Quote Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing View Post
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?