Why Isn't Bush And His Cronies War Criminals?

[Shol'va]

Okay, I'll bite. I don't have the courage to click the link. What's in there?

[sab]

It's certainly true that you have to be a loser to be a countries leader AND the be convicted of war crimes. Countries may throw a few Juniors to the wolves but in General you have to be vanquished to be tried OR be so small that the big countries can arrest you at will.

Secondly you must actually show that the actions are war crimes. The Invasion of Afghanistan was entirely legal. Only the most immature of Canvas radicals can really believe otherwise. iraq is not clear cut. It could go either way. Personally I think once Saddam had broken the terms of the first Gulf war treaty then a second invasion as entirely legitimate but not everyone believes that.

Personally I think this is mostly about people wanting to get Bush any way they can and ,frankly, its rather immature.

For the record I am not fond at all of bush ..or his successor.

[josephpalazzo]

iraq is not clear cut. It could go either way. Personally I think once Saddam had broken the terms of the first Gulf war treaty then a second invasion as entirely legitimate but not everyone believes that.

At the international level, the US did not have UN approval to invade Iraq. Bush is definitely responsible for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed when the US went to bomb the civilian population in March 2003. At that time, Iraq had posed absolutely no threat to the US.

[sab]

iraq is not clear cut. It could go either way. Personally I think once Saddam had broken the terms of the first Gulf war treaty then a second invasion as entirely legitimate but not everyone believes that.

At the international level, the US did not have UN approval to invade Iraq. Bush is definitely responsible for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed when the US went to bomb the civilian population in March 2003. At that time, Iraq had posed absolutely no threat to the US.

1) Not having UN approval does not make an action illegitimate. The UN is not a law making or enforcing body.

2) Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqis were not killed by bombing of civilians in 2003. I don;t play around with absurd figures from lunatic websites. The entire civilian mortality list from 2003 to present is estimated at somewhere between 100 and 150thousand and that is almost all Iraqi versus Iraqi casualties AFTER the invasion.

Civilians killed during the Invasion of Iraq appear to be in the region of 3-4000

[josephpalazzo]

iraq is not clear cut. It could go either way. Personally I think once Saddam had broken the terms of the first Gulf war treaty then a second invasion as entirely legitimate but not everyone believes that.

At the international level, the US did not have UN approval to invade Iraq. Bush is definitely responsible for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed when the US went to bomb the civilian population in March 2003. At that time, Iraq had posed absolutely no threat to the US.

1) Not having UN approval does not make an action illegitimate. The UN is not a law making or enforcing body.

Nonetheless, the international Hague court operates under the UN. It is through these two bodies that war crimes are determined and those who are accused of such crimes are tried. The fact is that G.W. Bush is now a convicted war criminal and does not dare to travel abroad out of fear of being arrested.

2) Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqis were not killed by bombing of civilians in 2003. I don;t play around with absurd figures from lunatic websites. The entire civilian mortality list from 2003 to present is estimated at somewhere between 100 and 150thousand and that is almost all Iraqi versus Iraqi casualties AFTER the invasion.

Civilians killed during the Invasion of Iraq appear to be in the region of 3-4000

My post was not meant to say that on the very day the bombing started, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi were killed on that day only, but rather that many were killed from that day on and throughout the war that lasted more than 10 years. If it caused such confusion, then I apologize. Nevertheless it does not take anything away from the war crimes Bush committed and was subsequently convicted.

[Thumpalumpacus]

1) Not having UN approval does not make an action illegitimate. The UN is not a law making or enforcing body.

Members of the UN are obliged to honor its strictures on the use of warfare, including the appropriate times and places for it.  Relevant to this thread:

The relevance of the constituent instruments and the jurisprudence of the tribunals established after the Second World War with respect to wars of aggression or wars in violation  of international agreements, such as those providing for a declaration of war, could be questioned in the light of further developments culminating in the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations, which prohibited the use of force.3 The instruments that provided for trials after the Second World War defined crimes against peace with reference to wars of aggression or wars in violation of international agreements. However, the tribunals that applied those instruments to determine the lawful or unlawful character of the wars first considered whether the wars were aggressive or defensive in character. They considered it unnecessary to decide whether the wars violated international agreements after finding that they constituted the even greater crime of aggressive war.

http://www.un.org/law/books/HistoricalR ... ession.pdf

Waging aggressive war is in and of itself a war crime.

2) Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqis were not killed by bombing of civilians in 2003. I don;t play around with absurd figures from lunatic websites. The entire civilian mortality list from 2003 to present is estimated at somewhere between 100 and 150thousand and that is almost all Iraqi versus Iraqi casualties AFTER the invasion.

Source, please?

