Do you think George Dubya Bush is a war criminal?

Terry

prinz wrote: »

Hang on, America cannot pick and choose the laws. On one hand you want them to bring democracy, on the other they should be laying down the law and telling the Afghan parliament what to do...... which way do you want it? It tooks years after our country was founded to correct that loophole so I'm not going to berate Afghanis for taking time to embrace real freedoms and human rights either. They don't have a lot of experience.

I never wanted them to bring democracy anywhere.
It's not their place to tell other countries how to run things.

Murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians?
People die in invasions. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed when the allies pushed the nazis across Europe....... were they wrong to do it? No. That's the worst argument of all.

Plus most of the civilians are being killed by the insurgents bombings, who often times aren't even Iraqi. That is when they're not getting children and mentally handicapped girls to blow up soldiers at checkpoints.

People die in invasions.
Ahh, well that's ok then.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed by American bombs, but it's ok because people die in invasions?

What did these civilians do to deserve this?

As for insurgents, I think you have been watching too much Sky news.
If someone invaded Ireland, I'd be taking out as many of the ****ers as possible.
They are not insurgents. They are patriots.

Tyranax wrote: »

No. He is not a war criminal. Why? Because, as has been mentioned, first of all Congress approved the war. They even gave him lots more money to fund it when he went back for it. He comprehensively won a re-election, against an admittidley weak opponent, or rather an opponent who failed to advertise himself effectively. Furthermore, where did George Bush order actions that could be construed as war crimes? Directly, where did that happen? I'm not saying that war crimes haven't occured, such as the murder of civilians, by some soldiers, and with regards to the blackhearted operations of the likes of PMC's like Blackwater, who were given impunity, and protection from prosecution??!? That was seriously wrong. But Bush himself did not personally sanction that, or directly approve it. Now, with regards Cheney and Rumsfeld, who had fingers in pies in some of the companies that were there, that's a different matter.


Bush is no inoccent in this story. In all likelyhood, they knew well in advance that there were no WMD's in Iraq.Furthermore, it's easy to be wise after the fact. But a lot of people went along with the idea that there were WMD's in Iraq. I certainly believed at the time that it was possible. I supported the war at the time. The war was done well. The aftermath of it was butchered. There was no plan. None. That to me, if not a war crime, is tantamount to criminal negligence on that Administrations part. But that's another discussion.


There was a suggestion in The Guardian's article on the British in Iraq a couple of days ago that Blair had agreed to join George's jaunt a full two years before it even happened, which is just incredible. But he will not be found guilty of war crimes. Nor should he be. He didn't commit them.

One word: Gitmo.

If Bush is not responsible for the deaths of the Iraqi civilians, then Hitler is not responsible for the deaths of all those Jews.

brianthebard

Dude you just godwined your own thread.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Bush is really under-rated as a comedian. Back when Russia invaded Georgia, he said "Russia has invaded a sovereign state...such an action is not acceptable in the 21st century."
Who says he can't do irony?

I think his administration doesn't see Iraq/Afghanistan as an Invasion, rather an Armed Intervention.

The Agenda in Afghanistan was to hunt down rogue Terrorist cells.

The Agenda in Iraq was to overthrow the Saddam regime and install a new indigenous democratic government, and seek and destroy WMDs.

The Agenda in Georgia was to Seize and Occupy.

Banquo wrote:

Twice, tens of millions of Americans voted him in, the second time in full knowledge of the past consequences and future plans for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kerry and the Democratic party totally fudged the election. Lets leave it there or risk going OT.

As for the Saudis, the US wants to be and will be well rid of them once they become energy independent. To quote Clarkson "back to carpet making for you lot"

I fcuking wish! Thats hard to imagine given how the country is structured. My Jeep Grand Cherokee is a 3.7 v6 monster with 16.5 mpg. My dads Jeep Commander is a Jeep Commander 4.7 v8 with 15 mpg. The mass transit systems (Greyhound, Amtrak) are owned iirc by investors with interests in Oil and Auto - they want you to buy cars. They want you to buy gas, because it makes them a profit. They don't want you to buy a Tesla Roadster and they don't want you to power it off a wind turbine or a solar panel or a fusion plant, because in the Long Run, there is no money to be made in renewable energy for these folks. If the country wanted to become energy dependent we would be building nuclear, exporting coal and going mainstream electric by the end of 2010, and I just dont see it.

And you're right, because all the while it means we are teabagging the saudi royal family.

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Yes, but so was every American president that lead during war-times in the passed 100 years.

The Americans committed war-crimes in WW2, Vietnam and Iraq.

Prosecution for war crimes only happens when a government has been completely militarily defeated.

So nothing is gonna be done to owl Georgie.

The world is not fair... Tough sh1t!!!!

This is all true. Also, Saddam was only tried when he and his regime were overthrown. Currently, we do not try the war crimes of African Warlords much either.

This raises another question: How many wars can you cite off where no war crimes were committed by either side?

Terry wrote:

People die in invasions.
Ahh, well that's ok then.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed by American bombs, but it's ok because people die in invasions?

