Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Jail Bush and Blair

Options
  • 05-02-2010 8:41pm
    #1
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭


    There were no WMD:s in Iraq. It was all lies. Because of these lies many many innocent people are dead. Slobodan Milosevic was hung for his war crimes, so why can't they at least try Bush and Blair for war crimes? They would probably be found guilty.


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    magma69
    Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭magma69


    It may very well happen a couple of decades from now when both are old men. I'm sure it would be difficult to prosecute them and I am very uneducated in terms of the procedure of impeaching war criminals. There are many respected intellectuals who maintain the invasion of Iraq was in direct violation of the Nuremberg principals and should be dealt with in the same fashion.


  • Options
    #3
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Slobodan Milosevic was hung for his war crimes

    Nope he actually died of a heart attack.


  • Options
    #4
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    It will never happen. Only last week Bliar continuing his lies to save his corrupt self at the Chilcot hearings. He said there was no deal struck with Bush to invade Iraq but according to

    The leader of Plaid Cymru's MPs has said he has a memo showing Tony Blair and George Bush struck a secret deal to invade Iraq a year before the 2003 war.

    Elfyn Llwyd told the BBC's Straight Talk he had written to Iraq Inquiry chair Sir John Chilcot to say he would be prepared to hand the document over.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8501131.stm


    Bliar was intent on war no matter what he says now.


  • Options
    #5
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    deadtiger wrote: »
    Nope he actually died of a heart attack.
    Sorry I mixed him up with someone else.


  • Options
    #6
    magma69
    Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭magma69


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Sorry I mixed him up with someone else.
    That dudes name was Saddam Hussein ;).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    Are there any reasons Bush and Blair should not be tried for war crimes other that it could turn out to be really embarrassing for the political establishment?


  • Options
    #8
    One Of Shanks
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭One Of Shanks


    Never happen.

    Certain countries and certain people are above international law.

    What SHOULD be done and what WILL be done are two very different things.

    Bush is guilty as sin, imo. Blair followed him down the wrong path like a daft puppy. Does that make him as guilty? Possibly.

    But I'd put my house on it that neither of them will ever face further charges.

    If they did what they did as leaders of a less powerful and less influential nation, then they'd be hung out to dry.

    But seeing as that isn't the case, I wouldn't hold my breath for either of them ever suffering for their wrongdoings.

    Sad, but true


  • Options
    #9
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Should elder Bush also be tried for going into Iraq after Kuwait? What about Clinton for bombing former Yugoslavia?


  • Options
    #10
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    What about Winston Churchill for invading Europe and Dwight D Eisenhower for war crimes posthumously, Throw in Field Marshall Montgomery and General Colin Powell and Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf, Douglas McArthur, Patton, go on you might as well try them all .

    Shower of warmongers the lot of them, that's what you want isn't it.


  • Options
    #11
    Trotter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭Trotter


    If they hadn't gone into Iraq, would Saddam now be gassing more innocent Kurds?

    I know many people have strong feelings and opinions about the Iraq war, but its important to remember that it wasn't exactly a human rights fanatic that was in charge of the place. People were dying in Iraq in huge numbers well before the USA and UK showed up. Right or wrong, those lives meant just as much to some family as those that have been lost during/since the war.

    Im not saying I was delighted to see a war, far from it in fact, but Iraq wasn't a safe place before it happened either. Its important to remember that too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,826 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Trotter wrote: »
    If they hadn't gone into Iraq, would Saddam now be gassing more innocent Kurds?

    I know many people have strong feelings and opinions about the Iraq war, but its important to remember that it wasn't exactly a human rights fanatic that was in charge of the place. People were dying in Iraq in huge numbers well before the USA and UK showed up. Right or wrong, those lives meant just as much to some family as those that have been lost during/since the war.

    Im not saying I was delighted to see a war, far from it in fact, but Iraq wasn't a safe place before it happened either. Its important to remember that too.

    yes, i feel it was worth the sacrifice. as iraq is a peace- loving place now. where women are equal in society. to be openly homosexual is fine, whereas in the past homosexuals were tortured and killed. the health system in Iraq is top class. there are no bombs going off killing dozens every week.


