Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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