Do you think George Dubya Bush is a war criminal?

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.

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.

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.

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.