Boxing Forums



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0

Poll: Should Blair and Bush be tried for war crimes?

Results 1 to 15 of 228

Thread: Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

Share/Bookmark

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    El Kabong Guest

    Default Re: Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Master View Post
    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    8,466
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1423
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Master View Post
    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.
    http://instagram.com/jonnyboy_85_/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    19,037
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1985
    Cool Clicks

    Wink Re: Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Master View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Montreal/Luxembourg
    Posts
    6,399
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1096
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Master View Post
    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.
    Hidden Content
    That's the way it is, not the way it ends

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    South London Baby
    Posts
    5,330
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1731
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Montreal/Luxembourg
    Posts
    6,399
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1096
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

    Quote Originally Posted by JazMerkin View Post
    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.
    Hidden Content
    That's the way it is, not the way it ends

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,153
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2018
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

    Quote Originally Posted by JazMerkin View Post
    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?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,153
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2018
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Master View Post
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. One reason why I like George Bush......
    By Kev in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 08-08-2007, 02:03 PM
  2. Check out this singers Bush!
    By CountryBoy in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-31-2007, 07:07 PM
  3. The real power behind George Bush.........
    By Kev in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2006, 11:44 PM
  4. Tony Blair to resign
    By El Kabong in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-09-2006, 11:31 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Forum | Boxing Rankings

Copyright © 2000 - 2025 Saddo Boxing - Boxing