Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Either everyone's given up, or they've gone away to consult wikipedia

[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.

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.

Yes, I honestly believe that. Freedom is a powerful thing. Watch Braveheart.

Either everyone's given up, or they've gone away to consult wikipedia

I'm trying to get some work done (but not very successfully!)

Edited July 11, 2006 by VivaMexico

[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.

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.

Yes, I honestly believe that. Freedom is a powerful thing. Watch Braveheart.

You know of course, that Braveheart wasn't exactly an accurate take on that particular period of history. It was however, used in a political context by the Scottish National Party.

Quite simply, I don't think that 'freedom' was anything other than an incidental goal of this war.

[Bosco 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.

I say consult the Iraqis, not the soldiers and not the NYT editorial page.

All the Iraqis I know, with a few exceptions, were initially pleased with Saddam being taken out of power. Month after month of living without security or basic services eventually wore most of them down. A few continued to have hope even longer. The person who remained positive longest ceased to be around the time of Abu Ghraib. For some, the initial happiness and hopefulness became despondency, for most outrage and anger. I would say a few are at the point of hatred towards the U.S. Granted, I don't know a large number of Iraqis to say this is representative of all of Iraqi society, but without exception with those I do know, they all would have prefered the US stayed home (most live in Baghdad). Their anger is not only at the United States but in most cases also at the insurgency. They wish they had been left alone.

If you don't have Iraqi friends, spend a day reading the Iraqi blogs. There are plenty out there. Go back to the beginning and read until now. See how many have fled their country. See the initial optimism and hope and see where it is now. You might find a few upbeat ones but they are by far the exception.

Rebecca

[VivaMexico 0]

You know of course, that Braveheart wasn't exactly an accurate take on that particular period of history. It was however, used in a political context by the Scottish National Party.

Quite simply, I don't think that 'freedom' was anything other than an incidental goal of this war.

#1, I never made any claims about the historical accuracy of Braveheart, and that has nothing to do with the fact that people risk their lives and comforts to achieve freedom.

#2, whether freedom was a goal of the war is irrelevant. The statement I was responding to had to do with whether Iraqis think the violence, etc., is worth it. I would say a great deal of them do think it is better to live through a period of violence and fear to experience something they did not have before.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

#1, I never made any claims about the historical accuracy of Braveheart, and that has nothing to do with the fact that people risk their lives and comforts to achieve freedom.

Never said you did. Only that the movie is a political construction that dispenses with historical accuracy for a very general (and controversial) relative truth.

#2, whether freedom was a goal of the war is irrelevant. The statement I was responding to had to do with whether Iraqis think the violence, etc., is worth it. I would say a great deal of them do think it is better to live through a period of violence and fear to experience something they did not have before.

You think... is not necessarily what 'they' think. See the preceding post.

[VivaMexico 0]

You think... is not necessarily what 'they' think. See the preceding post.

Very true. Just expressing my opinion, as are you.

Just for kicks I'll throw out a philosophical question...if I found 1 Iraqi that thought it was all worth it, would his opinion be invalid because others did not?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You think... is not necessarily what 'they' think. See the preceding post.

Very true. Just expressing my opinion, as are you.

Just for kicks I'll throw out a philosophical question...if I found 1 Iraqi that thought it was all worth it, would his opinion be invalid because others did not?

No. But his opinion doesn't make it any more legal. I should say any less illegal

Edited July 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[VivaMexico 0]

You think... is not necessarily what 'they' think. See the preceding post.

Very true. Just expressing my opinion, as are you.

Just for kicks I'll throw out a philosophical question...if I found 1 Iraqi that thought it was all worth it, would his opinion be invalid because others did not?

No. But his opinion doesn't make it any more legal. I should say any less illegal

[*Robert* 2]

Either everyone's given up, or they've gone away to consult wikipedia

hahahaha

Wikipedia and Google RAWK!!!

[46]

No charges, no trial, no conviction, not a criminal. Easy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No charges, no trial, no conviction, not a criminal. Easy.

I guess the question ought to have been:

Should Bush be prosectuted for war crimes. I'm not sure about the war crimes part, but as I see it there's certainly some case to answered for misusing state resources and lying to the public.

At the end of the day, this is nothing new. Our leaders have always enjoyed ultimate deniability.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[*Robert* 2]

No charges, no trial, no conviction, not a criminal. Easy.

I guess the question ought to have been:

Should Bush be prosectuted for war crimes. I'm not sure about the war crimes part, but as I see it there's certainly some case to answered for misusing state resources and lying to the public.

At the end of the day, this is nothing new. Our leaders have always enjoyed ultimate deniability.

The Monica and Bill Show was much more entertaining... and people weren't dying because of it!

[46]

I suspect this term is being used as a political smear and not in any serious nature.

Please lay-out the violations of US law that would even lead to charges of being a "war criminal."

Edited July 11, 2006 by Gerard

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I suspect this term is being used as a political smear and not in any serious nature.

Please lay-out the violations of US law that would even lead to charges of being a "war criminal."

oh here we go with the un this or un that thanks a bunch!