Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[Gandalf]

Well hell yeah Miles....I'll load my M14 and you can borrow my Sig...lets go start a fucking revolution!!

Indeed. I would love it if 50 million Americans joined forces and marched on Wall Street with their guns in tow. I might even alter my anti-gun policy for such an occasion. A revolution is sorely needed right now. The forecasts are bleak and 2010 is going to be a very hard year for many. Jobs will continue to be lost and then when the temporary recovery begins to lull, yet more stimulus money will be thrown back into the void. This carry on needs to stop and the 'too big to fails' need to die. They are vampires sucking on the soul of America.

The economy will eventually recover although it may go into reverse for a while again and either way it won't seem like recovery unemployment-wise for a long time. Once they get a recovery going they can then get to work on inflating the bubble that they've just created with government money, the one that's currently propping the markets and the banking system up. When that one goes pop and people discover that the government just let the banks run riot after the 2008 meltdown while only pretending to re-regulate them and that the banks are now automatically backstopped by the government for unlimited taxpayer dough it'll be pitchfork time, probably.

You would think it would get to a point where the people just don't take it anymore. I would have thought that point might have been reached with many cities already having upwards of 20% unemployment, but we will just have to wait until it degenerates some more. It takes an awful lot of corruption and bullshit to get even the smallest reaction from people these days. And then of course you have the reactionaries like Lyle. I live in a country where hundreds of thousands protested against beef imports (of all the silly things), and yet the Americans can't even organise themselves against government and big business who are openly looting the populace. It's bizarre.

[El Kabong]

Miles #1 "all this" (re: the economy or the wars) wasn't started just by Bush both had been coming for a long time and Bush isn't the ONLY guy to blame and the Republican party isn't the only party to blame either but yes they did help cause this and because of that nearly all of them were voted out of office. So just how poorly do the democrats have to govern to reach the point where hardcore "big C" Conservatives are the favorites heading into 2010? #2 I find that "reactionary" comment amusing considering you're one of the people suggesting Bush should be tried for war crimes.

The people are always a step ahead of the government and this first year of Obama + the liberal House & Senate have been awful. The people were sold Obama as some kind of wiz kid saviour but he's inexperienced, he's egotistical, and he is seemingly uninterested in anything other than Healthcare and that isn't America's most pressing need at the moment. Now 10% unemployment would be a DREAM scenario for a place like France but in the US it's unacceptable. If you add the unemployment together with the foreclosure rates (Obama is now the sole leader in foreclosures in a year) and the money the Democrats put into TARP and used to bailout various companies you can see why Conservatives are coming back with a vengence...just for a frame of reference it took Republicans over a decade (1994-2006) to wear out their welcome as the majority party.

[Kirkland Laing]

Miles #1 "all this" (re: the economy or the wars) wasn't started just by Bush both had been coming for a long time and Bush isn't the ONLY guy to blame and the Republican party isn't the only party to blame either but yes they did help cause this and because of that nearly all of them were voted out of office. So just how poorly do the democrats have to govern to reach the point where hardcore "big C" Conservatives are the favorites heading into 2010? #2 I find that "reactionary" comment amusing considering you're one of the people suggesting Bush should be tried for war crimes.

The people are always a step ahead of the government and this first year of Obama + the liberal House & Senate have been awful. The people were sold Obama as some kind of wiz kid saviour but he's inexperienced, he's egotistical, and he is seemingly uninterested in anything other than Healthcare and that isn't America's most pressing need at the moment. Now 10% unemployment would be a DREAM scenario for a place like France but in the US it's unacceptable. If you add the unemployment together with the foreclosure rates (Obama is now the sole leader in foreclosures in a year) and the money the Democrats put into TARP and used to bailout various companies you can see why Conservatives are coming back with a vengence...just for a frame of reference it took Republicans over a decade (1994-2006) to wear out their welcome as the majority party.

