Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[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

[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.

[El Kabong]

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

OK #1 oil prices have gone up since the war started #2 Selling weapons has hurt us in the past #3 We benefitted by building THEIR infrastructure Maybe some contracted firms have done well in that regard but not our government. #4 Iraq is now closer to Iran politically than it used to be so that in the end is a bad thing IMO they will soon turn into another Syria.

The war in Afghanistan was 100% legal and 100% deserved, Iraq was a rush to judgment but hell me trying to explain that to you guys is just going to get all of us irritated. The battle plans we had never took nation building into account and that was Rumsfeld's fault, every general that suggested that we needed more troops until Rummy resigned got fired.

miles were those million people killed by the US/UK or the enemy? Were they civilians? Were they combatants? What makes it a war crime? Define what is a war crime and I'll tell you of numerous other people that deserve the title far more than Bush or Blair.

[ono]

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

OK #1 oil prices have gone up since the war started #2 Selling weapons has hurt us in the past #3 We benefitted by building THEIR infrastructure Maybe some contracted firms have done well in that regard but not our government. #4 Iraq is now closer to Iran politically than it used to be so that in the end is a bad thing IMO they will soon turn into another Syria.

The war in Afghanistan was 100% legal and 100% deserved, Iraq was a rush to judgment but hell me trying to explain that to you guys is just going to get all of us irritated. The battle plans we had never took nation building into account and that was Rumsfeld's fault, every general that suggested that we needed more troops until Rummy resigned got fired.

miles were those million people killed by the US/UK or the enemy? Were they civilians? Were they combatants? What makes it a war crime? Define what is a war crime and I'll tell you of numerous other people that deserve the title far more than Bush or Blair.

Anywhere between 100,000 - 1,000,000 civiliians. Depending on what your argument is. I agree, there are people who deserve the title more, but it doesn't excuse what we've done.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

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

OK #1 oil prices have gone up since the war started #2 Selling weapons has hurt us in the past #3 We benefitted by building THEIR infrastructure Maybe some contracted firms have done well in that regard but not our government. #4 Iraq is now closer to Iran politically than it used to be so that in the end is a bad thing IMO they will soon turn into another Syria.

The war in Afghanistan was 100% legal and 100% deserved, Iraq was a rush to judgment but hell me trying to explain that to you guys is just going to get all of us irritated. The battle plans we had never took nation building into account and that was Rumsfeld's fault, every general that suggested that we needed more troops until Rummy resigned got fired.

miles were those million people killed by the US/UK or the enemy? Were they civilians? Were they combatants? What makes it a war crime? Define what is a war crime and I'll tell you of numerous other people that deserve the title far more than Bush or Blair.

wars, generally, are fought between armies and not against civilians. How about that for a starting point.

regarding Afghanistan. It would do 'the war on terror' a world of good if the US/UK invaded Pakistan. Won't happen though will it Much better to pick on a country without the bomb/we think we can bully/most people can't find on a map it's so far away so who really cares.

[Nameless]

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

OK #1 oil prices have gone up since the war started #2 Selling weapons has hurt us in the past #3 We benefitted by building THEIR infrastructure Maybe some contracted firms have done well in that regard but not our government. #4 Iraq is now closer to Iran politically than it used to be so that in the end is a bad thing IMO they will soon turn into another Syria.

The war in Afghanistan was 100% legal and 100% deserved, Iraq was a rush to judgment but hell me trying to explain that to you guys is just going to get all of us irritated. The battle plans we had never took nation building into account and that was Rumsfeld's fault, every general that suggested that we needed more troops until Rummy resigned got fired.

miles were those million people killed by the US/UK or the enemy? Were they civilians? Were they combatants? What makes it a war crime? Define what is a war crime and I'll tell you of numerous other people that deserve the title far more than Bush or Blair.

1) a)oil price skyrocket because the idiots neo-cons thought and planned that after 3 weeks/one month the war would be over and that the IRaquis would welcome you open arms for giving them "democracy". Now they face the harsh reality of Iraq with its 2 ethnical groups not exactly at peace with each others.
b) They don't give a wuut if we pay our oil more expensive, their friends made billions in contracts sucking off oil, supplying the troops etc. That the common citizen pays more is the least of their concern.

