Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

If good government consisted of polling the public on every issue and siding with the "majority," you would likely be speaking German in England right now.

If you say so. Doesn't change the fact that Iraq was a 'dirty' affair.

Out of curiousity - what do you think this war is about?

giving the liberals something to whine about

[thesnowman 1]

If good government consisted of polling the public on every issue and siding with the "majority," you would likely be speaking German in England right now.

What are you on about. The UK was at war with Hitler long before America got in the action, we stood up to him and the majority of the country was against what Hitler was doing.

We entered WW2 after our alies Poland got invaded. Where was America when we got attacked, desperatly trying to stay out of the war. Even after Pearl harbour the US only declared war on Japan, it wasnt until Hitler declared war on America did they get involved.

[VivaMexico 0]

If good government consisted of polling the public on every issue and siding with the "majority," you would likely be speaking German in England right now.

What are you on about. The UK was at war with Hitler long before America got in the action, we stood up to him and the majority of the country was against what Hitler was doing.

We entered WW2 after our alies Poland got invaded. Where was America when we got attacked, desperatly trying to stay out of the war. Even after Pearl harbour the US only declared war on Japan, it wasnt until Hitler declared war on America did they get involved.

My point exactly. Most wars are unpopular at the time they are fought. That does not mean they are not a worthy cause! WWII was unpopular in America, and we stayed out of it longer than we should have.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

If good government consisted of polling the public on every issue and siding with the "majority," you would likely be speaking German in England right now.

If you say so. Doesn't change the fact that Iraq was a 'dirty' affair.

Out of curiousity - what do you think this war is about?

Good vs Evil

That's the quick response. I would say deposing a dictator, stabilizing the middle east, killing terrorist thugs, and finding WMDs (which we have, by the way) all make good reasons.

Only one of these came to pass. Saddam is not in power anymore. I've heard about the supposed WMD-dsicovery but that has been disproved several times in the media. The Middle East hasn't been this unstable for a long time, terrorist thugs are the ones doing the killing.

If one does something and the outcome is - as predicted by quite a number of folks in the US - the opposite of the expected outcome than something went horribly wrong.

As to the countries supporting the war, the number is shrinking daily. And many of these countries willingly admitted having been coerced by money, weapons, etc. Even Britain, like the other countries, got a huge boost of US-investment, stabilizing its economy. And, the British public has since learned that it has been deceived into the war and has since been even more opposed.

[ace13 0]

If good government consisted of polling the public on every issue and siding with the "majority," you would likely be speaking German in England right now.

If you say so. Doesn't change the fact that Iraq was a 'dirty' affair.

Out of curiousity - what do you think this war is about?

Good vs Evil

That's the quick response. I would say deposing a dictator, stabilizing the middle east, killing terrorist thugs, and finding WMDs (which we have, by the way) all make good reasons.

Only one of these came to pass. Saddam is not in power anymore. I've heard about the supposed WMD-dsicovery but that has been disproved several times in the media. The Middle East hasn't been this unstable for a long time, terrorist thugs are the ones doing the killing.

If one does something and the outcome is - as predicted by quite a number of folks in the US - the opposite of the expected outcome than something went horribly wrong.

As to the countries supporting the war, the number is shrinking daily. And many of these countries willingly admitted having been coerced by money, weapons, etc. Even Britain, like the other countries, got a huge boost of US-investment, stabilizing its economy. And, the British public has since learned that it has been deceived into the war and has since been even more opposed.

I know I know!! The Boy Scout Pledge just doesn't do it anymore. All world leaders have to be bribed in order to act. They all are spinless.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If good government consisted of polling the public on every issue and siding with the "majority," you would likely be speaking German in England right now.

If you say so. Doesn't change the fact that Iraq was a 'dirty' affair.

Out of curiousity - what do you think this war is about?

Good vs Evil

That's the quick response. I would say deposing a dictator, stabilizing the middle east, killing terrorist thugs, and finding WMDs (which we have, by the way) all make good reasons.

Stabilising the middle east? For what purpose?

It was also claimed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Those claims are pure fantasy. From what I've read - Saddam's regime and the terrorists are politically divergent. Saddam idolized Josef Stalin, and ran his country (after a fashion) in a similar manner. Pseudo-communism is, after all, not a philosophy that is compatible with islamic theocracy (especially considering the sectarian divisions in that country). Saddam's alliance with the US (as he was before he overstepped his bounds and invaded Kuwait, thereby threatening the US' relationship with Saudi Arabia) would more likely make him an enemy in the eyes of Al Qaeda.

Contrary to your statement we have not found WMD's. I read that Fox news report - decaying chemical agents dating back some 10-20 years is not evidence of an advanced and expanding research and production operation - which is what Bush et al consistently claimed.

The reason I asked that question is because ultimately I disagree fundamentally with the assumptions at the core of your argument - that the US is ultimately benign and has no imperialist agenda. There has never been a major world power that was entirely benevolent. Not once. Ever. So Good and Evil? Hardly. This is not a world of absolute truths.

From a historical perspective, the US has shown itself to be just as self serving as any other world major power in history. Since the end of WW2, despite not being directly militarily threatened by any of the countries it has fought against, has used its military to pursue its own self interest (to a greater or less degree). The question I've asked before 'why not Somalia', 'why not Sudan' etc is a valid one. Quite simply this is not a war with any humanitarian aspirations (except perhaps incidentally), neither was Vietnam for that matter.