Bush is entirely to blame for both the economic meltdown and the Iraq war. He's the guy who made up a bunch of bs to get his illegal war on and the guy who deregulated the US financial system back to 1928.

France's unemployment rate is lower than America's.

Bush is responsible for every single dollar of the TARP fund. Obama hasn't added a single dollar to the more than seven trillion dollars of taxpayer money that the socialist war criminal Bush used to guarantee the losses of the socialist bankers, Bush basically guaranteed all losses at 100 cents on the dollar before Obama took office.

And the GOP is gaining support again because America is chock full of dumb motherfunkers who can't remember what happened a year ago.

[Nameless]

Miles #1 "all this" (re: the economy or the wars) wasn't started just by Bush both had been coming for a long time and Bush isn't the ONLY guy to blame and the Republican party isn't the only party to blame either but yes they did help cause this and because of that nearly all of them were voted out of office. So just how poorly do the democrats have to govern to reach the point where hardcore "big C" Conservatives are the favorites heading into 2010? #2 I find that "reactionary" comment amusing considering you're one of the people suggesting Bush should be tried for war crimes.

The people are always a step ahead of the government and this first year of Obama + the liberal House & Senate have been awful. The people were sold Obama as some kind of wiz kid saviour but he's inexperienced, he's egotistical, and he is seemingly uninterested in anything other than Healthcare and that isn't America's most pressing need at the moment. Now 10% unemployment would be a DREAM scenario for a place like France but in the US it's unacceptable. If you add the unemployment together with the foreclosure rates (Obama is now the sole leader in foreclosures in a year) and the money the Democrats put into TARP and used to bailout various companies you can see why Conservatives are coming back with a vengence...just for a frame of reference it took Republicans over a decade (1994-2006) to wear out their welcome as the majority party.

Actually, one of the very most suited economic crack available to me is Ron Paul. The guy's very clever and has seen a lot, he would be a fine pick for the Republican Party for the next elections. As for Obama, he was the best pick among the 3-4 last candidates (Romney, Huckaby, Clinton and McCain), the problem is peoples saw him as a savior when he was just the less shitty option available. He made a few good decisions when he started, some of which the american peoples should be proud of but at the moment, he's juggling with strange knifes and I have the impression he's sinking a bit. The problem is not that much the idea of the healthcare reform but the way he seems to want it to be done, I will have to read a bit more about it to have a more enlightened point of view but from now, I lean toward the good idea wrongfully applied.

[El Kabong]

The problem with Obama is that he never ran anything in the private sector or in government to show he was prepared to lead the country.

Romney had success in the private sector and in government (bar the healthcare he passed in Mass.)

Huckabee was Gov. of Arkansas (same as Bill Clinton)

McCain has military experience which right now would be nice to have.

And Hillary, if she ran like her husband did being lead by the polls then yes she would be better than Obama because she'd be closer to center.

Obama was a single term junior Senator and before that he was a "Community Organizer"...he will soon be known as the Affirmative Action President, and he has the gall to call out Clarence Thomas as "lacking experience"....Obama is God awful he's 100% focused on Healthcare and everything else doesn't matter to him, not the economy (he probably welcomes it doing so poorly to get more people on board with the Healthcare bill) and the wars are just a nusance to him. Obama is in waaaaaay over his head and I swear to God if Palin is running against him in 2012 I may just move to the fucking moon.

[Nameless]

The problem with Obama is that he never ran anything in the private sector or in government to show he was prepared to lead the country.

Romney had success in the private sector and in government (bar the healthcare he passed in Mass.)

Huckabee was Gov. of Arkansas (same as Bill Clinton)

McCain has military experience which right now would be nice to have.

And Hillary, if she ran like her husband did being lead by the polls then yes she would be better than Obama because she'd be closer to center.

