Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[Gandalf]

I've been reading with interest about the Chilcot Inquiry into the war in Iraq and it all sounds rather unpleasant. All the negative things that many of us felt about the war in Iraq appear to be turning out to be all too true. The entire thing was founded on lies and deception and it has resulted in the death of over half a million innocent people.

So my question is a simple one. Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Miles you tease.


YES!!

[Memphis]

NO

[BIG H]

I see another lighthearted thread in our midst

[Memphis]

Init.

H I think we owe it to the forum to keep this threads feet on the ground before it gets over run with political ranting and quoting of 15 year old UN legislation.

Who do you think would win in a fight, Bush or Blair?

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Init.

H I think we owe it to the forum to keep this threads feet on the ground before it gets over run with political ranting and quoting of 15 year old UN legislation.

Who do you think would win in a fight, Bush or Blair?

Bush would get Jeb to stand in his place.

[BIG H]

Init.

H I think we owe it to the forum to keep this threads feet on the ground before it gets over run with political ranting and quoting of 15 year old UN legislation.

Who do you think would win in a fight, Bush or Blair?

Hahaha

[Howlin Mad Missy]

where are bilbo and hatton?

[Gandalf]

Miles you tease.


YES!!

I couldn't resist...

I know it isn't good form to post links to Daily Mail articles, but this one has a charming image of Blair covered in blood.

Iraq was only fourth on WMD risk list, inquiry hears | Mail Online

There seems to be a fair bit in the media about it all, so it's my new topic of interest. Rather than having an inquiry that has no teeth, I would much rather these two were investigated properly, and if found guilty, put under lock and key for the rest of their lives. They have wreaked unbelievable levels of havoc and destruction in the lands they decided to illegally occupy. Rather than halt terrorism these two clowns have raised anti U.S/British sentiment throughout the world and have probably increased the likelihood of future terrorist attacks. You don't wipe out over a million people around the world and expect nothing in return at some stage along the way.

By putting these two on trial we can show the world that the West isn't quite so bad, and that we can admit that we made a terrible mistake, and hopefully to make future leaders think twice about ever doing something like this again.

[Gandalf]

I think George Bush beats Tony Blair if they were to lace up gloves. He obviously has good upper body movement having avoided that shoe. Tony Blair would have been in serious trouble with that one.

Bush by mid rounds stoppage.

[PRIDE OF BOSTON]

[VictorCharlie]

War is a nasty thing, horrible things happen to all parties involved but the end state is there is no substitute for victory or at least a facsimile of it. World leaders have started wars for less than ethical or even reasonable reasons through out history and will continue to do so. While I agree that the Iraq invasion was on completely false pretenses and that the planning for post invasion Iraq was woefully negligent I don't think any world leader is a "war criminal" for ordering military strikes/invasions even if it is for self serving reasons. Ordering military operations and unintended collateral damage simply don't equate to systematic genocide and intentional targeting of civilian populations in my opinion.

The idea of legality of an invasion seem completely based on what side of the berm you are on. The concept of a legal or illegal invasion just seem very paradoxical to me. I don't really take the UN seriously as any type of arbitrator of what is legal or illegal in a global sense. To me the entire orginization is a bit of a joke.

In regards to the number of civilian casualties suffered in Iraq I find any number that varies from 100k to 1 million to be in question. How many were actual combatants or simply killed by insurgents/terrorists? The truth is it is now doctrine for an adversary to use civilian populations as a shield for combat operations or mask for support operations when involved in an asymmetric war. Insurgencies get to pick the time, place and setting for attacks, so civilians continually find themselves in the middle of a gunfight. As long as militaries find themselves engaged in counterinsurgencies the enemy will always put civlians between themselves and the soldier. I never looked down my rifle at a combatant in Iraq or Afghanistan that was in anything that closely resembled anything other than the normal civilian garb. If you want to blame someone for civilian losses then blame the coward that chooses their homes to hide and fight from.

