Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Entirely hypothetical - but your point is essentially valid. Considering that Africa has been largely in the grip of famines and civil wars for the last 50+ years, and in that time the international community has provided little in the way of military support to prevent genocide, its certainly reasonable to be suspicious when someone makes the claim that Iraq requires specific, immediate action as opposed to the likes of Somalia (where Taliban style warlords are setting up shop, or Sudan).

Very few wars (if any) are fought for selfless or humanitarian reasons. Iraq certainly wasn't justified in those terms - it was presented as a direct, tangible threat to the national security of the US (via Saddam's alleged WMD) and that Saddam somehow had something to do with 9/11. If you don't believe me go back and read the transcript of Bush's speeches from 2-3 years ago.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fischkoepfin 1]

The problem with the war in Iraq (from the standpoint of international law) is not the intelligence failure, which is why the standpoint of previous administrations doesn't matter. Whatever other administrations thought about Iraq (and it's not just Clinton but Bush 41), they handled it differently. Most importantly, the did not preemptively invade a country.

Preemptive invasion is against international law. That is what the "rogues" do, but not countries who claim moral and political superiority. If you think back a hundred years, you will notice that the US has most often taken a stand against the invader, such as when Saddam preemptively attacked Kuwait or Hitler preemptively attacked Poland (even though he pretended at least that he was just reacting to a Polish attack).

Iraq did not declare war on the US nor did Iraq violate American borders or attack a third nation. The US-attack on Iraq was unprovoked and the non-existent WMD were sold to us as the provocation despite the fact that the UN-team which went there in the months prior to the war assured us there were no WMD.

[PsychoKat 0]

I noticed a few things through this thread I just felt I had to bring up.

Kuwait was justified because Iraq invaded Kuwait, we went under the guise of protecting one country from the invasion of another country which appears all well, good and acceptable as a country that viewed itself as a peace keeper and one that would assist any country seeking freedom.

This war in Iraq was not based on that, it was based on a "fear" they had WMD at a time when our country (post 9/11) became almost phobic about the possibility of outside terrorist attack in an effort to hit first before they hit us. The possibility of them using nuclear weapons against us has been a very strong point in these discussions.

Viewed from that point of view it's easy for people to find justification in the actions regarding Iraq, but stepping back and viewing these actions from a distance as to how things could appear from the outside (of the US) looking in at our actions one might recall some very important history in view of those arguments.

It's not a fear that the US has WMD, it is a known fact that the US has WMD. It is a known fact the US possesses nuclear weapons. It is a known fact that the US has used nuclear weapons with devistating consequences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That last point cannot be said of any country other than the US, not even Iraq.

Which would raise some to question which is more dangerous, a country that may have and use WMD, or a country that does have and has used WMD against another.

Most arguments for the war in Iraq seem to be seated in an US vs THEM mindset. Many against it or against our current government actions are viewed as unpatriotic by those in support of it who hold that US vs Them mindset.

Questioning our government and the actions there of is definately NOT unpatriotic, in fact it's one of the things our country was founded on. In reality based on our Declaration of Independance, it is a very IMPORTANT part of protecting our country and patriotism.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

It's not a fear that the US has WMD, it is a known fact that the US has WMD. It is a known fact the US possesses nuclear weapons. It is a known fact that the US has used nuclear weapons with devistating consequences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That last point cannot be said of any country other than the US, not even Iraq.

what do you consider to be a weapon of mass destruction?

[PsychoKat 0]

It's not a fear that the US has WMD, it is a known fact that the US has WMD. It is a known fact the US possesses nuclear weapons. It is a known fact that the US has used nuclear weapons with devistating consequences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That last point cannot be said of any country other than the US, not even Iraq.

what do you consider to be a weapon of mass destruction?

We are grouping chemical weapons and nuclear warheads in these definitions as a country. We have both.

[incanada1234 0]

LisaD, are you a Bush supporter?

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

It's not a fear that the US has WMD, it is a known fact that the US has WMD. It is a known fact the US possesses nuclear weapons. It is a known fact that the US has used nuclear weapons with devistating consequences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That last point cannot be said of any country other than the US, not even Iraq.

what do you consider to be a weapon of mass destruction?