True, but at the risk of going Guliani on this thread, 9/11 saw lots of civilians killed, both domestic and foreign. Who was going to try those war-criminals/terrorists that hatched the plan? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? No, someone had to go in and do it themselves, unfortunately.

Whoever was in charge of those bombs was nothing but emotional I think. Certainly a black mark on the record of the military. So-called Smart Bombs. No disrespect to those to serve, but I must confess I feel that there were many in the operation at the time who felt vindicated to do what they did - and they knew what they were doing. Again, I could go further on this point, but what I would have to say next drags this off on a wild tangent, so I'll pause.

ShooterSF

Terry wrote: »

One word: Gitmo.

If Bush is not responsible for the deaths of the Iraqi civilians, then Hitler is not responsible for the deaths of all those Jews.

Surely you don't think Gitmo and the concentration camps are the same?

Terry

Overheal wrote: »

True, but at the risk of going Guliani on this thread, 9/11 saw lots of civilians killed, both domestic and foreign. Who was going to try those war-criminals/terrorists that hatched the plan? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? No, someone had to go in and do it themselves, unfortunately.

Whoever was in charge of those bombs was nothing but emotional I think. Certainly a black mark on the record of the military. So-called Smart Bombs. No disrespect to those to serve, but I must confess I feel that there were many in the operation at the time who felt vindicated to do what they did - and they knew what they were doing. Again, I could go further on this point, but what I would have to say next drags this off on a wild tangent, so I'll pause.

Going off topic?
All I really wanted were yes or no answers.

9/11?
The revenge for the deaths of 3,000 people was the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?
That's a bit disproportionate, isn't it?

Afghanistan?
They were after Bin Laden. They still haven't caught him and are now bombing Pakistan. Where is this going to end?
Why did they not do this after the first bomb at the WTC?

Overheal

Terry wrote: »

Going off topic?
All I really wanted were yes or no answers.

9/11?
The revenge for the deaths of 3,000 people was the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?
That's a bit disproportionate, isn't it?

Yes it is... but where I was going to go OT was suggest that these soldiers felt vindicated not only by 9/11 but by the Religious Implication... which is a whole other kettle of fish, and I have probably just become flame-bait.

Afghanistan?
They were after Bin Laden. They still haven't caught him and are now bombing Pakistan. Where is this going to end?
Why did they not do this after the first bomb at the WTC?

Isn't Pakistan a Nuclear Power? Isn't it also an ally? I have been under the impression up to now those were the reasons we were in talks so long with Pakistan about chasing insurgents into their borders before we finally decided in the last 6 months or so (?) to just go ahead and do it. I think most of them have been UAV strikes.

prinz

Terry wrote: »

I never wanted them to bring democracy anywhere.
It's not their place to tell other countries how to run things.

Oh right so what was that about the Americans leaving Afghan women to legal marital rape? You're contradicting yourself. Either you want democracy and human rights or you don't.

Terry wrote: »

People die in invasions.
Ahh, well that's ok then.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed by American bombs, but it's ok because people die in invasions?

Uhm..yeah pretty much. If the allies had followed your view nobody would have stood up to the likes of Hitler in case civilians get killed in the crossfire Bizarre attitude. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed as the allies swept across Europe to liberate country after country from tyranny and dictatorship... this is the first time I've heard anyone use that as a reason that they shouldn't have done it.

Terry wrote: »

What did these civilians do to deserve this?

Better question what did they do to deserve Saddam, remember this was a man who tested his new weapons on his own Iraqi people for years.Was hated by much of the Arab world as a bully and a despot and at one stage in an "election" got 100% of the vote based on a 100% turn out. Not even Dubya managed that one.

Terry wrote: »

As for insurgents, I think you have been watching too much Sky news.
If someone invaded Ireland, I'd be taking out as many of the ****ers as possible.
They are not insurgents. They are patriots.

..........right........ so bombing market places and Mosques and murdering Iraqi civilians is patriotism if they do it.......

Terry wrote: »

If Bush is not responsible for the deaths of the Iraqi civilians, then Hitler is not responsible for the deaths of all those Jews.

Like I said do you think Churchill should have gone on trial for war crimes against the Germans? tbh there's actually a better case to be made there.

prinz

Terry wrote: »

Why did they not do this after the first bomb at the WTC?

Because Clinton was too busy in the Oral office.He was afraid of flexing military power after that.

Frankie Lee

Bill Clinton is a war criminal also. See the bombing of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 on the basis of false evidence.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Uhm..yeah (....)have done it.
.

What countries was Saddam going to invade?

AckwelFoley

Trying to label bush a war criminal is laughable.

im at pains to understand why there is no witch hunt when it comes to real criminals like the great zimbabwae administration or perhaps china, north korea or the serbs?

...oh wait, i do know..its anti americanism.. People just love to hate america regardless of what they do.

Frankie Lee

snyper wrote: »

Trying to label bush a war criminal is laughable.

im at pains to understand why there is no witch hunt when it comes to real criminals like the great zimbabwae administration or perhaps china, north korea or the serbs?

...oh wait, i do know..its anti americanism.. People just love to hate america regardless of what they do.

No I hate all mass murderers equally.

