Who would like George Bush tried for War crimes?

[amat]

I've not really participated in this thread because I realised I had already done a similar thread previously. But, I see a few responses that have caught my eye.

Amat, I have no idea how Wolfowitz losing his family in the holocaust justifies invading a sovereign state without the backing of the international community. That argument makes no real sense to me. If he was that bothered about such things then maybe he should have become a bigger advocate of Palestinian rights. That would appear more constructive to me rather than invading Iraq and killing over 100,000 civilians. People that would likely be alive today had the invasion not taken place and would have been living better had the absurd Iraqi sanctions not been imposed. Sanctions on Iraq and yet nothing on Israel all these years? Total hypocrisy.

This thread is old news really, but I maintain that these criminals are being allowed to get away with murder and no moral man should allow excuses to be made for them.

I hate Paul Wolfowitz and the Iraq war with a burning passion. I'm just saying, that was indirectly a driving force behind the war. He hated the idea of 'containment' because it was the same one applied to Nazi Germany.

But it wasn't containment as Iraq wasn't actually invading anyone and had long been warded off of Kuwait. When it comes to containment Israel is a far more appropriate example to take the lead on and everyone turns a blind eye. Wolfowitz is full of shit.

The U.S. policy for Iraq under Clinton was 'containment.'

Containment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amat, there is no mention of Iraq in that link and Iraq had nothing to do with so called 'communism' anyway. So, either you are playing games or you are just confused. I stand by my previous arguments. Iraq had nothing to do with so called containment as it simply wasn't expanding anywhere and it was certainly not threatening the so called 'free' West with any alternative ideology.

Wolfowitz is obviously insane if that is what he really believes was happening. Iraq was just another middle east country with serious human rights issues, no different to many other countries in the region. Iraq was preyed upon by America largely because it was convenient to play up Saddam as the great big devil. It helped to deflect attention away from what the current governments in power were doing themselves and also was good for business once the invasion actually went ahead.

I didn't read the wikipedia article before posting so my bad, it doesn't mention Iraq but I honestly figured you knew what it was. So, Iraq wasn't expanding anywhere because of containment! We had Sadaam and Iraq contained, crippled them but then made the mistake of invading. They were crumbling but guys like Paul Wolfowitz and opponents of containment (it's not a hard thing to read up about) denied that it ever worked for Iraq and that was a selling point to the war. Guys like Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney (who formerly was in support of containment) started beating the drums of war, things got rolling quickly and before midterm elections. Scared to lose the fear mongered vote, politicians didn't have the backbone to not support before the war and voted for it. This is where the Senate, Congress and the media failed us. Then of course the war happened. Containment should have stayed US strategy or 'slogan' as one article calls it.


http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128543&page=1
Such attacks would become the administration's favorite military option to enforce the newly emerging policy known as "containment." American and British planes would contain the Iraqi air force, patrolling no-fly zones in the north and south. U.N. inspectors would contain Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Containing Iraq: Sanctions Worked | Foreign Affairs
Contrary to what critics have said, we now know that containment helped destroy Saddam Hussein's war machine and his capacity to produce weapons.


AEI - Papers
"Containment required the continuous engagement of a potent U.S. military force in southern Turkey, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. The United States devoted roughly 28,000 troops, 30 naval vessels, 200 military aircraft and other equipment to Iraqi containment efforts prior to the pre-war buildup."


Differentiated Containment | Foreign Affairs
In its first term, the Clinton administration attempted to deal with the twin dangers of Iran and Iraq through a strategy of "dual containment" that kept both countries boxed in with economic sanctions and military monitoring. Dual containment, however, is more a slogan than a strategy, and far too blunt an instrument to serve American interests in the Middle East. The United States must employ a more nuanced approach, keeping the straitjacket on Saddam while seeking improved relations with Iran.

On the US Policy of Dual Containment of Iran and Iraq
Despite its widespread use, the meaning of the expression is not crystal clear; different individuals have had different interpretations of "containment" of Iran and Iraq. For some, it has meant keeping the two countries militarily, economically, and politically in check. This was the case with Iraq between 1990—when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and United Nations sanctions were imposed on Iraq—and 2003—when the US invaded Iraq for the second time and occupied the country. In the case of Iraq, it was hoped initially that economic pressures through extensive United Nations sanctions, as well as some limited military actions, would create discontent and lead to "regime change."


Barack Obama's Iraq Speech - Wikisource
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.


Amazon.com: Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (9781594201035): Thomas E. Ricks: Books
This book talks a lot about containment and the idea that it worked. If you haven't read this Miles, you really should. It details the entire run up to the war and is in my opinion the definitive book on the War and it's available for $3! Ali Allawi's book gets the attention but Allawi was a fraud himself.

I'm not confused Miles don't be such a prick, I'm basically agreeing with you without you knowing it because you're to eager to cut down other people's opinions. Containment towards Iraq was a very real thing and I believe it was working just like I believe we're working in containing Iran, as evidenced by the raucous wave of the last elections. That regime's foothold is not strong because we have effectively contained them. That's all I'm saying, I'm agreeing with you! Like Obama said, this is a "dumb war" because we had Iraq contained! He believed in the fact that containment was working and now there are few dissenting opinions on that. Wolfowitz and Cheney still rail against containment. Wolfowitz because he believed the Clinton policy was similar to the pre-WWII policy towards Germany. THAT'S ALL I WAS SAYING, just found it ironic. Do you still think 'containment' is a product of my imagination?