  • Options
    #13
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,826 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    astrofool wrote: »
    Should elder Bush also be tried for going into Iraq after Kuwait? What about Clinton for bombing former Yugoslavia?

    i agree. it is only the losers in war and those not amenable to western interests whose crimes should be highlighted. those good dictators- the ones on our side - should have their indiscretions overlooked. afterall, there are strategic alliances and economic interests to maintain


  • Options
    #14
    Trotter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭Trotter


    nacho libre wrote: »
    yes, i feel it was worth the sacrifice. as iraq is a peace- loving place now. where women are equal in society. to be openly homosexual is fine, whereas in the past homosexuals were tortured and killed. the health system in Iraq is top class. there are no bombs going off killing dozens every week.

    I never said Iraq was any of those things now. I pointed out that Iraq was an awful place before the war. Would you prefer if I hadnt mentioned that? Pre and post war Iraq were/are a disaster for humanity.


  • Options
    #15
    thetonynator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭thetonynator


    its at times like this that what jim corr says makes some sense . . .;)


  • Options
    #16
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,826 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Trotter wrote: »
    I never said Iraq was any of those things now. I pointed out that Iraq was an awful place before the war. Would you prefer if I hadnt mentioned that? Pre and post war Iraq were/are a disaster for humanity.

    So are you saying the war was overall a disaster and therefore pointless? Since in many ways the lives of Iraqis are worse than they were before?


  • Options
    #17
    Teclo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 496 ✭✭Teclo


    What does it matter that a war is lawful or unlawful? Who decides which is which? The same people get killed.


  • Options
    #18
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,826 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Teclo wrote: »
    What does it matter that a war is lawful or unlawful? Who decides which is which? The same people get killed.

    well, if there was an official legal deterrent, such as the kampala proposal, it might makes certain leaders think twice before comitting crimes of aggression for expansionist reasons that are packaged and sold to people as spreading freedom and democracy.


  • Options
    #19
    Trotter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭Trotter


    nacho libre wrote: »
    So are you saying the war was overall a disaster and therefore pointless? Since in many ways the lives of Iraqis are worse than they were before?

    I'm only saying that I'd like the current commentary on the evils of Bush and Blair to take into account the evils of Saddam. I'm not going to jump to your side of the fence, or the other side, as is my right.

    The lies about WMD were a disgrace. Saddam's gassing of children was a disgrace. I believe the war in Iraq was wrong, and I believe if Saddam was still alive and in charge, there still would be people dying in horrendous circumstances at his hands. There would still be shocking instability in the region as there is now.

    However I wonder if those who campaign against Bush and Blair would campaign as vigourously about Saddam's actions if he were still a dictator.

    I hope so.


  • Options
    #20
    Teclo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 496 ✭✭Teclo


    nacho libre wrote: »
    well, if there was an official legal deterrent, such as the kampala proposal, it might makes certain leaders think twice before comitting crimes of aggression for expansionist reasons that are packaged and sold to people as spreading freedom and democracy.

    Somebody is still deciding on what is aggression and expansion, on who needs or doesn't need freedom and democracy. Who are these people? Can we believe that they have no agenda of their own? Can we believe that the world will be a better place for all if they impose their will on others?


  • Options
    #21
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,826 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Trotter wrote: »
    I'm only saying that I'd like the current commentary on the evils of Bush and Blair to take into account the evils of Saddam. I'm not going to jump to your side of the fence, or the other side, as is my right.

    The lies about WMD were a disgrace. Saddam's gassing of children was a disgrace. I believe the war in Iraq was wrong, and I believe if Saddam was still alive and in charge, there still would be people dying in horrendous circumstances at his hands. There would still be shocking instability in the region as there is now.

    However I wonder if those who campaign against Bush and Blair would campaign as vigourously about Saddam's actions if he were still a dictator.

    I hope so.

    i don't see how condemning Blair and Bush is somehow implict approval of Saddam's crimes. lest you be getting a false impression, let me be clear i don't dispute that Saddam was a nasty piece of work. However, there are many other nasty pieces of work who remain in power because they essentially play ball with the west.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,588 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    i don't see how condemning Blair and Bush is somehow implict approval of Saddam's crimes. lest you be getting a false impression, let me be clear i don't dispute that Saddam was a nasty piece of work. However, there are many other nasty pieces of work who remain in power because they play essentially ball with the west.

    Isnt that essentially trying to have it both ways?

    You didnt like Saddam, he was a corrupt and evil dictator - but removing him by force was a war crime?