This is why (as flawed as it is - and clearly in need of some reform) the UN (or similar global organisation) is an important institution and worth defending, lest we return to isolationism and set the conditions that allowed the likes of Adolf Hitler to come to power.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[VivaMexico 0]

History will judge whether going to war in Iraq was a wise decision. The more important question is what to do now...shall we turn tail and surrender to the terrorist thugs, or shall we defeat them and do all Iraqis and the rest of the world a service?

[Fischkoepfin 1]

If good government consisted of polling the public on every issue and siding with the "majority," you would likely be speaking German in England right now.

If you say so. Doesn't change the fact that Iraq was a 'dirty' affair.

Out of curiousity - what do you think this war is about?

Good vs Evil

That's the quick response. I would say deposing a dictator, stabilizing the middle east, killing terrorist thugs, and finding WMDs (which we have, by the way) all make good reasons.

Only one of these came to pass. Saddam is not in power anymore. I've heard about the supposed WMD-dsicovery but that has been disproved several times in the media. The Middle East hasn't been this unstable for a long time, terrorist thugs are the ones doing the killing.

If one does something and the outcome is - as predicted by quite a number of folks in the US - the opposite of the expected outcome than something went horribly wrong.

As to the countries supporting the war, the number is shrinking daily. And many of these countries willingly admitted having been coerced by money, weapons, etc. Even Britain, like the other countries, got a huge boost of US-investment, stabilizing its economy. And, the British public has since learned that it has been deceived into the war and has since been even more opposed.

I know I know!! The Boy Scout Pledge just doesn't do it anymore. All world leaders have to be bribed in order to act. They all are spinless.

It depends on what qualifies as spineless (no government is free of spin). A lot of those nations rely on foreign aid, and the US threatened to cut aid to countries. If you think about it, sending a few troops (and in most cases that's all these countries sent) in exchange for some money helping to keep you in power seems a no-brainer.

As a thought game, what if China or Russia decided to invade Israel because they felt threatened by Israel's WMDs (which do exist). Would we be as non-chalant about it? And if not, what is the difference?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

History will judge whether going to war in Iraq was a wise decision. The more important question is what to do now...shall we turn tail and surrender to the terrorist thugs, or shall we defeat them and do all Iraqis and the rest of the world a service?

Sorry I don't buy that argument. Too many unqualified assumptions. I think its only reasonable to question what the 'war on terror' actually means, certainly what it has become - as I said, little more than an excuse for the US to kick over the anthihlls and take care of unfinished business'.

In any case, were we doing the Iraqis a service when we were supporting Saddam Hussein? Things haven't changed that much you know...

[Fischkoepfin 1]

History will judge whether going to war in Iraq was a wise decision. The more important question is what to do now...shall we turn tail and surrender to the terrorist thugs, or shall we defeat them and do all Iraqis and the rest of the world a service?

I think most Iraqis would prefer if the US had stayed at home. Even three years later basic utility services have not been restored and the country has gotten much more dangerous due to terrorists coming in from abroad.

If, however, you think that it was preferable to invade Iraq so as to create a battlefield to combat terrorists then the invasion was a full-blown success. Just like the Vietnam War helped create insurgents to fight in the jungle.

[VivaMexico 0]

I think most Iraqis would prefer if the US had stayed at home.

Not true. Consult the soldiers on the ground, not the NY Times Editorial page. Relatives of the thousands of kurds that Hussein slaughtered would probably not agree with you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think most Iraqis would prefer if the US had stayed at home.

Not true. Consult the soldiers on the ground, not the NY Times Editorial page. Relatives of the thousands of kurds that Hussein slaughtered would probably not agree with you.

Probably. But the kurds are a minority ethnic group in that country, which is represented predominantly by Shia and Sunni Muslims. The Kurds face their own problems not simply from internal sectarian violence, but from the likes of neighbouring Turkey. There have already been incursions into their territory by Turkish special forces.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I think most Iraqis would prefer if the US had stayed at home.

Not true. Consult the soldiers on the ground, not the NY Times Editorial page. Relatives of the thousands of kurds that Hussein slaughtered would probably not agree with you.

So, you honestly believe that Iraqis enjoy living in a country where you can be ripped apart by some car bomb any time of the day, be it in your house, at school, or at a religious service? Maybe at first people were happy, but there's plenty of evidence that Iraqis are not thrilled by the daily violence and the lack of access to clean water and electricity.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

I think most Iraqis would prefer if the US had stayed at home.

Not true. Consult the soldiers on the ground, not the NY Times Editorial page. Relatives of the thousands of kurds that Hussein slaughtered would probably not agree with you.

Probably. But the kurds are a minority ethnic group in that country, which is represented predominantly by Shia and Sunni Muslims. The Kurds face their own problems not simply from internal sectarian violence, but from the likes of neighbouring Turkey. There have already been incursions into their territory by Turkish special forces.

perhaps they are a minority since saddam was killing them off

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think most Iraqis would prefer if the US had stayed at home.

Not true. Consult the soldiers on the ground, not the NY Times Editorial page. Relatives of the thousands of kurds that Hussein slaughtered would probably not agree with you.

Probably. But the kurds are a minority ethnic group in that country, which is represented predominantly by Shia and Sunni Muslims. The Kurds face their own problems not simply from internal sectarian violence, but from the likes of neighbouring Turkey. There have already been incursions into their territory by Turkish special forces.

perhaps they are a minority since saddam was killing them off

Ethnically speaking, the kurds have always been a minority in that country, along with the marsh arabs for example.