Morzadec

prinz wrote: »

That's the difference between global consensus and agreement and unilateral action with no justification other than to interfere in Georgian affairs, between ethnicities.

Global agreement? I think you'll find the U.N. voted against the Iraq war and Bush went ahead anyway. The undermining of the U.N.'s decision inclines me to say 'yes' he is a war criminal. If it was a leader of any other country who went against the U.N.'s decision we wouldn't even be having this debate. No other country in the world would've been able to go against the U.N., which was supposed to be set up so maniacs like Bush wouldn't be able to invade countries at will with no justification.


What makes it even more sickening was that the U.S.'s decision wasn't even justified - no WMD's were found.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Not only do I believe that if he'd been another countries leader he'd be facing trial in The Hague, but I also believe he's a very evil person and probably a lunatic.

.

FlutterinBantam

Terry wrote: »

I do and I have my reasons.
Unsanctioned invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gitmo and the breaches of the Geneva convention make him twice as bad as the supposed terrorists he was chasing.

His close relationship with the Saudis (A country which treats women as slaves) was sickening (Obama is no different).

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

There's a poll.
Vote in it in the way you want. It's private.
Feel free to voice your own opinion within the site rules.

No I don't.

Overheal

Frankie Lee wrote: »

No I hate all mass murderers equally.

Can you distinguish clearly between the United States and a Warlord that burns villages, rapes girls and women and brainwashes children to be boy soldiers? Say what you will about GW but I dont think he raped any kids.

ShooterSF

Frankie Lee wrote: »

No I hate all mass murderers equally.

So if an Army starts killing people how do you propose stopping them?

dlofnep

Yes, he is a war criminal.

Holding people in what could only be described as a concentration camp.. Internment without trial, and disgusting torture of people who have no been found guilty in a court of law.

I believe many members of his camp should also be up for war-crimes, for leading the American public into a war in Iraq on false pretenses. Now don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see the back of Saddam - But I'm not happy with how America went about doing it. They lied to their own citizens in order to get them to support the war in Iraq.. It has lead to 100,000's of deaths, and absolutely zilch has been accomplished. Iraq is the same ****-hole, if not worse than it was 10 years ago.

My gripe isn't so much with Bush, I think he was a puppet - But with his camp and government. They dictate who's the terrorist and who isn't. They dictate what's right and what's wrong, even if it means contradicting themselves.

They get onto China about human rights issues (which I agree with), but they themselves have breached basic human rights with Guantanamo.

It's not a witch-hunt against American, but rather - against a moronic Government who tries to dictate to the world what's what.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

Can you distinguish clearly between the United States and a Warlord that burns villages, rapes girls and women and brainwashes children to be boy soldiers? Say what you will about GW but I dont think he raped any kids.

No, but if you followed Seymour M Hersh's articles in the New Yorker, you'd know its probable that children were raped to put pressure on prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and certainly that men were anally raped with implements in Baghram.......

nlgbbbblth

Overheal wrote: »

Can you distinguish clearly between the United States and a Warlord that burns villages, rapes girls and women and brainwashes children to be boy soldiers? Say what you will about GW but I dont think he raped any kids.

yeah - Bush didn't kill anyone. If you wanna blame anyone then blame the US soldiers themselves. No one forced them to join the army.

Frankie Lee

ShooterSF wrote: »

So if an Army starts killing people how do you propose stopping them?

Whatever Gandhi would have done, mass protests, civil disobedience etc.

Frankie Lee

Overheal wrote: »

Can you distinguish clearly between the United States and a Warlord that burns villages, rapes girls and women and brainwashes children to be boy soldiers? Say what you will about GW but I dont think he raped any kids.

Most of the time the Warlord is funded by the US and uses US built weapons, so its difficult to distinguish.

Of course China and Russia do this also but not on such a widespread scale.

ShooterSF

Frankie Lee wrote: »

Whatever Gandhi would have done, mass protests, civil disobedience etc.

Ok. To each their own I guess. I know I'd rather fight back than say "Hey don't you point that gun at me".

Overheal

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

yeah - Bush didn't kill anyone. If you wanna blame anyone then blame the US soldiers themselves. No one forced them to join the army.

Interesting point. But remember in Vietnam and Korea there was a Draft (though there has not been one sinc) and those soldiers did burn villages and rape women. Who gets the blame? The government that conscripted the individual or the individual who committed an act which was entirely outside of what he was trained and ordered to do?

Also - Movie Reference - but if you remember a Few Good Men, the 2 marines involved were still found guilty of conduct unbecoming a US Marine, and were dishonorably discharged from the service. They were following an Order, passed on from a Lieutenant which came from a Colonel, but they were still expected to have an understanding of the actions they were carrying out. The Colonel in this case violated a Standing Order from a JAG Rear Admiral.

Despite being ordered to torture and interrogate detainees in Guantanamo, those Soldiers still deserve to stand trial, imo. And go along up the chain until you find the original order. However, Obama very recently exercised his Office to Pardon these individuals: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055541103 In a way if you were to persecute those individuals you would have to persecute anyone who ordered them to do it, and we all know where that chain ends up, and I don't think Obama would really have the stones to go that far - this was the easy out.

nlgbbbblth

Overheal wrote: »

Interesting point. But remember in Vietnam and Korea there was a Draft (though there has not been one sinc) and those soldiers did burn villages and rape women. Who gets the blame? The government that conscripted the individual or the individual who committed an act which was entirely outside of what he was trained and ordered to do?