2)Selling weapons profit greatly to the US, one of the biggest weapon seller in the world, do you know how many billions and billions has been given to Northop Grunmann, Carlyle Group, Boeing and such? If you want, I can even make you a list of the peoples having share into these companies (*hint* Dick Cheeney's wife is on Boeing chairboard, Douglas Feith, Papa Bush and Wolfowitz have huge shares in Carlyle and N.Grunmann* among other things)

3) well, companies making billions to rebuild, that's already a good start as they are mostly American.

4) Casualties include around 2 millions civilians plus 500 000 kids who died because their embargo ill designed didn't allow them to get drinkable water and other stuff they badly needed to survive, stuff they had access to, before the war.

Only for the children they should be life sentenced. And I am not even taking in account all the rest... just to be nice.

[JazMerkin]

In a perfect world, yes they should. But, I don't see why it should happen & it could set a dangerous precedent. I certainly feel there should be some form of punishment, but the truth is whilst they are truly despicable individuals & I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, they can't be blamed completely & there would be just enough doubt in the guilt for me that they shouldn't. I think what happened in the Secret Detentions programme is far more worthy of a trial in a way, because there it was far clearer that they were defying the Geneva convention & International Law.

[Nameless]

In a perfect world, yes they should. But, I don't see why it should happen & it could set a dangerous precedent. I certainly feel there should be some form of punishment, but the truth is whilst they are truly despicable individuals & I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, they can't be blamed completely & there would be just enough doubt in the guilt for me that they shouldn't. I think what happened in the Secret Detentions programme is far more worthy of a trial in a way, because there it was far clearer that they were defying the Geneva convention & International Law.

The secret detention is a very very serious issue but I think that forging false proofs in order to justify an attack on a country is as despicable, especially when it is admitted that some serious neglecting did cost the life of millions of individuals including 500 000 innocent children. It is not that much because they declared war that I think they should be trial but because they forget on purpose false information to justify the thing. Now, though I am for a trial, I am not for their demise, I don't think you're any better than the "monster" if you act like him, plus making martyr is just good to fuel the fanatics on any side, which we don't need. A good prison sentence with no extra commodities would be plenty enough.

[Kirkland Laing]

In a perfect world, yes they should. But, I don't see why it should happen & it could set a dangerous precedent. I certainly feel there should be some form of punishment, but the truth is whilst they are truly despicable individuals & I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, they can't be blamed completely & there would be just enough doubt in the guilt for me that they shouldn't. I think what happened in the Secret Detentions programme is far more worthy of a trial in a way, because there it was far clearer that they were defying the Geneva convention & International Law.

How can they not be blamed completely? Not enough to stand trial?

[Kirkland Laing]

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

OK #1 oil prices have gone up since the war started #2 Selling weapons has hurt us in the past #3 We benefitted by building THEIR infrastructure Maybe some contracted firms have done well in that regard but not our government. #4 Iraq is now closer to Iran politically than it used to be so that in the end is a bad thing IMO they will soon turn into another Syria.

The war in Afghanistan was 100% legal and 100% deserved, Iraq was a rush to judgment but hell me trying to explain that to you guys is just going to get all of us irritated. The battle plans we had never took nation building into account and that was Rumsfeld's fault, every general that suggested that we needed more troops until Rummy resigned got fired.

miles were those million people killed by the US/UK or the enemy? Were they civilians? Were they combatants? What makes it a war crime? Define what is a war crime and I'll tell you of numerous other people that deserve the title far more than Bush or Blair.

Why would oil prices going up be a bad thing for the people behind the war? Do you honestly think this war was started for the benefit of the American people? When was the last time the US government did something for the benefit of its people?

How will Iraq turn into another Syria? How would you describe Syria from a geopolitical point of view?

What about Bush and Blair actively plotting a preemtive war of aggression? Isn't that a war crime? In 1946 at Nuremburg the US considered that the worst war crime of all, the thing that created all the other Nazi war crimes.

[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.

[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.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

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.

It helps if you look like this

[ono]

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.

It helps if you look like this

There we go...