Lastly while I don't necessarily agree with the way the war in Afghanistan has been carried out I don't see how the invasion of it can be considered in anyway not justified considering it was the originating point for 9/11 and that the Taliban refused to give up Osama when asked.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

War is a nasty thing, horrible things happen to all parties involved but the end state is there is no substitute for victory or at least a facsimile of it. World leaders have started wars for less than ethical or even reasonable reasons through out history and will continue to do so. While I agree that the Iraq invasion was on completely false pretenses and that the planning for post invasion Iraq was woefully negligent I don't think any world leader is a "war criminal" for ordering military strikes/invasions even if it is for self serving reasons. Ordering military operations and unintended collateral damage simply don't equate to systematic genocide and intentional targeting of civilian populations in my opinion.

The idea of legality of an invasion seem completely based on what side of the berm you are on. The concept of a legal or illegal invasion just seem very paradoxical to me. I don't really take the UN seriously as any type of arbitrator of what is legal or illegal in a global sense. To me the entire orginization is a bit of a joke.

In regards to the number of civilian casualties suffered in Iraq I find any number that varies from 100k to 1 million to be in question. How many were actual combatants or simply killed by insurgents/terrorists? The truth is it is now doctrine for an adversary to use civilian populations as a shield for combat operations or mask for support operations when involved in an asymmetric war. Insurgencies get to pick the time, place and setting for attacks, so civilians continually find themselves in the middle of a gunfight. As long as militaries find themselves engaged in counterinsurgencies the enemy will always put civlians between themselves and the soldier. I never looked down my rifle at a combatant in Iraq or Afghanistan that was in anything that closely resembled anything other than the normal civilian garb. If you want to blame someone for civilian losses then blame the coward that chooses their homes to hide and fight from.

Lastly while I don't necessarily agree with the way the war in Afghanistan has been carried out I don't see how the invasion of it can be considered in anyway not justified considering it was the originating point for 9/11 and that the Taliban refused to give up Osama when asked.

people weren't really expecting them to line up on a battlefield and duke it out were they?

yes why bother with the UN unless it agrees with you and ignore it when it doesnt and while we're about it lets forget that pesky geneva convention...oh wait already did that.

[VictorCharlie]

Well Missy actually Yes Bush's administration didn't anticipate an insurgency being an issue at all after the conventional forces were eliminated. But whats your point? Are you absolving them of the blame because it is a good tactic?
U.S. Troops: Make every attempt to not kill civilians as well as do massive humanitarian operations;
Insurgent/Terrorist: Intentionally execute and cause collateral damage as well as destroy infrustructure and the economy;
who is the bad guy again?

When have I "bothered with the UN when it agreed with me"? Actually what I think I said was that it was a joke. If you think it is a worth while org then have at it but to me it is a complete sham and not worth a damn. And yeah fuck the Geneva convention. Rules in war is just as silly as legal or illegal invasion especially when one side is clearly not going to follow them. If you have never been in combat and been moments or inches away from your own demise much less watched your loved ones meet their maker then please just keep your opinions on how war is fought to yourself because its not a movie or a videogame and you have no idea what you are talking about. There is no substitute for victory because anything thing less means your fucking dead.

[Gandalf]

In these wars we are seeing a process of nation building in the strategic interests of the Americans rather than any obvious process of catching terrorists. The bad guys are those that are in countries without any due respect of national borders. It isn't our business to be in these countries telling these people how to live.

Your own attitudes are typical of the right wing from your country and a reason why there can never be any peace. It's always a case of us against them. We are the good guys and they are the bad guys! Sorry, but it isn't as simple as that. You have no respect for any kind of International law and you have no respect for the Geneva conventions. Your elite have always supported Israel in the most hideous way too. No sense of morality or decency whatsoever. Democrat or Republican, it's just a different side of the mask.

You invade countries without just cause nor plan and annihilate hundreds of thousands, disregard international opinion and claim that no law is bigger than the US government. Just like I said to Lyle, it's going to jump up and bite America in the arse. You are creating resentment beyond belief and unlike you, these people won't mind blowing themselves up to get their point home on American soil. It isn't a computer game, but following orders like a lemming is. These wars have no purpose, if you can't see that then you are a lost cause.