Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[CFH]

Kirkland:

1) I have no desire to play cut and paste patticake with you so save that bullshit for Lyle.

2) Nothing you posted changes my fundamental points that a) Bush and Blair (and their subordinates in Iraq and Afghanistan) did nothing that literally almost every other military ruler (politician or otherwise) hasn't done in the past and will do in the future in times of war; and b) that the United States would NEVER allow any foreign or international court to imposed any punishment on George W. Bush (or any other President).

3) War is inherently immoral and it (unfortunately) is a mainstay of human society. Trying to impose some arbitrary rules which classify some people as "war criminals", except perhaps in extreme cases, is a futile exercise in semantics and political posturing.

Those are my points. As I have mentioned, I loathe Bush but to try and paint him with the same brush as a Hitler or Stalin is absurd.

As for the other points that came up during our little chat, I have no desire to engage in a redundant argument with you over them.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[Nameless]

Kirkland:



3) War is inherently immoral and it (unfortunately) is a mainstay of human society. Trying to impose some arbitrary rules which classify some people as "war criminals", except perhaps in extreme cases, is a futile exercise in semantics and political posturing.

Don't you think that creating phony proofs to go suck somebody else oil, killing a few millions lives including 500 000 innocent children, waging a war that should have never happen because there was no threats is one of the extreme cases?

[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

[CFH]

Kirkland:



3) War is inherently immoral and it (unfortunately) is a mainstay of human society. Trying to impose some arbitrary rules which classify some people as "war criminals", except perhaps in extreme cases, is a futile exercise in semantics and political posturing.

Don't you think that creating phony proofs to go suck somebody else oil, killing a few millions lives including 500 000 innocent children, waging a war that should have never happen because there was no threats is one of the extreme cases?

Unfortunately, I think it's pretty common in regards to war. That doesn't make it right, I probably cannot accurately express how opposed I am to this type of war (and almost all wars to be honest), but I don't think what has happened in Iraq is uncommon in any way regarding the ways wars are conducted.

[Master]

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

West have benefited by oil, selling more weapons and building the infrastructure back up of Iraq.

[Nameless]

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

Well, bombing the center of Bagdad with intelligent bombs isn't what I call trying that much to avoid civilian casualties but anyway... millions of peoples dead for a wrong war, for something they knew didn't exist (WMD), trying to remove Hussain, their ex puppet, to put a new one instead (Paul Bremmer among others) isn't that enough? Sure they want to repair the infras, no infras, no money from petrol plus it is just normal to rebuild what you've wrongfully destroyed, no? Especially when you make money with the companies re-building it (Halliburton, KBR, Carlyle Group) when YOU have shares into these companies and your friends too...
THE US didn't benefit from the war for sure, it went all wrong despite the poor Rumseld and Cheeney's claims. HOwever, these peoples, Cheeney, Rumsefeld, Bush, Rice, made hundred of millions of profit from the shares into their companies and stuff. They do not exactly worry about the economic crisis, losing a loved one to war or even how they will pay their life insurance, these are details for them.
You know Lyle, you don't have to make a ethnical cleansing to be sentenced to war crime trials, killing a few thousand peoples is plainly enough. And they killed more than 2 millions. Just because they wanted their oil.

[Nameless]

Kirkland:



3) War is inherently immoral and it (unfortunately) is a mainstay of human society. Trying to impose some arbitrary rules which classify some people as "war criminals", except perhaps in extreme cases, is a futile exercise in semantics and political posturing.

Don't you think that creating phony proofs to go suck somebody else oil, killing a few millions lives including 500 000 innocent children, waging a war that should have never happen because there was no threats is one of the extreme cases?

Unfortunately, I think it's pretty common in regards to war. That doesn't make it right, I probably cannot accurately express how opposed I am to this type of war (and almost all wars to be honest), but I don't think what has happened in Iraq is uncommon in any way regarding the ways wars are conducted.

It is not that common either and if you ask me, all those creating wrong reasons, leading to the demise of millions of peoples (or thousands) based on a lie they knew was a lie only for their oil and ideological ideas are guilty. I am not expressing this thought only to Bush and Blair but to all the sordid dictators in the world, present past and future and thosw who would do the same. The present debate was about Bush and Blair so I did reduce my opinion only for these 2 for the occasion.

[Gandalf]

Well, spoken Nameless.

To suggest that Bush and Blair "haven't done enough" to be deserving of war crimes charges is somewhat ridiculous in itself. The death of well over a million people is blood enough.

The wars were ill-concieved, founded upon fairy tale evidence and resulted in chaos and mass murder. The war was illegal under international protocol. We had no right to go ahead and impose our will unilaterally. The world was opposed to Iraq because most knew it was wrong. Bush knew that and simply didn't want to sit around waiting any longer. He knew that it was unlikely repurcussions would come back to bite him, what with being President of the USA. What was the world going to do? Call him a naughty boy? He could live with that just as long as his nations vested interests were served.