Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

2.Every other pollitician and military ruler has started a preemptive aggressive war?

3. Not semantics or posturing at all. And definitely not arbitrary rules. The Geneva Conventions are not arbitraryrules, are they? The whole business of going to war is codified into law, so the whole issue depends on law, not semantics or posturing.

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

[El Kabong]

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

...actually you can be worse and still not be a war criminal.

Kirkland you can wish for Bush and Blair to be tried as war criminals in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first.

Do you people deny the slightest possibility that #1 Some of those "civilian casualties" were actually enemy combatants? or that #2 Perhaps the Allied Forces didn't kill those civilians but the enemy combatants did or that #3 MAYBE the enemy combatants hid themselves around civilians not only to try and blend in but to bait the Allies to attack in turn insighting hatred of the Allied forces by the very civilians they (the enemy) endanger? Are those not plausable reasons behind any if not ALL of the civilians casualties

And Kirkland don't you or anyone else fucking quote the Geneva Convention to anyone the terrorists don't wear uniforms, attack ANYONE civilians/reporters/medical personell, and they cut people's heads off when they have them held captive....but I suppose pouring water on someone who was part of 9/11 just makes us even.

[Nameless]

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

...actually you can be worse and still not be a war criminal.

Kirkland you can wish for Bush and Blair to be tried as war criminals in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first.

Do you people deny the slightest possibility that #1 Some of those "civilian casualties" were actually enemy combatants? or that #2 Perhaps the Allied Forces didn't kill those civilians but the enemy combatants did or that #3 MAYBE the enemy combatants hid themselves around civilians not only to try and blend in but to bait the Allies to attack in turn insighting hatred of the Allied forces by the very civilians they (the enemy) endanger? Are those not plausable reasons behind any if not ALL of the civilians casualties

And Kirkland don't you or anyone else fucking quote the Geneva Convention to anyone the terrorists don't wear uniforms, attack ANYONE civilians/reporters/medical personell, and they cut people's heads off when they have them held captive....but I suppose pouring water on someone who was part of 9/11 just makes us even.

You're mixing a lot of different things together Lyle:

1) we never said that terrorists do not have to be trialed like Blair and Bush (they should like any other butchers and mass murder responsibles)

2)most peoples tortured aren't terrorists, every Mujaidin aren't linked to Ben Laden and god knows there is a lot of the alike in Guantanamo and other secret camps like that.

3) it doesn't change what Bush and Blair did and why they should be "forgiven" for the millions they killed on a simple signature and a few phony proofs.

[Kirkland Laing]

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

...actually you can be worse and still not be a war criminal.

Kirkland you can wish for Bush and Blair to be tried as war criminals in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first.

Do you people deny the slightest possibility that #1 Some of those "civilian casualties" were actually enemy combatants? or that #2 Perhaps the Allied Forces didn't kill those civilians but the enemy combatants did or that #3 MAYBE the enemy combatants hid themselves around civilians not only to try and blend in but to bait the Allies to attack in turn insighting hatred of the Allied forces by the very civilians they (the enemy) endanger? Are those not plausable reasons behind any if not ALL of the civilians casualties

And Kirkland don't you or anyone else fucking quote the Geneva Convention to anyone the terrorists don't wear uniforms, attack ANYONE civilians/reporters/medical personell, and they cut people's heads off when they have them held captive....but I suppose pouring water on someone who was part of 9/11 just makes us even.

You can start more wars than Hitler and not be a war criminal?

Forget about civilian casualties. Let's just talk about planning an illegal war. That's an unambiguous war crime and it's clear that B and B did lots of planning before they started the war. So they're war criminals, no?

And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorist attack on America, don't change the subject to Saddam's nonexistent support of Al Quaeda. The reason I'm mentioning the Geneva Conventions is that America and Britain both signed up to them and B and B both clearly broke the laws enshrined in those conventions.

[Gandalf]

I'm busy as hell right now, so just can't get on and post like I want to. But it's good to see others keeping up the good fight!

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

...actually you can be worse and still not be a war criminal.

Kirkland you can wish for Bush and Blair to be tried as war criminals in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first.

Do you people deny the slightest possibility that #1 Some of those "civilian casualties" were actually enemy combatants? or that #2 Perhaps the Allied Forces didn't kill those civilians but the enemy combatants did or that #3 MAYBE the enemy combatants hid themselves around civilians not only to try and blend in but to bait the Allies to attack in turn insighting hatred of the Allied forces by the very civilians they (the enemy) endanger? Are those not plausable reasons behind any if not ALL of the civilians casualties

And Kirkland don't you or anyone else fucking quote the Geneva Convention to anyone the terrorists don't wear uniforms, attack ANYONE civilians/reporters/medical personell, and they cut people's heads off when they have them held captive....but I suppose pouring water on someone who was part of 9/11 just makes us even.