In Vietnam / Korea, the individual soldier should get the blame.

Terry

ShooterSF wrote: »

Surely you don't think Gitmo and the concentration camps are the same?

Of course not. I never so much as implied they were.
forget the concentration camps for a minute and think about all the Russians killed when Hitler invaded Russia.

Gitmo is a place where the Geneva convention is completely ignored and it was Dubya who gave those orders.

prinz wrote: »

Oh right so what was that about the Americans leaving Afghan women to legal marital rape? You're contradicting yourself. Either you want democracy and human rights or you don't.

Why have they not taken out the current president of Afghanistan if they are so worried about marital rapes?
Oh yeah, the war monger is no longer in power.

I didn't agree with how the Taliban were running Afghanistan, but I also did not agree with the way Bush went in guns a blazin'.

Uhm..yeah pretty much. If the allies had followed your view nobody would have stood up to the likes of Hitler in case civilians get killed in the crossfire Bizarre attitude. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed as the allies swept across Europe to liberate country after country from tyranny and dictatorship... this is the first time I've heard anyone use that as a reason that they shouldn't have done it.

Not comparable.
Hitler and the Axis were invading countries around the world.
The Afghans were shooting people with AK47's (and some CIA supplied arms).
Saddam allowed (eventually) Hanz Blix and his crew into Iraq and they confirmed there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Better question what did they do to deserve Saddam, remember this was a man who tested his new weapons on his own Iraqi people for years.Was hated by much of the Arab world as a bully and a despot and at one stage in an "election" got 100% of the vote based on a 100% turn out. Not even Dubya managed that one.

That's not a better question. That's just a statement trying to undermine my argument.
All the Americans had to do was send in a few CIA dudes and let them loose.
The Iraqis could also have fought against Saddam.
With the right amount of organisation, dictators can be taken out and with far less casualties than an American led bunch of cowboys.

..........right........ so bombing market places and Mosques and murdering Iraqi civilians is patriotism if they do it.......

Nope. That's idiocy.
Shooting occupying soldiers does not make you an insurgent though.

Like I said do you think Churchill should have gone on trial for war crimes against the Germans? tbh there's actually a better case to be made there.

So because Bush won, that makes everything ok?

ShooterSF

Terry wrote: »

Of course not. I never so much as implied they were.
forget the concentration camps for a minute and think about all the Russians killed when Hitler invaded Russia.

Gitmo is a place where the Geneva convention is completely ignored and it was Dubya who gave those orders.

Your comparison not mine I think he went overboard I also think it was probably an extreme paranoid reaction he had to 9/11 and not a premeditated plan beforehand. It still could have been handled a hell of a lot better.

So because Bush won, that makes everything ok?

There is a precedent to be fair. Name one leader who won a war and was prosecuted for war crimes without being captured by more powerful enemies.

Overheal

Terry wrote: »

forget the concentration camps for a minute and think about all the Russians killed when Hitler invaded Russia.

Gitmo is a place where the Geneva convention is completely ignored and it was Dubya who gave those orders.

You're still comparing a detainment camp to the field of battle, versus soldiers and civilians who were killed and prisoners who are fed and accommodated, who have also, subsequently, been interrogated and tortured. No mass killings in gitmo. No Nazi's gunning down fleeing Russians with Lugers.

Why have they not taken out the current president of Afghanistan if they are so worried about marital rapes?
Oh yeah, the war monger is no longer in power.

I don't know much about Afghanistan but I assume to believe a democratic govt is in place? And these people still voted to maintain this law? Majority rules, what can you do?

Not comparable [Allies retake of Europe : Middle East conflict].
Hitler and the Axis were invading countries around the world.
The Afghans were shooting people with AK47's (and some CIA supplied arms).

The afghans had leading terrorist cells operating within their borders, manipulating the actions of multiple other terrorist cells, across The World.

Saddam allowed (eventually) Hanz Blix and his crew into Iraq and they confirmed there were no weapons of mass destruction.

From our perspective, Saddam could have had enough time (for as long as he stalled for - days if not weeks) to conceal his nuclear proliferation program, or have it dismantled and buried in sand temporaily. Essentially, all the time was lost from the Credibility of Hans Blix's invespection.

All the Americans had to do was send in a few CIA dudes and let them loose.
The Iraqis could also have fought against Saddam.
With the right amount of organisation, dictators can be taken out and with far less casualties than an American led bunch of cowboys.

The Bob Woodward book, Plan of Attack, goes into vivid detail about the planning stages of the Iraq War - those options were discussed, but for reasons many and varied, the option to use military force was ultimately invoked.

Nope. That's idiocy.
Shooting occupying soldiers does not make you an insurgent though.

When its against the agenda of the standing indigenous government, yes it is. This isn't like when Hitler invaded France and a french man shoots an occupying Nazi: this would be like if Hitler overthrew the Monarchy in France, installed a French Run government elected by the people of France, supplied peace forces to maintain stability during the New Government's formation, and then a Monarchy-loving Frenchman kills a Nazi.