We are grouping chemical weapons and nuclear warheads in these definitions as a country. We have both.

iraq had chemical weapons, iraq used chemical weapons. end of story.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not a fear that the US has WMD, it is a known fact that the US has WMD. It is a known fact the US possesses nuclear weapons. It is a known fact that the US has used nuclear weapons with devistating consequences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That last point cannot be said of any country other than the US, not even Iraq.

what do you consider to be a weapon of mass destruction?

We are grouping chemical weapons and nuclear warheads in these definitions as a country. We have both.

iraq had chemical weapons, iraq used chemical weapons. end of story.

But not against the US.

[ace13 0]

Is Mother Teresa having WMD and Saddam H. having WMD the same thing? Just curious?

[PsychoKat 0]

It's not a fear that the US has WMD, it is a known fact that the US has WMD. It is a known fact the US possesses nuclear weapons. It is a known fact that the US has used nuclear weapons with devistating consequences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That last point cannot be said of any country other than the US, not even Iraq.

what do you consider to be a weapon of mass destruction?

We are grouping chemical weapons and nuclear warheads in these definitions as a country. We have both.

iraq had chemical weapons, iraq used chemical weapons. end of story.

But not against the US.

That is my point here.

Pretend for a moment you are not a US citizen, that you are from some other country on the outside looking in.

The US could in actuality appear to be MORE of a threat than Iraq, because we are known to have these things and are known to have used them against other countries. Specifically pertaining to the threat of nuclear weapons.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

It's not a fear that the US has WMD, it is a known fact that the US has WMD. It is a known fact the US possesses nuclear weapons. It is a known fact that the US has used nuclear weapons with devistating consequences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That last point cannot be said of any country other than the US, not even Iraq.

what do you consider to be a weapon of mass destruction?

We are grouping chemical weapons and nuclear warheads in these definitions as a country. We have both.

iraq had chemical weapons, iraq used chemical weapons. end of story.

But not against the US.

that was not part of her arguement fish

It's not a fear that the US has WMD, it is a known fact that the US has WMD. It is a known fact the US possesses nuclear weapons. It is a known fact that the US has used nuclear weapons with devistating consequences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That last point cannot be said of any country other than the US, not even Iraq.

what do you consider to be a weapon of mass destruction?

We are grouping chemical weapons and nuclear warheads in these definitions as a country. We have both.

iraq had chemical weapons, iraq used chemical weapons. end of story.

But not against the US.

That is my point here.

Pretend for a moment you are not a US citizen, that you are from some other country on the outside looking in.

The US could in actuality appear to be MORE of a threat than Iraq, because we are known to have these things and are known to have used them against other countries. Specifically pertaining to the threat of nuclear weapons.

certainly, since we've used nukes before

[PsychoKat 0]

Is Mother Teresa having WMD and Saddam H. having WMD the same thing? Just curious?

That argument would not apply. Instead ask, if Mother Teresa bombed a foreign country and killed countless civilians using those WMD's in the past and is still in possession of more of those WMD's, and Saddam H has those WMD's and has used them in his own country to kill countless civilians are they the same thing. Do they both hold the same danger to other countries?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The US in your analogy is 'Mother Teresa'? Hmmmmm..

[ace13 0]

Is Mother Teresa having WMD and Saddam H. having WMD the same thing? Just curious?

That argument would not apply. Instead ask, if Mother Teresa bombed a foreign country and killed countless civilians using those WMD's in the past and is still in possession of more of those WMD's, and Saddam H has those WMD's and has used them in his own country to kill countless civilians are they the same thing. Do they both hold the same danger to other countries?

SH did use CW on other countries, but I don't think that is the point. Whether he is killing foreigners or his own people is not the point at all. It is that he is killing with them, not protecting his people and country.

[john_and_marlene 162]

Regarding using chemical weapons against other countries ... while it is true that Iraq used chemical weapons against Kurdish guerrillas within their own borders in 1988, don't misplace the fact that this was in the eighth year of the Iraq-Iran war and the town where the chemicals were used , Halabja, was only a few miles from the Iranian border and was occupied by Iranian forces at the time. I think this constitutes using WMD against another country.