Look it's not very complicated: According to Geneva convention and the Nurember treaties, Bush and Blair could be trial for war crime and they would most definitely lose. If it has been good against some of our old ennemies, why isn't it good for treaties we did sign ourself ? No matter how historically this is 2 eras, everybody did sign under the same rules and there should be no shallow exceptions to it.
I understand your point Vanchild and I agree with something: You cannot trial a soldier for the job he carries, just like the soldiers of the Wermarcht weren't trialed neither compared to the SS (for example). However, the political leaders which motivation is solely to steal other's ressources and to follow a personal agenda (idealism of the neo-cons in that case), that is unacceptable, especially when they order to throw bombs in the middle of the city. Human shields? in some case it's true. But definitely not all the time. The 500 000 children who died because of the stupid "Embargo didn't use human shields. Neither the prisoners at Abu Ghraib where torture has been made legal by Rumsfeld's signature with the blessing of the big boss neither. Targeting Center of Baghdad when it was not necessary at some point will also kill countless civilians, especially when a few of these missiles didn't land where they were supposed and destroyed some part of Baghdad's Market.
THey should be trialed, our countries did sign for it an it has nothing to do with their nationality, would it be a Canadian or a Martian, I would call for the same.