Obama was a single term junior Senator and before that he was a "Community Organizer"...he will soon be known as the Affirmative Action President, and he has the gall to call out Clarence Thomas as "lacking experience"....Obama is God awful he's 100% focused on Healthcare and everything else doesn't matter to him, not the economy (he probably welcomes it doing so poorly to get more people on board with the Healthcare bill) and the wars are just a nusance to him. Obama is in waaaaaay over his head and I swear to God if Palin is running against him in 2012 I may just move to the fucking moon.

Instead of going to the Moon, I invite you to French part of Canada. We have a socialist healthcare system that works quite good and we're far from being communist. Plus, you could learn french easily and for free and I can show you how Montreal is great

Thus said, Romney is a bit of an egoistical maniac, McCain is disconnected from a large chunk or Reality, Clinton is the corporate bitch and Huckaby is a devoted überconservativ Mormon and religious creep. Sadly Obama was better than them all (I think personally) and he did a couple of good moves, it's just his latest healthcare which is too obsessive otherwise he might do not too bad at all. For the Reps, I persist and sign: Ron Paul should be the man.

[El Kabong]

Instead of going to the Moon, I invite you to French part of Canada. We have a socialist healthcare system that works quite good and we're far from being communist. Plus, you could learn french easily and for free and I can show you how Montreal is great

Thus said, Romney is a bit of an egoistical maniac, McCain is disconnected from a large chunk or Reality, Clinton is the corporate bitch and Huckaby is a devoted überconservativ Mormon and religious creep. Sadly Obama was better than them all (I think personally) and he did a couple of good moves, it's just his latest healthcare which is too obsessive otherwise he might do not too bad at all. For the Reps, I persist and sign: Ron Paul should be the man.

Ron Paul is ok....he'd win over more voters if his supporters weren't all The Simpson's Comicbook Guy look-a-likes.

Romney is just a bit "stiff", he lacks the timing to use the 1 liners to win over the crowd at debates. McCain missed his shot 2000 was his year. Huckabee isn't a mormon, that's Romney...he is however a Baptist but he had a decent stance on things like evolution, at least he was able to communicate better than all the other Republicans. Obama was not the best he was merely the one nobody knew anything about but everyone had the most hope for....he's a HORRIBLE President

If I'm moving to a French speaking country, I'm going to France proper....Sarkozy is a solid leader

[Nameless]

Instead of going to the Moon, I invite you to French part of Canada. We have a socialist healthcare system that works quite good and we're far from being communist. Plus, you could learn french easily and for free and I can show you how Montreal is great

Thus said, Romney is a bit of an egoistical maniac, McCain is disconnected from a large chunk or Reality, Clinton is the corporate bitch and Huckaby is a devoted überconservativ Mormon and religious creep. Sadly Obama was better than them all (I think personally) and he did a couple of good moves, it's just his latest healthcare which is too obsessive otherwise he might do not too bad at all. For the Reps, I persist and sign: Ron Paul should be the man.

Ron Paul is ok....he'd win over more voters if his supporters weren't all The Simpson's Comicbook Guy look-a-likes.

Romney is just a bit "stiff", he lacks the timing to use the 1 liners to win over the crowd at debates. McCain missed his shot 2000 was his year. Huckabee isn't a mormon, that's Romney...he is however a Baptist but he had a decent stance on things like evolution, at least he was able to communicate better than all the other Republicans. Obama was not the best he was merely the one nobody knew anything about but everyone had the most hope for....he's a HORRIBLE President

If I'm moving to a French speaking country, I'm going to France proper....Sarkozy is a solid leader

You're right for Romney and Huckaby, my mistake, I did reverse the two. As for Sarkozy, are you serious or it was sarcasm? I am all tired and at this moment I lack concentration to find if you were serious or not.
As for Obama, I seriously feel he's better than the 4 others though very disappointing lately. Ron Paul on economy is a very serious heavyweight and I am not sure that the Democrats have a better candidate on that stand at the moment personally. Beside, Quebec is good as not too far from the US (not at all actually) and we speak english here too. Though I could understand that solely for wine, you might want a trip in France. Talking of, I bought some serious killer bottles lately some Red and some White, including some excellent Merseault

[Kirkland Laing]

The problem with Obama is that he never ran anything in the private sector or in government to show he was prepared to lead the country.

