Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[Scrap]

Ive heard, tell me Im wrong. An American company is getting all the Oil Rights from Iraq, youll never believe who the Chairman of the compant is .

[Kirkland Laing]

In war all parties engage in actions which could be described as "war crimes" (depending on your personal definition I guess). However, only the losers get tried. To paraphrase Robert McNamera, if the U.S. had lost the Second War War those responsible for the firebombings of Japan would considered war criminals...

For my answer: No, they should not be tried. It would be absurd and who has the political authority to prosecute them? Surely not the U.N. Any kind of "trial" would just be a useless exercise of political showmanship.

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Holland, has the authority to try them, like it tried Slobodan Milosevic for ethnic cleansing. Every country in the world is a signatory to the ICC treaty and accepts its authority in these matters apart from the failed state Somalia and the rogue states North Korea and, uh, America.

[Kirkland Laing]

Ive heard, tell me Im wrong. An American company is getting all the Oil Rights from Iraq, youll never believe who the Chairman of the compant is .

The original US plan was to appoint a US-friendly government by Iraqi exiles who were already on our payroll, who would write a constitution which privatised all of Iraq's natural resources (oil and dates ). Iraq's oil, the second-largest* reserve in the world would then be open for international firms to move in, and you can guess which country's firms would have got the lot -- the one whose military bases were keeping the appointed government in power. However this plan was blocked by an Iranian Ayatollah, who issued a fatwa ordering free elections and the winners to write the constitution. The Ayatollah's people, a bunch of Iranian exile terrorist groups, won the election and shockingly are now holding open bids on Iraqi TV to screw every available dollar from the bidding process. The winning firms so far (Chinese, French, British-American) are being forced to pay market andabove-market rates to get any contracts, but the vast majority of Iraq's oilfields either havn't or won't come up for bidding. It's believed that as soon as Iraq develops enough infrastructure to stand on its own two feet that they'll all get the boot and Iraq will produce all its own oil.

*And it may be even bigger than Saudi, the current largest. Iraq has huge areas that haven't even been prospected yet and may hold huge quantities. In either case, at a time when world demand is rubbing up against supply, Iraq is the only country in the world where oil production can be significantly increased. This makes it the most valuable real estate in the world.

[Gandalf]

You had a go at me not 24 hours back for inciting trouble on here and yet it appears the logic of posting this thread is to put another capitalist-socialist divide on the lets get it on

Of course they shouldnt, both made a tough, life changing call but chose to back their instincts for the sake of eventual peace one day within the middle east.

100s of brave heroes have been lost. But in the long run iraq and afghanistan will be free of tyrany and men and women can finally live in a free democratic society

In what way am I trying to incite trouble?

At no point in this thread have I tried to push a socialist agenda, so I don't know where you are coming from when you say that. And stop trying to paint it into such a black and white capitalist/socialist divide. At the end of the day I like the freemarket, but I would like a freemarket that operates with responsibility and provides benefits to society. It's hardly the stuff of a raving communist. Surely, you don't think the system is working too well right now either?

In this case I simply started a thread looking for views on whether Bush and Blair lied to their respective countries, invaded a country illegally and have the blood of thousands of service men and hundreds of thousands of civilians on their hands or not. I have contributed a little myself and have my own views, but most of all I am interested to see what other people have to say about it. I included the poll too, because quite frankly I like to know where my views stand in terms of where others are at in their thinking too. If only I vote yes and a hundred others are voting no for something, then I can see that perhaps my thoughts have become somewhat skewed.

So, you think telling porkies to your own people in an effort to incite fear and to then go ahead and invade without U.N. support is the correct procedure for going to war? Now, if it was solely about regime change and wanting greater influence in the middle east and open access to oil supplies....do you think that would have worked so well? Would we have bought into that so easily. It wasn't just our respective populations that were lied to, it was our armed forces too. Hundreds have died, in this war alone and for what? WMD? There were none! Saddam was a toothless tiger, handicapped for years by sanctions! Yes, he was a bit of a bastard, but even he never wreaked the kind of havoc upon Iraq that we did. And on what pretext was that again? Lies, misinformation, and more lies.

It's all too easy to sit there and with the benefit of hindsight say "at least the evil dictator is gone, we have brought freedom to the people of Iraq". This is called backtracking. What about the democracy in Afghanistan? The government is inneffective, corrupt and women have no rights. Is that what we are fighting for out there?

All in all it makes our nations look like the imperialist aggressors that they are. North Korea has armed itself just in case, and all other nations would be sensible to do the same. Our nations can no longer claim the high ground in anything they do, we have been shown up as lacking in credibility and principles. It will have hurt us in the long run.

[CFH]

In war all parties engage in actions which could be described as "war crimes" (depending on your personal definition I guess). However, only the losers get tried. To paraphrase Robert McNamera, if the U.S. had lost the Second War War those responsible for the firebombings of Japan would considered war criminals...