So because Bush won, that makes everything ok?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

When he left office in 1953, Truman was one of the most unpopular chief executives in history. His job approval rating of 22 percent in the Gallup Poll as of February 1952 was actually lower than Richard Nixon's was in August 1974 at 24 percent, the month that Nixon resigned. Public feeling toward Truman grew steadily warmer with the passing years, however, and the period shortly after his death consolidated a partial rehabilitation among both historians and members of the general public. Since leaving office, Truman has fared well in polls ranking the presidents. He has never been listed lower than ninth, and most recently was seventh in a Wall Street Journal poll in 2005. He has also had his critics. After a review of information available to Truman on the presence of espionage activities in the U.S. government, Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan concluded that Truman was "almost willfully obtuse" concerning the danger of American communism.[166]
Truman died during a time when the nation was consumed with crises in Vietnam and Watergate, and his death brought a new wave of attention to his political career.[167] In the early and mid-1970s, Truman captured the popular imagination much as he had in 1948, this time emerging as a kind of political folk hero, a president who was thought to exemplify an integrity and accountability many observers felt was lacking in the Nixon White House. Truman has been portrayed on screen many times, several in performances that have won wide acclaim, and the pop band Chicago recorded a nostalgic song, "Harry Truman" (1975).
Due to Truman's critical role in the US government's decision to recognize Israel, the Israeli village of Beit Harel was renamed Kfar Truman.
The Truman Scholarship, a federal program that seeks to honor U.S. college students who exemplified dedication to public service and leadership in public policy, was created in 1975.[168]
The President Harry S. Truman Fellowship in National Security Science and Engineering, a distinguished postdoctoral three-year appointment at Sandia National Laboratories was created in 2004.[169]
In 1951 President Truman established the Science Advisory Committee as part of the Office of Defence Mobilization. Renamed the President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, it lasted until President Nixon disbanded it. It was reinstated by the first Bush administration under the name PCAST.
The USS Harry S. Truman was named on September 7, 1996. The ship, sometimes known as the 'HST', was authorized as USS United States, but her name was changed before the keel laying.
The University of Missouri established the Harry S. Truman School of Public Affairs to advance the study and practice of governance.[170] The university's Missouri Tigers athletics programs have an official mascot named Truman the Tiger.
To mark its transformation from a regional state teachers' college to a selective liberal arts university and to honor the only Missourian to become president, Northeast Missouri State University became Truman State University on July 1, 1996. A member institution of the City Colleges of Chicago, Harry S Truman College in Chicago, Illinois is named in honor of the president for his dedication to public colleges and universities. The headquarters for the State Department, built in the 1930s but never officially named, was dedicated as the Harry S Truman Building in 2000.
In 1991, Truman was inducted into the Hall of Famous Missourians, and a bronze bust depicting him is on permanent display in the rotunda of the Missouri State Capitol.
Thom Daniel, grandson of the Trumans accepted a star on the Missouri Walk of Fame in 2006 to honor his late grandfather. John Truman, Truman's nephew, would accept a star for Bess Truman in 2007. The Walk of Fame is in Marshfield, Missouri, a city Truman visited in 1948.

Done reading that passage?

this is the man that effectively dropped the two biggest bombs in recorded history: Little Boy, and Fat Man. He has not been tried for War Crimes, and never will be. Nor will his predecessor, who sanctioned the Manhattan Project. GWB can't hold a roman candle to HST, literally, or figuratively.

giggsy664

I demand "I don't care" be replaced with "Arabi Jaguar"

Overheal

giggsy664 wrote: »

I demand "I don't care" be replaced with "Arabi Jaguar"

Or Iraqi Jaguar..

Nodin

Or ' O ma Gawd, they're comin right at us'

Irishcrx

America have been war criminals for many years they just cover and lie through their teeth anyone with half a brain could see this they have had relations with so many middle east countries they don't care about the people american or otherwise it's all money and power.

prinz

Terry wrote: »

Why have they not taken out the current president of Afghanistan if they are so worried about marital rapes?
Oh yeah, the war monger is no longer in power.

So you think they're wrong to spread democracy, but when they do establish a fledgling democracy they are wrong for not imposing outside laws on the elected government of the country......... damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Terry wrote: »

I didn't agree with how the Taliban were running Afghanistan, but I also did not agree with the way Bush went in guns a blazin'.

You love the old cowboy stereotype.I suppose that applies to the many many many countries who have contributed to the force in Afghanistan?

Terry wrote: »

Not comparable.
Hitler and the Axis were invading countries around the world.
The Afghans were shooting people with AK47's (and some CIA supplied arms).
Saddam allowed (eventually) Hanz Blix and his crew into Iraq and they confirmed there were no weapons of mass destruction.

So Saddam didn't invade countries around him? Test WMD on his own civilians? Cause the deaths of far far far more Iraqis than have lost their lives since the war? The Taliban were training recruits from across the world the best ways to go about murdering and terrorising on a grand scale.

