Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[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.

[Spicoli]

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?

[Howlin Mad Missy]

[quote=CFH;816746]

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.

[CFH]

[quote=Howlin Mad Missy;816814]

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.