Romney had success in the private sector and in government (bar the healthcare he passed in Mass.)

Huckabee was Gov. of Arkansas (same as Bill Clinton)

McCain has military experience which right now would be nice to have.

And Hillary, if she ran like her husband did being lead by the polls then yes she would be better than Obama because she'd be closer to center.

Obama was a single term junior Senator and before that he was a "Community Organizer"...he will soon be known as the Affirmative Action President, and he has the gall to call out Clarence Thomas as "lacking experience"....Obama is God awful he's 100% focused on Healthcare and everything else doesn't matter to him, not the economy (he probably welcomes it doing so poorly to get more people on board with the Healthcare bill) and the wars are just a nusance to him. Obama is in waaaaaay over his head and I swear to God if Palin is running against him in 2012 I may just move to the fucking moon.

Obama doesn't need experience running anything because he doesn't have anything to run. Foreign policy, energy policy and "defence" are run by the war and oil and gas industries, the financial system is run by the banks, healthcare by the healthcare corporations....

Out of the choices available to Americans him and Hillary were the least worst options, but there's basically zero difference between Obama and McCain. I can wake up every lunchtime and not have to worry that President McCain has invaded Iran, or re-invaded Vietnam, but other than possibly adding more dumb wars to the existing ones things wouldn't be any different if McCain had won.

[Kirkland Laing]

Indeed. I would love it if 50 million Americans joined forces and marched on Wall Street with their guns in tow. I might even alter my anti-gun policy for such an occasion. A revolution is sorely needed right now. The forecasts are bleak and 2010 is going to be a very hard year for many. Jobs will continue to be lost and then when the temporary recovery begins to lull, yet more stimulus money will be thrown back into the void. This carry on needs to stop and the 'too big to fails' need to die. They are vampires sucking on the soul of America.

The economy will eventually recover although it may go into reverse for a while again and either way it won't seem like recovery unemployment-wise for a long time. Once they get a recovery going they can then get to work on inflating the bubble that they've just created with government money, the one that's currently propping the markets and the banking system up. When that one goes pop and people discover that the government just let the banks run riot after the 2008 meltdown while only pretending to re-regulate them and that the banks are now automatically backstopped by the government for unlimited taxpayer dough it'll be pitchfork time, probably.

You would think it would get to a point where the people just don't take it anymore. I would have thought that point might have been reached with many cities already having upwards of 20% unemployment, but we will just have to wait until it degenerates some more. It takes an awful lot of corruption and bullshit to get even the smallest reaction from people these days. And then of course you have the reactionaries like Lyle. I live in a country where hundreds of thousands protested against beef imports (of all the silly things), and yet the Americans can't even organise themselves against government and big business who are openly looting the populace. It's bizarre.

Things will have to get a lot worse before anything happens. It's going to take a bigger meltdown than last year's before a critical mass of people get motivated. There's a good chance that the economy just staggers sideways for a while, maybe back into recession once or twice in the next few years. It's hard to see any real economic recovery happening for some time but when things do pick up in a year or a decade from now we're going to see it end in another massive mass bankrupcy of the financial system, huge taxpayer bailout etc.

Anecdotal evidence from people working in the city is that bankers are getting verbal abuse on the street now. Some guy had a cup of coffee thrown over him recently but that's the worst thing I've heard of. If people in Britain actually realised how many thousands they're each going to have to pay in extra taxes or lost services over the next couple of decades to pay back the debts the bankers rang up things would be a lot worse than they currently are. Over the next few years as taxes go up/services get cut awareness should tick up quite a lot.

