Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[Youngblood]

I obv don't condone Iraq and many things Bush did cuz I'm a lefty liberal tree hugging wimp(except when it comes to fish, I murder those). But war as we knew it ended when those towers got crashed into, imo.

[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.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

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.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4CQ_1GWn4w

[Howlin Mad Missy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2JxhhqbAD0

[Kev]

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.

Not often we agree Missy

[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.

[Scrap]

Ive heard, tell me Im wrong. An American company is getting all the Oil Rights from Iraq, youll never believe who the Chairman of the compant is .

[Kirkland Laing]

Ive heard, tell me Im wrong. An American company is getting all the Oil Rights from Iraq, youll never believe who the Chairman of the compant is .

The original US plan was to appoint a US-friendly government by Iraqi exiles who were already on our payroll, who would write a constitution which privatised all of Iraq's natural resources (oil and dates ). Iraq's oil, the second-largest* reserve in the world would then be open for international firms to move in, and you can guess which country's firms would have got the lot -- the one whose military bases were keeping the appointed government in power. However this plan was blocked by an Iranian Ayatollah, who issued a fatwa ordering free elections and the winners to write the constitution. The Ayatollah's people, a bunch of Iranian exile terrorist groups, won the election and shockingly are now holding open bids on Iraqi TV to screw every available dollar from the bidding process. The winning firms so far (Chinese, French, British-American) are being forced to pay market andabove-market rates to get any contracts, but the vast majority of Iraq's oilfields either havn't or won't come up for bidding. It's believed that as soon as Iraq develops enough infrastructure to stand on its own two feet that they'll all get the boot and Iraq will produce all its own oil.

*And it may be even bigger than Saudi, the current largest. Iraq has huge areas that haven't even been prospected yet and may hold huge quantities. In either case, at a time when world demand is rubbing up against supply, Iraq is the only country in the world where oil production can be significantly increased. This makes it the most valuable real estate in the world.

[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.

[Memphis]

You say that like its a bad thing?

[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.

[Gandalf]

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.

I think there is a very case that they should be tried, but I agree with you that the same could be said of those that have instigated countless wars since WW2. It does seem to be the case that only those that get beaten up badly or have no significant clout get put away for these kinds of crimes. In this respect I'm with Kirkland in thinking that they should be investigated and put away, but I have a hard time seeing it ever happen.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

[quote=CFH;816713]

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.

[CFH]

[quote=Howlin Mad Missy;816740]

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.