Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[El Kabong]

I voted no and even to suggest that they should be tried for war crimes is fucking idiotic.....all due respect miles

[Nameless]

I voted no and even to suggest that they should be tried for war crimes is fucking idiotic.....all due respect miles

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?

[El Kabong]

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

[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.

[El Kabong]

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.

[Nameless]

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?

[El Kabong]

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

[ono]

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.

[Gandalf]

I voted no and even to suggest that they should be tried for war crimes is fucking idiotic.....all due respect miles

No offense taken, but why do you think it is idiotic?