For my answer: No, they should not be tried. It would be absurd and who has the political authority to prosecute them? Surely not the U.N. Any kind of "trial" would just be a useless exercise of political showmanship.

They had no authority to invade a country that had not attacked them, made no attempt to attack them, didn't have the ability to attack them.

Well done George and Tony for making the West out to be the bullies - which in fact we are.

That means absolutely nothing in terms of their being classified as war criminals. That same logic could be applied to literally hundreds of wars in which no one is termed a war criminal.

By that logic Nixon and LBJ and Kennedy should all be posthumously tried for Vietnam.

[CFH]

In war all parties engage in actions which could be described as "war crimes" (depending on your personal definition I guess). However, only the losers get tried. To paraphrase Robert McNamera, if the U.S. had lost the Second War War those responsible for the firebombings of Japan would considered war criminals...

For my answer: No, they should not be tried. It would be absurd and who has the political authority to prosecute them? Surely not the U.N. Any kind of "trial" would just be a useless exercise of political showmanship.

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Holland, has the authority to try them, like it tried Slobodan Milosevic for ethnic cleansing. Every country in the world is a signatory to the ICC treaty and accepts its authority in these matters apart from the failed state Somalia and the rogue states North Korea and, uh, America.

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

[Gandalf]

In war all parties engage in actions which could be described as "war crimes" (depending on your personal definition I guess). However, only the losers get tried. To paraphrase Robert McNamera, if the U.S. had lost the Second War War those responsible for the firebombings of Japan would considered war criminals...

For my answer: No, they should not be tried. It would be absurd and who has the political authority to prosecute them? Surely not the U.N. Any kind of "trial" would just be a useless exercise of political showmanship.

They had no authority to invade a country that had not attacked them, made no attempt to attack them, didn't have the ability to attack them.

Well done George and Tony for making the West out to be the bullies - which in fact we are.

That means absolutely nothing in terms of their being classified as war criminals. That same logic could be applied to literally hundreds of wars in which no one is termed a war criminal.

By that logic Nixon and LBJ and Kennedy should all be posthumously tried for Vietnam.

I think there is a very case that they should be tried, but I agree with you that the same could be said of those that have instigated countless wars since WW2. It does seem to be the case that only those that get beaten up badly or have no significant clout get put away for these kinds of crimes. In this respect I'm with Kirkland in thinking that they should be investigated and put away, but I have a hard time seeing it ever happen.

[Gandalf]

In war all parties engage in actions which could be described as "war crimes" (depending on your personal definition I guess). However, only the losers get tried. To paraphrase Robert McNamera, if the U.S. had lost the Second War War those responsible for the firebombings of Japan would considered war criminals...

For my answer: No, they should not be tried. It would be absurd and who has the political authority to prosecute them? Surely not the U.N. Any kind of "trial" would just be a useless exercise of political showmanship.

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Holland, has the authority to try them, like it tried Slobodan Milosevic for ethnic cleansing. Every country in the world is a signatory to the ICC treaty and accepts its authority in these matters apart from the failed state Somalia and the rogue states North Korea and, uh, America.

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

On your final point, there is no doubt that the political elite would fight tooth and nail not to allow it to happen as it would set a scary precedent for them. But I'm sure that if you were to conduct polls amongst the general population of both the U.S and U.K you would see a lot of people indicating that these men should be held accountable for the acts they have commited. As far as I recall most polls showed that support for the war was wavering prior to the invasion and world wide there was little support for the actions the U.S. and Britain were about to embark upon. In the eyes of the world, these people probably are war criminals.

[Gandalf]

This pre war article shows that only 25% of the British public thought that there was enough evidence for a pre-emptive strike. And we went along and invaded anyway. Now we know that there really wasn't any evidence and Blair openly lied in order to try and justify going ahead and invading. Totally uncool.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Polls find Europeans oppose Iraq war

[Youngblood]

While I agree about the facts stated, the deception, true reasoning for Iraq and all of it, as CFH has stated, it simply will not happen. SO we can play should we all day, but really, it is just a case of venting your frustrations and anger on a personal level. Barring a world war in the very near future to which all the powers that currently be lose, and there is a complete new world order, it isn't going to happen. So not going to get in a lather about it.

And we in Canada were asked much like the UK was to join in, to just believe the US intelligence (to be provided later) on the WMD's, and we didn't Show us, don't tell us. Not sure how folks think we are often spineless as a nation. Was a pretty bold play imo, that turned out to be the correct play.

We were all for going after the true terrorists, and to Afghanistan we went. Sadly under-trouped and under-planned due all the focus on Iraq. Now that situation is a clusterfuk shitfest too. It could have been dealt with in a unified mass campaign at the time of many nations, but no. Just a mess now also.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

[quote=CFH;816713]

In war all parties engage in actions which could be described as "war crimes" (depending on your personal definition I guess). However, only the losers get tried. To paraphrase Robert McNamera, if the U.S. had lost the Second War War those responsible for the firebombings of Japan would considered war criminals...

