Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

[Fandango 1,439]

And yet, STILL no discussion on pre-Bush prevailing opinion on Iraq and WMDs....

I love selectivity!

Bush isn't doing anything that hasn't been done by previous presidents. It is business as usual. He is however, doing it less transparently and with less regard for public opinion (and he is not as good at concealing it)

Iraq was built on lies, and the 'war on terror' is little more than an excuse to 'kick over the anthills' - essentially free licence for military action with the barest modicum of justification.

But WHERE did the lies start as far as WMDs?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And yet, STILL no discussion on pre-Bush prevailing opinion on Iraq and WMDs....

I love selectivity!

Bush isn't doing anything that hasn't been done by previous presidents. It is business as usual. He is however, doing it less transparently and with less regard for public opinion (and he is not as good at concealing it)

Iraq was built on lies, and the 'war on terror' is little more than an excuse to 'kick over the anthills' - essentially free licence for military action with the barest modicum of justification.

But WHERE did the lies start as far as WMDs?

With Saddam probably

[*Robert* 2]

And yet, STILL no discussion on pre-Bush prevailing opinion on Iraq and WMDs....

I love selectivity!

Bush isn't doing anything that hasn't been done by previous presidents. It is business as usual. He is however, doing it less transparently and with less regard for public opinion (and he is not as good at concealing it)

Iraq was built on lies, and the 'war on terror' is little more than an excuse to 'kick over the anthills' - essentially free licence for military action with the barest modicum of justification.

But WHERE did the lies start as far as WMDs?

With Saddam probably

Agreed. He was the one talking sh*t. He was the one that kicked the inspectors out.

There certainly was just cause to "believe" he had WMDs, especially considering he had SCUD missiles. Its just that the intelligence community couldn't come up with concrete proof, so they made it up, just like they made up the attacks on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin to get congresional approval to attack Vietnam.

Isn't it amazing how history truly repeats itself.

[slim 1,525]

What was the problem with pre-Bush Iraq?

[*Robert* 2]

What was the problem with pre-Bush Iraq?

Was this before, or after, they invaded Kuwait?!!!

Or maybe that was a rhetorical question, because if you don't know the answer... you live with your head in the sand.

[slim 1,525]

So is this before or after we invaded Iraq?

[*Robert* 2]

So is this before or after we invaded Iraq?

#######? Are you trying to say the US invaded Iraq before Iraq invaded Kuwait?

Why don't you just answer my question... before or after Iraq invaded Kuwait?

I suppose you are pro Saddam Hussein too?

[slim 1,525]

Not pro-Saddam, but if you look at what happened in Iraq, pre-Bush (and just which Bush are we talking about here?) there was a war with Iran (which was supported... BOTH SIDES...by the U.S.), then there was the invasion of Kuwait with the subsequent @$$-kicking back to the borders and the years of UN sanctions which were working just fine at "containing" the problem.

Any problems in Iraq, as far as the security of the U.S. was concerned, were stuck within the borders of Iraq and being held in by the combination of Saddams tyrannical reign and the U.S. military presence in the region that forced compliance with UN Resolutions.

I'm still not sure where you're going with this... what were the pre-Bush problems in Iraq?

[*Robert* 2]

I'm still not sure where you're going with this... what were the pre-Bush problems in Iraq?

I don't think there was anything going on in Iraq that wasn't already going on in N. Korea. Even if Saddam had WMDs, or stores of Chemicals, or all the other possible threats, the truth is, N. Korea is more of a threat than Iraq ever will be, but it wouldn't have been as easy to invade N. Korea. Then there are the oil fields, and I'm not even going to touch that one.

I hear what your saying, and it is extremely hard to justify invading Iraq. I personally wish all of our troops were removed from that God forsaken dessert, but until we get a new president, that doesn't have his head up his azz... we're stuck with the current situation.

Edited July 11, 2006 by roi_aggie

[slim 1,525]

I'm still not sure where you're going with this... what were the pre-Bush problems in Iraq?

I don't think there was anything going on in Iraq that wasn't already going on in N. Korea. Even if Saddam had WMDs, or stores of Chemicals, or all the other possible threats, the truth is, N. Korea is more of a threat than Iraq ever will be, but it wouldn't have been as easy to invade N. Korea. Then there are the oil fields, and I'm not even going to touch that one.

I hear what your saying, and it is extremely hard to justify invading Iraq. I personally wish all of our troops were removed from that God forsaken dessert, but until we get a new president, that doesn't have his head up his azz... we're stuck with the current situation.

Couldn't agree more!

So... what do we do???

[*Robert* 2]

Couldn't agree more!

So... what do we do???

The only thing we can do Slim... VOTE!

Vote out the bad, and hopefully vote in the good, or as it is most of the time, choose between the better of two evils!

[thesnowman 1]

Personally I think we should have toppled Sadam during the first Gulf war, I don't like Sadam and I think he is a horrid dictator who committed horrible atrocities.

However we didn't topple him then, what gave us the right to go and invade his country in 2003. He was contained, he couldn't attack us never mind israel we should have let time kill him then push for change. Bush and Blair either outright lied or used selective intelligence to deceive us (in the UK they released this dossier that was filled with flawed intelligence that MI5 told Blair wasn't conclusive, but he used it anyway).

At the moment there are numerous counties around the world (especially in Africa) where genocide and ethnic cleansing are taking place, the UN has made resolutions saying as such, and the US has admitted that too, BUT we are doing nothing.

Why invade Iraq under the banner of peace and freedom, but then deny the same opportunities to countries where they really want and could do with our help.

by the way the UN is only as effective as the countries it represents. If there is no political will within the countries for action then nothing will happen and this can be said for any organization that attempts to patrol the world.

Since WW2 the US has taken upon its self to be the protectors of peace and freedom. The inaction of the international community in ww2 let Hitler do what he did and any opportunity for a safer world should be applauded, I just the US should 'do as I do' not 'do as I say'.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

At the moment there are numerous counties around the world (especially in Africa) where genocide and ethnic cleansing are taking place, the UN has made resolutions saying as such, and the US has admitted that too, BUT we are doing nothing.

Why invade Iraq under the banner of peace and freedom, but then deny the same opportunities to countries where they really want and could do with our help.

Because it was never about that. WMD was the excuse for a pre-emptive invasion that was pre-planned (which in itself was a lie seeing as Bush made out very clearly that it was a 'last resort')- add to that noone would have gone along with it, if the government's case had not been couched in the language of 'imminent threat' and was somehow linked to 9/11. Only when the physical evidence didn't match those grandiose claims was the language changed to suggest that we wanted to 'help the Iraqis' all along. Fraid it just isn't true.

by the way the UN is only as effective as the countries it represents. If there is no political will within the countries for action then nothing will happen and this can be said for any organization that attempts to patrol the world.

True.

Since WW2 the US has taken upon its self to be the protectors of peace and freedom. The inaction of the international community in ww2 let Hitler do what he did and any opportunity for a safer world should be applauded, I just the US should 'do as I do' not 'do as I say'.

Hmmmmm... I wonder what is mean't by 'protectors of peace and freedom'. Rather a loaded phrase is it not?

[ace13 0]

I am sure if we invaded genocide stricken African countries you could all come up with twisted horrific self-serving reasons we would do that, too. And we should, by the way.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I am sure if we invaded genocide stricken African countries you could all come up with twisted horrific self-serving reasons we would do that, too. And we should, by the way.

and they'd want us doing so with bows and arrows to give the opposing side a fair chance