[Kirkland Laing]

LONDON (AFP) – Tony Blair's admission that Britain would have backed the Iraq war even if he knew it did not have weapons of mass destruction sparked outrage Sunday and calls for his prosecution for war crimes.
The former British prime minister, who backed the US-led invasion in 2003, told the BBC he would "still have thought it right to remove" Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein because of the threat he posed to the region.
Lawyers representing the deposed Iraqi leadership said they would seek to prosecute Blair following his remarks, while one newspaper commentator said it was a "game-changing admission" for the ongoing official inquiry into the war.
Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix added: "The war was sold on the WMD, and now you feel, or hear that it was only a question of deployment of arguments, as he said, it sounds a bit like a fig leaf that was held up."
Blair is due to give evidence to the inquiry into the war, led by former civil servant John Chilcot, early next year, and the commentator in the Sunday Telegraph said the investigation's focus must now change.
"Mr Blair's game-changing admission gives them a licence to be tougher and more prosecutorial," he wrote, a call echoed by campaigners at Stop the War Coalition, who urged Chilcot's inquiry to recommend legal action against Blair.
Professor Philippe Sands, a leading international lawyer, said he believed Blair's comments had left him vulnerable to legal proceedings.
"The fact that the policy was fixed by Tony Blair irrespective of the facts on the ground, and irrespective of the legality, will now expose him more rather than less to legal difficulties," Sands told The Sunday Herald.
A lawyer for Saddam Hussein's jailed former deputy prime minister, Tareq Aziz, wrote to Britain's top legal adviser Saturday asking permission to prosecute Blair for war crimes.
In a statement Sunday, Giovanni di Stefano said the former prime minister's comments were an admission that "his aim was regime change. That is without question unlawful and subject to criminal proceedings".




Blair Iraq war admission sparks fresh outrage - Yahoo! News

[Master]

I lost all respect for Blair about going to war. He back tracked and said he would have done it anyway. He is lying to cover his mistake ridden ass. No way will he admit that all those soldiers and innocent civilians died because he could not say no to Bush.

[Gandalf]

I lost all respect for Blair about going to war. He back tracked and said he would have done it anyway. He is lying to cover his mistake ridden ass. No way will he admit that all those soldiers and innocent civilians died because he could not say no to Bush.

I think Blair has revealed himself completely by those comments. There is no doubt that this is a man who tried to decieve the public and then ignore popular opinion and carry on regardless. His comments were surprising because he was so open in admitting how he was going to do what he did no matter what the reason might need to be.

Blair should be tried and sentenced. Bush should simply have a bullet to the head as that is what they prefer over there. These men are appalling examples of the human race.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

I lost all respect for Blair about going to war. He back tracked and said he would have done it anyway. He is lying to cover his mistake ridden ass. No way will he admit that all those soldiers and innocent civilians died because he could not say no to Bush.

I think Blair has revealed himself completely by those comments. There is no doubt that this is a man who tried to decieve the public and then ignore popular opinion and carry on regardless. His comments were surprising because he was so open in admitting how he was going to do what he did no matter what the reason might need to be.

Blair should be tried and sentenced. Bush should simply have a bullet to the head as that is what they prefer over there. These men are appalling examples of the human race.

rep again when I can.

BLiar - those t-shirts seem prophetic now dont they?

[El Kabong]

rep again when I can.

BLiar - those t-shirts seem prophetic now dont they?

And yet you are all 100% in line with Blair regarding Global Warming...WTF people?

Nameless, you think Obama is bad now, just wait til next year, this was his 1st year of really having to answer questions or act on anything, in the past he used to hide behind a "present" vote instead of "yea" or "nay". Huckabee and Romney have experience...Ron Paul is good "in theory". I kind of liked Ross Perot but I think the idea of America being isolationist is just idiotic, with our economy and foreign policy we affect other countries even if we try to avoid acting on anything. Being #1 World Superpower we get drug into things anyway. And yes I like Sarkozy, he's a good guy a good leader.

The wines I have had lately are: Le Colombier Vacquyeras, Lo Zoccoliao Baccanera, Sobon Cab. Sav., Amici Cab. Sav., and I've been trying to get into whites (please PM me and suggest a few)