Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[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.

[El Kabong]

This is the paradox for the US, do nothing in 1988 and get bitched at invade the country and take down their dictator in 2003 and get bitched at....we're CONSTANTLY in a no win situation it's either "Mind your own business!" or "Aren't you going to help?" and with every situation there are at least 2 sides and usually they'll say both of those things.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

no Lyle. All of the West stood by and let Saddam do it but what people wont excuse is waiting 15 then use it as a justification for a phoney war.

That's the problem.

[Kirkland Laing]

This is the paradox for the US, do nothing in 1988 and get bitched at invade the country and take down their dictator in 2003 and get bitched at....we're CONSTANTLY in a no win situation it's either "Mind your own business!" or "Aren't you going to help?" and with every situation there are at least 2 sides and usually they'll say both of those things.

But you weren't minding your own business, you were actively backing Saddam because he was at war with Iran, a country whose regime you were trying to overthrow because they'd overthrown the previous Iranian dictatorial regime that you'd installed in power. And Reagan actually got the DIA to make a report blaming the gassing of the kUrds on Iran so that the US could still continue to support Saddam without getting criticised/sanctioned for it. You were minding your own business in the Middle East in the 1980s in the same way that Adolf Hitler was minding his own business in central Europe in the 1930s.

[Nameless]

This is the paradox for the US, do nothing in 1988 and get bitched at invade the country and take down their dictator in 2003 and get bitched at....we're CONSTANTLY in a no win situation it's either "Mind your own business!" or "Aren't you going to help?" and with every situation there are at least 2 sides and usually they'll say both of those things.

Never lost in sight that Rumsfeld and Saddam were buddy buddy at the time and that the US sold tons of weapons to IRaq knowing what they would do with it... chemical stuff too. England even sold a gaz factory to Iraq, keys in hands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPb-3zkh0c

[El Kabong]

OK first off let me say I was wrong.....I should have put LBJ instead of JFK in my previous post re: Vietnam being an illegally started war, man that has been bothering me all day

Kirkland/Nameless those are erroneous points if we're talking about JUST George Bush and not American foreign policy as a whole which I assume this thread will eventually get into but either way the US isn't the bad guys and W and Blair are not war criminals and once again to suggest such a thing is idiotic, partisian, and doesn't help anyone except the terrorists....right now the terrorists are thinking "We think they are wrong because they do not follow Muhammed and they are occupying our countries" and if we even tried W and Blair for war crimes it would be "Even they knew they were wrong, let's kill them anyway"

The issue I have with liberals these days is that under NO MEANS is war ever acceptable and that is not only foolish and naive but it's dangerous because just 8 years ago we were at peace and we got blindsided by a group who was/is/and will always be at war with us and to not even attempt to fight back is mental.

[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?