For my answer: No, they should not be tried. It would be absurd and who has the political authority to prosecute them? Surely not the U.N. Any kind of "trial" would just be a useless exercise of political showmanship.

They had no authority to invade a country that had not attacked them, made no attempt to attack them, didn't have the ability to attack them.

Well done George and Tony for making the West out to be the bullies - which in fact we are.

That means absolutely nothing in terms of their being classified as war criminals. That same logic could be applied to literally hundreds of wars in which no one is termed a war criminal.

By that logic Nixon and LBJ and Kennedy should all be posthumously tried for Vietnam.[/quote]

maybe they should.

What was the pretext for war? Defence? Bollocks was it.

The basis for invasion was a pack of lies. They've caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Sounds like a criminal act to me.

[CFH]

[quote=Howlin Mad Missy;816740]

They had no authority to invade a country that had not attacked them, made no attempt to attack them, didn't have the ability to attack them.

Well done George and Tony for making the West out to be the bullies - which in fact we are.

That means absolutely nothing in terms of their being classified as war criminals. That same logic could be applied to literally hundreds of wars in which no one is termed a war criminal.

By that logic Nixon and LBJ and Kennedy should all be posthumously tried for Vietnam.[/quote]

maybe they should.

What was the pretext for war? Defence? Bollocks was it.

The basis for invasion was a pack of lies. They've caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Sounds like a criminal act to me.

Aside from the Second World War, which is debatable, name some wars with justifiable or truthful pretexts. There are almost none and it means nothing in terms of defining someone as a war criminal, unless you want to define almost everyone who makes war in that fashion.

Like I said, I'm fundamentally opposed to the likes of Bush and Blair and everything they represent, but they've done nothing that hundreds of others before them have done. The only reason people are whining about it is because it has turned into a protracted struggle. My sympathies lie with those Iraqi's who want nothing but peace and who are dying at alarming rates, if I was one of them I would gladly take up arms against imperialistic aggression, but saying the leaders who started the war should be tried as war criminals, thereby implying they have done something more egregious than those who came before them is ridiculous. They are no more or less guilty that any who came before them.

[CFH]

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Holland, has the authority to try them, like it tried Slobodan Milosevic for ethnic cleansing. Every country in the world is a signatory to the ICC treaty and accepts its authority in these matters apart from the failed state Somalia and the rogue states North Korea and, uh, America.

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

On your final point, there is no doubt that the political elite would fight tooth and nail not to allow it to happen as it would set a scary precedent for them. But I'm sure that if you were to conduct polls amongst the general population of both the U.S and U.K you would see a lot of people indicating that these men should be held accountable for the acts they have commited. As far as I recall most polls showed that support for the war was wavering prior to the invasion and world wide there was little support for the actions the U.S. and Britain were about to embark upon. In the eyes of the world, these people probably are war criminals.

I would be absolutely astounded if any more than a very small minority of Americans felt that Bush should be tried for war crimes. I have no idea what the sentiment is like in the U.K.

[Spicoli]

No they should not.That judgment will have to come at a much higher ...level.The precedent set would be shuttering and set up a constant revolving door of kangaroo courts as each country and its paper pushing leadership is held in check once its costly and permanent actions have been enacted.The real responsibility sits in the hands of a country's citizenry,and with Bush that is where Imo we as a country rolled over with cold feet and stopped demanding answers,playing into a massaged and fed wave of fear.The ones that pay the ultimate price are the men and women sent into war based on flimsy evidence,shallow rhetoric and simple minded catch phrases...as well as the many who never signed up in the first place.A question needed to be asked is if we put the leaders of a country on the stand to face charges how far are we from the military personnel they command following them?

[Gandalf]

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

On your final point, there is no doubt that the political elite would fight tooth and nail not to allow it to happen as it would set a scary precedent for them. But I'm sure that if you were to conduct polls amongst the general population of both the U.S and U.K you would see a lot of people indicating that these men should be held accountable for the acts they have commited. As far as I recall most polls showed that support for the war was wavering prior to the invasion and world wide there was little support for the actions the U.S. and Britain were about to embark upon. In the eyes of the world, these people probably are war criminals.

I would be absolutely astounded if any more than a very small minority of Americans felt that Bush should be tried for war crimes. I have no idea what the sentiment is like in the U.K.

I could see the U.S. arguing more highly for it than you are suggesting, but that is just speculation on my part. I have no actual polls to go on, it would be interesting to find out. Amongst the UK, I would speculate that it would be far higher. We were far less willing to go along with the war and sentiments were far more in line with international sentiment. Even with all the drivel coming from the media and the government trying to build it all up, we were just not so into it. The fall out was inevitable and with all the bullshit now having been made known, I imagine people are angrier than ever. The U.S. population was seemingly far easier to dupe and I struggle to see the fallout having the same kind of impact.