Terry wrote: »

That's not a better question. That's just a statement trying to undermine my argument.
All the Americans had to do was send in a few CIA dudes and let them loose.
The Iraqis could also have fought against Saddam.
With the right amount of organisation, dictators can be taken out and with far less casualties than an American led bunch of cowboys.

So a war is a war crime, but sending in a hitsquad is ok? Really hilarious this argument. Absolutely nonsensical given your overall position on this.

Terry wrote: »

Nope. That's idiocy.
Shooting occupying soldiers does not make you an insurgent though.

In case you hadn't noticed they're not occupying. They are present at the invitation of the Iraqi government to maintain the peace and security which would not be possible without their help.If the Americans had packed up and gone home and left a bloody civil war behind them the same people would be damning them for not staying put.

Terry wrote: »

So because Bush won, that makes everything ok?

No that's not my point.Presumably you harbour the same sentiments for other world leaders past and present?

Pocono Joe

NO! I’m pretty confident history will be far more kind to GWB than most here are (but not when it comes to fiscal responsibly). He left Obama with the kinds of powers and institutions he needs to prevent further attacks, and successfully prosecute the long war on terror (a new kind of war all nations need to figure out how to combat). He left behind the Department of Homeland Security, reorganized intelligence services with newly developed capacities to share information, and a revised FISA regime that grants broader and modernized wiretapping authority. If Obama chooses to abandon these tools, and we are attacked again, I doubt history will be kind to Barack.

PeakOutput

i hate the guy and think he is an idiot but no he is not a war criminal

going into iraq was the right thing to do imo (weather or not they did it for the right reasons is irrelevant imo no country with the power to remove a dictator like saddam should stand by and do nothing) and they won the war fairly quickly the mess it descended into afterwards was the mistake.

jhegarty

The big problem with the whole WMD thing was that Sadam wanted everyone to think he had them.

He played silly beggers with the UN because he knew Iran would kick his ass if they found out he didn't have them.

The only difference between Sadam and Hitler was how good their respective armies were.

I don't agree with gitmo , but I think the world in 2025 will be a better place because of the two invasions.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

So Saddam didn't invade countries around him? Test WMD on his own civilians? ?

2002 wrote:

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

(my bold and underline)

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force

(my bold and underline again)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

Libya...that lost a war with Chad....

Prinz wrote:

In case you hadn't noticed they're not occupying. They are present at the invitation of the Iraqi government to maintain the peace and security which would not be possible without their help.

So they helped establish a Government that then requested them to stay....very convincing.

The majority of Iraqi oil fields are in Foreign control, and the economy is organised along lines set down by the unelected CPA run by Bremer, who used staffers strictly from the right of the US political spectrum....Hmmmm. Very 'mission accomplished'

prinz

So he didn't invade Kuwait, fight a war with Iran, fire missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel? He didn't test out his new toy poison gas on the IRAQI town of Halabjah to see if it was any use, so he could then use it on Iran?

A secret top-level meeting about a possible future conflict, of course it was not to be distributed to the press, so don't see what that has to do with anything.Saddam got enough warnings about the threat of military action against him.

As for Iran, North Korea and Libya, fire ahead. It wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest to see those little tinpot tyrants go either. The problem is Saddam was a bad leader, with limited resources despite what he liked to claim he had, whose people were terrified of him, had very little control over the population or army once the invasion began, and the country collapsed.

Attack Iran and you may kiss a lot of Israel goodbye, plus the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would put up a proper fight against groundtroops. You think 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths is bad, multiply that figure by 5, 10.... and you might start getting a picture of what a similar assault on Iran would look like.

Ditto if not worse for North Korea.1,100,000 ideological, highly trained and equipped troops just itching to go to war, plus a Revolutionary Red Guard of up to 5,000,000 more. You want to guess how many would die in that invasion?

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

So he didn't invade Kuwait, fight a war with Iran, fire missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel? He didn't test out his new toy poison gas on the IRAQI town of Halabjah to see if it was any use, so he could then use it on Iran?

Seeing as he was backed by the US during that period, I fail to see the relevance of bringing it up to say it justified an invasion by that same state. The fate of the Kurds and the Iraqi people only became "important" when Saddam bucked US interests.

Secondly, you seem to forget that the vast bulk of his military and weapons manafacturing was destroyed and dismantled during and post Gulf War 1.

prinz wrote: »

A secret top-level meeting about a possible future conflict, of course it was not to be distributed to the press, so don't see what that has to do with anything.

Then I'll point it out to you. Its the view of the US chief allys Government. It states that the US had decided to go to war, and explains that the whole buisness of the Weapons inspectors was a ruse to justify war. It shows that they did not consider him a threat to his neighbours, and that the public line of him threatening them, the British or the Americans was in fact a complete fabrication. It shows that the US had put little planning into the aftermath, which was to have grave consequences for the Iraqi people.

And yes, it wasn't distributed to the press. What was distributed to the press and the British parliament was a series of half truths, lies, wild speculation and cherry picked facts to justify a war that there was in fact no need for.

wes

prinz wrote: »

So he didn't invade Kuwait, fight a war with Iran, fire missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel? He didn't test out his new toy poison gas on the IRAQI town of Halabjah to see if it was any use, so he could then use it on Iran?

