Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[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.

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.

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.

[Gandalf]

This pre war article shows that only 25% of the British public thought that there was enough evidence for a pre-emptive strike. And we went along and invaded anyway. Now we know that there really wasn't any evidence and Blair openly lied in order to try and justify going ahead and invading. Totally uncool.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Polls find Europeans oppose Iraq war

[Youngblood]

While I agree about the facts stated, the deception, true reasoning for Iraq and all of it, as CFH has stated, it simply will not happen. SO we can play should we all day, but really, it is just a case of venting your frustrations and anger on a personal level. Barring a world war in the very near future to which all the powers that currently be lose, and there is a complete new world order, it isn't going to happen. So not going to get in a lather about it.

And we in Canada were asked much like the UK was to join in, to just believe the US intelligence (to be provided later) on the WMD's, and we didn't Show us, don't tell us. Not sure how folks think we are often spineless as a nation. Was a pretty bold play imo, that turned out to be the correct play.

We were all for going after the true terrorists, and to Afghanistan we went. Sadly under-trouped and under-planned due all the focus on Iraq. Now that situation is a clusterfuk shitfest too. It could have been dealt with in a unified mass campaign at the time of many nations, but no. Just a mess now also.

[CFH]

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.

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.

[Gandalf]

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.

[Gandalf]

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.

[Scrap]

Winners write History

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Winners write History

true dat.

And everything to do with prevailing episteme.

[Memphis]

e pist eme?

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

[Howlin Mad Missy]

e pist eme?

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

Really?

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.

[BIG H]

e pist eme?

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

Bahahahahahahahahaha