  • Options
    #23
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    SLUSK wrote: »
    There were no WMD:s in Iraq. It was all lies. Because of these lies many many innocent people are dead. Slobodan Milosevic was hung for his war crimes, so why can't they at least try Bush and Blair for war crimes? They would probably be found guilty.
    From the moment I first heard reference to WMD I thought so what if there is or isn't. If they weren't there then it wasn't because Saddam was too moral to acquire or use them. Certainly a case could have bene made that removing Saddam would perversely make things worse. But as an instinctive (un thought-threw!) reaction to such a thug getting sorted out, then I have to say I never felt greatly troubled about whether it was properly legal or not.


  • Options
    #24
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,826 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Teclo wrote: »
    Somebody is still deciding on what is aggression and expansion, on who needs or doesn't need freedom and democracy. Who are these people? Can we believe that they have no agenda of their own? Can we believe that the world will be a better place for all if they impose their will on others?


    so you believe the likes of the ICC have a surreptitious agenda? presumably then you feel it is wrong to try the likes of Bashir and others who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, because those seeking to do so must have a hidden agenda and by doing so they are acting in a tyrannical manner just as those who commit such crimes.

    how is bringing such loathesome people to account making the world a worse place? doing so might act as a deterrent, if such people knew there was a potent institution that could force them to account for their crimes.


  • Options
    #25
    Kevster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭Kevster


    astrofool wrote: »
    Should elder Bush also be tried for going into Iraq after Kuwait? What about Clinton for bombing former Yugoslavia?

    On that note, have any of you ever got the feeling that Bush Jnr. only went into Iraq because his father had failed to overthrow Saddam years earlier? There was one moment when Bush Jnr was giving one of his 'trademark' speeches before the invasion where he said (about Saddam): "...after all, he tried to go agfter my dad". I think it was the Gulf War, right? I'm not a historian.


  • Options
    #26
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,826 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Sand wrote: »
    Isnt that essentially trying to have it both ways?

    You didnt like Saddam, he was a corrupt and evil dictator - but removing him by force was a war crime?

    well, according to the former attorney general in Britain it was a crime, until he bowed to political pressure.

    my position, irrespective of the legality of the war, is that it was morally wrong to remove Saddam. i know that will seem perplexing to you, but i don't believe killing hundreds of thousand of innocent people is ever justified when the primary reason for doing so is for economic reasons.


  • Options
    #27
    Truthrevolution
    Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭Truthrevolution


    Get real, Bush and Blair will never be tried for war crimes, just like Obama and Gordon Brown will not be tried for invading Iran next year.....


  • Options
    #28
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,588 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    well, according to the former attorney general in Britain it was a crime, until he bowed to political pressure.

    my position, irrespective of the legality of the war, is that it was morally wrong to remove Saddam. i know that will seem perplexing to you, but i don't believe killing hundreds of thousand of innocent people is ever justified when the primary reason for doing so is for economic reasons.

    So, basically, it is trying to have it both ways.


  • Options
    #29
    Kevster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭Kevster


    Truthrevolution wrote: »
    Get real, Bush and Blair will never be tried for war crimes, just like Obama and Gordon Brown will not be tried for invading Iran next year.....
    lol... you need to "get real" too. An invasion of Iran will not happen. America is 'bankrupt' and it's military is stretched. Also, a recent report in the UK said that the military there will have to side with other nations' militaries in the future if they want to remain imposing.

    You must recall too that Iran has growing allies, including Russia, China, and Venezuela. They might not openly admit to being friendly with Iran (except for Chavez), but you know damn-well that they all have a common anti-American theme.


  • Options
    #30
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    Just because a country is a dictatorship does not give other countries the right to start a war against it and kill alot of their civilians. Does anyone honestly believe they went to war to fight for the freedom of the Iraqi people?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Truthrevolution
    Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭Truthrevolution


    Kevster wrote: »
    lol... you need to "get real" too. An invasion of Iran will not happen. America is 'bankrupt' and it's military is stretched. Also, a recent report in the UK said that the military there will have to side with other nations' militaries in the future if they want to remain imposing.

    You must recall too that Iran has growing allies, including Russia, China, and Venezuela. They might not openly admit to being friendly with Iran (except for Chavez), but you know damn-well that they all have a common anti-American theme.

    Come on man, open your eyes its like watching the WMD build up in 2002 all over again, only this time the stakes are much higher


Advertisement