The West supported his war against Iran, and also were supported him, during the period where he gassed the Kurds.

As for invading Kuwait and firing missiles at Saudi Arabia, yeah he did those things and the West invaded him during the first Gulf War. What does this have to do with justifying the second one? It has feck all to do with it. Personally, the war of aggression launched by the US/UK axis is no different than Saddam's war against of aggression against Kuwait.

Now after the first gulf war, he had no capability to attack anyone and was already punished by sanctions which resulted in a lot of civilian deaths, especially among children. He was no threat anyone at this point in time and was not engaged in any aggression.

prinz wrote: »

A secret top-level meeting about a possible future conflict, of course it was not to be distributed to the press, so don't see what that has to do with anything.Saddam got enough warnings about the threat of military action against him.

So? The US wanted a war with a nation and made up lies about WMDs and what. So what if they gave him warning? He had no WMDs. It was the US who were in the wrong in this instance.

prinz wrote: »

As for Iran, North Korea and Libya, fire ahead. It wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest to see those little tinpot tyrants go either. The problem is Saddam was a bad leader, with limited resources despite what he liked to claim he had, whose people were terrified of him, had very little control over the population or army once the invasion began, and the country collapsed.

So he clearly wasn't a threat to anyone.

prinz wrote: »

Attack Iran and you may kiss a lot of Israel goodbye, plus the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would put up a proper fight against groundtroops. You think 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths is bad, multiply that figure by 5, 10.... and you might start getting a picture of what a similar assault on Iran would look like.

Ditto if not worse for North Korea.1,100,000 ideological, highly trained and equipped troops just itching to go to war, plus a Revolutionary Red Guard of up to 5,000,000 more. You want to guess how many would die in that invasion?

What exactly is your argument here?!? How does it justify the Iraq invasion?

**EDIT**
Oh and Bush is a war criminal and should be sent to the Hague and would hopefully be sharing a cell with Omar Al-Bashir, but I think I have a better chance winning the Euro Millions and the Irish Lotto jack pots in the same week.

Sanjuro

PeakOutput wrote: »

i hate the guy and think he is an idiot but no he is not a war criminal

going into iraq was the right thing to do imo (weather or not they did it for the right reasons is irrelevant imo no country with the power to remove a dictator like saddam should stand by and do nothing) and they won the war fairly quickly the mess it descended into afterwards was the mistake.

The quagmire that resulted from the invasion of Iraq was the inevitable progression of the planning process that happend before the invasion. Before the allies invaded Europe to overthrow the Nazis, they spend three years planning the aftermath of the war. The Bush administration spend little more than four or five months planning the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion. It was a rush job that had absolutely no foresight. Therefore, the invasion of Iraq was a massive mistake.

Saddam Hussein was of little threat to the western world. He was a c**t, no doubt about it. He was a murderer, despot and all-round jerk. But there was little justification to going into Iraq and deposing him and installing a puppet government. Even by a humanitarian point of view, there are many more despots who are far worse for the people they rule over. WMDs, Hussein being a threat to the west, Iraq being a safe-haven for members of the so-called Al Qaeda and Iraq's connection witht the 9-11 hijackers... all of these excuses are at best spurious.

An Fear Aniar

He didn't organise mass executions or genocidal campaigns so no, not a war criminal.


.

wes

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

He didn't organise mass executions or genocidal campaigns so no, not a war criminal.


.

There are more war crimes than just those.

Black Swan

Baby Bush claimed two pretexts for war. Invading Iraq for non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and erroneous connections between Saddam and OBL? Besides, Shotgun Cheney whispered in his ear that the yellow cakes were being delivered to Saddam, even after the CIA agent was outed and Scooter was convicted. What more do politicians need to justify war? German soldiers dressed up as Pols attacking German radio stations? Or some Archduke snob getting shot in Austria?

Pocono Joe

Blue, Blue, Blue… trying to rewrite history again? Let me remind you...

GWBUSH: Good evening. I'm pleased to take your questions tonight and to discuss with the American people the serious matters facing our country and the world.

This has been an important week on two fronts -- on our war against terror. First, thanks to the hard work of American and Pakistani officials, we captured the mastermind of the September 11th attacks against our nation.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed conceived and planned the hijackings and directed the actions of the hijackers. We believe his capture will further disrupt the terror network and their planning for additional attacks.

Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror.

In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will receive an update from the chief weapons inspector. The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed as required by Resolution 1441 or has it not?

Iraq's dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying a few missiles, missiles that violate the restrictions set out more than 10 years ago.

Yet our intelligence shows that even as he is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles.

Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors.

In some cases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.

We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate with U.N. inspectors.

Scientists are required by Iraqi intelligence to wear concealed recording devices during interviews, and hotels where interviews take place are bugged by the regime.

These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world.

If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it because we would see it. Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors and the world would witness their destruction.

Instead, with the world demanding disarmament, and more than 200,000 troops positioned near his country, Saddam Hussein's response is to produce a few weapons for show, while he hides the rest and builds even more.

Inspection teams do not need more time or more personnel. All they need is what they have never received, the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime.

Token gestures are not acceptable. The only acceptable outcome is the one already defined by a unanimous vote of the Security Council: total disarmament.