You can start more wars than Hitler and not be a war criminal?

Forget about civilian casualties. Let's just talk about planning an illegal war. That's an unambiguous war crime and it's clear that B and B did lots of planning before they started the war. So they're war criminals, no?

And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorist attack on America, don't change the subject to Saddam's nonexistent support of Al Quaeda. The reason I'm mentioning the Geneva Conventions is that America and Britain both signed up to them and B and B both clearly broke the laws enshrined in those conventions.

[El Kabong]

You can start more wars than Hitler and not be a war criminal?

Forget about civilian casualties. Let's just talk about planning an illegal war. That's an unambiguous war crime and it's clear that B and B did lots of planning before they started the war. So they're war criminals, no?

And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorist attack on America, don't change the subject to Saddam's nonexistent support of Al Quaeda. The reason I'm mentioning the Geneva Conventions is that America and Britain both signed up to them and B and B both clearly broke the laws enshrined in those conventions.

Vietnam and the Spanish-American War were planned and started "illegally" and neither JFK or William McKinley were called war criminals or were tried for war crimes.

As for the Iraq-Al Quaeda ties...listen to YOUR BOY Al Gore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bogBwAby3so
And since I know you don't like watching videos I'll give you a summary Gore admits #1 Terrorist were in Iraq AND Saddam supported them and #2 Iraq was trying to further their nuclear capabilities

Point to Lyle

[Howlin Mad Missy]

why shouldn't Iraq have nuclear capabilities?

[El Kabong]

why shouldn't Iraq have nuclear capabilities?

Well at that point in time Missy one Saddam Hussein was in power and Saddam had conducted terrorist activities (so Gore says in that video) and had used POISON GAS on Kurds.....so I think it was just a good idea to keep WMD's away from him and most world leaders agreed.

Nothing wrong with Nuclear POWER but not everyone should have nuclear weapons and usually world leaders use Nuclear Power as the guise to achieve nuclear weapons

[Howlin Mad Missy]

why shouldn't Iraq have nuclear capabilities?

Well at that point in time Missy one Saddam Hussein was in power and Saddam had conducted terrorist activities (so Gore says in that video) and had used POISON GAS on Kurds.....so I think it was just a good idea to keep WMD's away from him and most world leaders agreed.

Nothing wrong with Nuclear POWER but not everyone should have nuclear weapons and usually world leaders use Nuclear Power as the guise to achieve nuclear weapons

1988, gas attack - the West DID NOTHING.

1990 1st Gulf War because he invaded Kuwait.

It wasn't until 2003 the west gained a conscience and used the death of the Kurds as one of the many smoke screens for invading Iraq.

[Kirkland Laing]

You can start more wars than Hitler and not be a war criminal?

Forget about civilian casualties. Let's just talk about planning an illegal war. That's an unambiguous war crime and it's clear that B and B did lots of planning before they started the war. So they're war criminals, no?

And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorist attack on America, don't change the subject to Saddam's nonexistent support of Al Quaeda. The reason I'm mentioning the Geneva Conventions is that America and Britain both signed up to them and B and B both clearly broke the laws enshrined in those conventions.

Vietnam and the Spanish-American War were planned and started "illegally" and neither JFK or William McKinley were called war criminals or were tried for war crimes.

As for the Iraq-Al Quaeda ties...listen to YOUR BOY Al Gore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bogBwAby3soAnd since I know you don't like watching videos I'll give you a summary Gore admits #1 Terrorist were in Iraq AND Saddam supported them and #2 Iraq was trying to further their nuclear capabilities

Point to Lyle

Forget about previous wars, we're talking about Iraq. B and B committed an unambiguous war crime according to international law, crimes that American prosecutors at Nuremburg previously declared were the worst of all war crimes. Shouldn't they stand trial for them?


And you need to show actual facts and evidence rather than yet another video. Here are some facts for you :

George Bush last night admitted that Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 9/11 terror attacks, but he asked Americans to support a war in Iraq that he said was the defining struggle of our age.

Bush: Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 | World news | guardian.co.uk


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon.

The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.
The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.




Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com








The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.
Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."


The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons (washingtonpost.com)


But answer the question. They should face a trial, shouldn't they?