrication of evidence, vote rigging and an ignorance and disregard for international law. Now this kind of behaviour is never acceptable, so I am going to assume that your post is tongue in cheek. There is surely no way that you believe all of that.

Though sometimes I have to wonder with you!

miles, I keep telling you...regime change was coming to Iraq no matter who won the 2000 election. As for vote rigging, that's bullshit miles I'm sick and fucking tired of every god damned liberal saying Al Gore got jobbed in 2000, listen if people aren't smart enough to figure out a ballot that looked like this ....

------------------George W. Bush------->___
___<-------Pat Buchannan--------------------
-------------Al Gore----------------->______

Then I don't know if I want them voting at all.

AL GORE LOST AND WE'RE ALL BETTER FOR IT....there's not enough bad stuff that can happen to that bastard








There you have it....Saddam wasn't going to survive the 00's no matter who got elected

[Nameless]

I think the term lied is thrown around a little loosely. In retrospect obviously the Iraq invasion was a complete farce. Saddam didn't have WMD, didn't pose a serious security risk to the US and was largely contained. I think Bush and his advisors clearly created an enviroment that fostered finding intelligence to justify the invasion rather than decide if it was necessary or warranted at all. I know to some of you this is purely splitting hairs. I just don't believe that Powell gets up in front of the UN and knowingly tells them bold faced lies. I think if Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz etc knew he was misrepresenting the facts it would have come out by now. Saddam revealed during his debriefings that he did destroy or get rid of all of the WMD after the Gulf War but needed his military and nation at large to believe he had them to maintain power and further more needed the Arab nations to believe to keep his rep. Is it any less tragic the outcome being due to over zealous incompetence rather than malicious deceit? Not really...but since speculating should Bush be tried for war crimes is on par to speculating if Tyson would beat Ali it really doesn't matter

Wolfowitz stated personally that since the very beginning, they knew that there was no WMD but that they did need bureaucratic reasons to invade Iraq and to push Saddam. Also, never forget that they created forged papers to support that Saddam had uranium. and they punished Joseph Wilson by leaking the name of his wife for stating that such trade never happened. They knew, Powell knew and probably disagree to say what he said but it was an order and he had no choice to tell what he got told to do.

[VictorCharlie]

I think the term lied is thrown around a little loosely. In retrospect obviously the Iraq invasion was a complete farce. Saddam didn't have WMD, didn't pose a serious security risk to the US and was largely contained. I think Bush and his advisors clearly created an enviroment that fostered finding intelligence to justify the invasion rather than decide if it was necessary or warranted at all. I know to some of you this is purely splitting hairs. I just don't believe that Powell gets up in front of the UN and knowingly tells them bold faced lies. I think if Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz etc knew he was misrepresenting the facts it would have come out by now. Saddam revealed during his debriefings that he did destroy or get rid of all of the WMD after the Gulf War but needed his military and nation at large to believe he had them to maintain power and further more needed the Arab nations to believe to keep his rep. Is it any less tragic the outcome being due to over zealous incompetence rather than malicious deceit? Not really...but since speculating should Bush be tried for war crimes is on par to speculating if Tyson would beat Ali it really doesn't matter

Wolfowitz stated personally that since the very beginning, they knew that there was no WMD but that they did need bureaucratic reasons to invade Iraq and to push Saddam. Also, never forget that they created forged papers to support that Saddam had uranium. and they punished Joseph Wilson by leaking the name of his wife for stating that such trade never happened. They knew, Powell knew and probably disagree to say what he said but it was an order and he had no choice to tell what he got told to do.

Can you site a source of Wolfowitz stating that?

[Nameless]

I think the term lied is thrown around a little loosely. In retrospect obviously the Iraq invasion was a complete farce. Saddam didn't have WMD, didn't pose a serious security risk to the US and was largely contained. I think Bush and his advisors clearly created an enviroment that fostered finding intelligence to justify the invasion rather than decide if it was necessary or warranted at all. I know to some of you this is purely splitting hairs. I just don't believe that Powell gets up in front of the UN and knowingly tells them bold faced lies. I think if Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz etc knew he was misrepresenting the facts it would have come out by now. Saddam revealed during his debriefings that he did destroy or get rid of all of the WMD after the Gulf War but needed his military and nation at large to believe he had them to maintain power and further more needed the Arab nations to believe to keep his rep. Is it any less tragic the outcome being due to over zealous incompetence rather than malicious deceit? Not really...but since speculating should Bush be tried for war crimes is on par to speculating if Tyson would beat Ali it really doesn't matter

Wolfowitz stated personally that since the very beginning, they knew that there was no WMD but that they did need bureaucratic reasons to invade Iraq and to push Saddam. Also, never forget that they created forged papers to support that Saddam had uranium. and they punished Joseph Wilson by leaking the name of his wife for stating that such trade never happened. They knew, Powell knew and probably disagree to say what he said but it was an order and he had no choice to tell what he got told to do.

Can you site a source of Wolfowitz stating that?

Sure: USATODAY.com - Wolfowitz comments revive doubts over Iraq's WMD

Iraq: No WMD, No Reason for War

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/30/se.08.html

I had some more complete but can't find them actually.