Great Britain, Spain and the United States have introduced a new resolution stating that Iraq has failed to meet the requirements of Resolution 1441. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied.

Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possess weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists, terrorists who would willing use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries.

Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people.

If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force even as a last resort, free nations would assume the unacceptable risks.

The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, show what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.

We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons.

In the event of conflict, America also accepts our responsibility to protect innocent lives in every way possible.

We will bring food and medicine to the Iraqi people. We will help that nation to build a just government after decades of brutal dictatorship.

The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein.

Across the world and in every part of America people of good will are hoping and praying for peace. Our goal is peace for our nation, for our friends and allies, for the people of the Middle East.

People of good will must also recognize that allowing a dangerous dictator to defy the world and harbor weapons of mass murder and terror is not peace at all, it is pretense.
The cause of peace will be advanced only when the terrorists lose a wealthy patron and protector, and when the dictator is fully and finally disarmed.

Tonight I thank the men and women of our armed services and their families.
I know their deployment so far from home is causing hardship for many military families. Our nation is deeply grateful to all who serve in uniform.

We appreciate your commitment, your idealism and your sacrifice. We support you. And we know that if peace must be defended, you are ready.

biko

At the Nuremberg trials the defendants were tried, convicted and executed for "an aggressive war". A war of aggression is a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense.
Much like GWD and Blair in Iraq...

markesmith

I voted yes, but I think history will record Dubya as a patsy who was beholden to the interests of the military-industrial complex and the oil lobby. And I think that the overlapping vested interests of a lot of different interest groups co-ordinated, whether consciously or not, the path to war. Fox News, neo-conservatives, Lockheed Martin, and so on.

I've found that the sniping rightwingers have died down in number. Either they're not on the internet as much anymore, or they've changed their colour. But for a while there I thought the US was just gone to hell, falling out with any country that didn't toe the "let's invade Iraq" line.

That said, I do believe that what he did was fundamentally wrong, and I always felt that his "aw, shucks" smirk in his interviews was more like a sh*t-eating grin, as if he knew we knew he was lying, and he was laughing at us.

All in all, a sad and shameful period in America's history.

Overheal

Magnus wrote: »

At the Nuremberg trials the defendants were tried, convicted and executed for "an aggressive war". A war of aggression is a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense.
Much like GWD and Blair in Iraq...

Yeah...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war#Authorization_for_the_use_of_force

Again, we are comparing America to Nazi Germany. Its a far stretch to familiarize Nazi Megalomania and their stated goal of Ethnic and Racial Cleansing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany), and this:

With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the US Congress passed the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq on October 11, 2002, providing the Bush Administration with the legal basis for the U.S. invasion under US law. The resolution asserts the authorization by the Constitution of the United States and the United States Congress for the President to fight anti-United States violence. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by US President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[101] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[101] Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. on February 3, 2003 was designed to influence U.N. members that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. France even believed that Saddam had stockpiles of anthrax and botulism toxin, and the ability to produce VX.[102] But in March, Blix said no evidence of WMDs had been found, and progress had been made in inspections.[49]

I think we can toss out the notion this was a War of Aggression. Reminder: The Iraqi Liberation Act was signed into law by Clinton.

The US wanted a war with a nation and made up lies about WMDs and what.

To emphasize, it was Hans Blix to originaly note that Iraq was resisting its obligation to disarm, and that large quantities of hazardous materials remained unaccounted for.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war#Authorization_for_the_use_of_force

Again, we are comparing America to Nazi Germany. Its a far stretch to familiarize Nazi Megalomania and their stated goal of Ethnic and Racial Cleansing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany), and this:

[/SIZE]


I think we can toss out the notion this was a War of Aggression. Reminder: The Iraqi Liberation Act was signed into law by Clinton.

The Nazi's are hardly the only people to engage in a war of aggression. The US polcies don't have to match up with the Nazi's for there invasion of Iraq to be a war of aggression.

Also, the US passing a law so they can invade Iraq, doesn't invalidate the accusation that there war against Iraq was a war of aggression. Iraq was no threat to the US, the US decided to invade for whatever insane reasons they had. This is what make it a war of aggression. The US saying it ok for themselves to invade Iraq is meaningless.

Overheal wrote: »

To emphasize, it was Hans Blix to originaly note that Iraq was resisting its obligation to disarm, and that large quantities of hazardous materials remained unaccounted for.

So? Hardly proof he had them and as we know now, he didn't have any such weapons.

The US was not under any threat from Iraq regardless. The US could have worked with the UN, to sort out the non-threat of Saddam. A lot of complete crap was spewed out by the US/UK axis and a lot of there absurd claims were shown to false post invasion.

An Fear Aniar

Magnus wrote: »

At the Nuremberg trials the defendants were tried, convicted and executed for "an aggressive war". A war of aggression is a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense.
Much like GWD and Blair in Iraq...

Yes, but the Nuremberg Principles differentiate between "War Crimes" and "Crimes Against Peace".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles

So, no. Bush is not a war ciminal.

The charge of "Crime Against Peace" could be levied against any nation that goes to war - it's a political matter.


.