Civilians killed during the Invasion of Iraq appear to be in the region of 3-4000

If you're talking about the period between the end of March 2003 and "Mission Accomplished", perhaps.  However, given that we ourselves dismantled both the Iraqi military and their civilian policing capability, it follows that as the occupying power, we had an obligation to maintain law and order.

[Special B]

"Why Isn't Bush And His Cronies War Criminals?"

They *ARE* war criminals, according to international and U.S. law. They just haven't been tried and convicted because only the losers have to actually face up to their war crimes. While the U.S. has made Iraq, and the whole region, far worse off than it was before the "war", they have still achieved their goals (to make the oil companies, defense contractors, and arms manufacturers richer), so they haven't lost.

If America, as a nation, where to fall, you can bet that some of these war criminals would be brought up on charges. But right now the U.S. is too powerful of a monster. So the question isn't whether they are war criminals or not (they are, and that is not debatable), the question is how did they get away with it, and the answer is: by force.

Reagan got away with multiple counts of high treason. He should have been executed according to U.S. law, but he wasn't. This is nothing new. Laws don't apply to the powerful, until their power is taken away.

[sab]

To Joseph Pallazzo

1) George Bush has NEVER been found guilty of any war crime. I have no idea if you are just making this up or are so uninformed that you actually believe this but it is utter nonsense. You can post the date and place of his being found guilty  i(obviously with evidence) if you believe otherwise.

2) The international criminal court at the Hague has NOTHING To do with the UN. You are possibly confusing it with the International court of justice which rules on disputes between countries and is not concerned with war crimes.

3) The vast Majority of death in iraq are a result of Iraqis killing other Iraqis in the name of their silly religion.

Please get you facts straight before you make such proclamations. I am not a teenager and actually beleive in researching facts before I comment. However old you are I suggest you do the same,

[sab]

Thumpalumpacus

Members of the UN are obliged to honor its strictures on the use of warfare, including the appropriate times and places for it.  Relevant to this thread:

The USA would argue that it wasw entirely appropriate

Waging aggressive war is in and of itself a war crime.

And since the warfare had been started when Saddam invaded Kuwait then it is Saddam who should have been arrested for war crimes

Source, please?

Of course. I don;t make up rubbish to suit my arguments I use actual facts. I suggest you read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project

Civilians killed during the Invasion of Iraq appear to be in the region of 3-4000

If you're talking about the period between the end of March 2003 and "Mission Accomplished", perhaps.  However, given that we ourselves dismantled both the Iraqi military and their civilian policing capability, it follows that as the occupying power, we had an obligation to maintain law and order.

I am talking about exactly that. You (not me don't assume for a moment I am one of you) attempted to maintain law and order. unfortunately Muslims are so bloodthirsty that the US was unable to maintain normal civilised behavior amongst people who have no intention of achieving it. Its the Iraqi gangs who murder people on a daily basis. they deserve the blame.

[josephpalazzo]

To Joseph [s:316g1p3r]Pallazzo[/s:316g1p3r] Palazzo

FIFY

1) George Bush has NEVER been found guilty of any war crime. I have no idea if you are just making this up or are so uninformed that you actually believe this but it is utter nonsense. You can post the date and place of his being found guilty  i(obviously with evidence) if you believe otherwise.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/bush-admin ... ty/5336860

2) The international criminal court at the Hague has NOTHING To do with the UN. You are possibly confusing it with the International court of justice which rules on disputes between countries and is not concerned with war crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... of_Justice

3) The vast Majority of death in iraq are a result of Iraqis killing other Iraqis in the name of their silly religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Please get you facts straight before you make such proclamations. I am not a teenager and actually beleive in researching facts before I comment. However old you are I suggest you do the same,

Apply that wise advice to yourself.

[sab]

Oh this is utterly hilarious. Are you really that Gullible? You have cited the "kuala lumpur war crimes tribunal' which is a creation of the Homophobic Muslim leader of malaysia. They have no power whatsoever to convict anyone. Seriously you really have to question your own sanity to quote this shit. Seriously pal you are off the deep end. Do you watch Press TV as well.


Then you link to me the international court of justice -what exactly are you trying to prove? I already told you it was a place where disputes between countries are resolved and you actually link to it..to prove what exactly?

 :rollin:

And your link listed my figures..thank you for confirming them for me.

 :Hangman:

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Oh this is utterly hilarious. Are you really that Gullible? You have cited the "kuala lumpur war crimes tribunal' which is a creation of the Homophobic Muslim leader of malaysia. They have no power whatsoever to convict anyone. Seriously you really have to question your own sanity to quote this shit. Seriously pal you are off the deep end. Do you watch Press TV as well.


Then you link to me the international court of justice -what exactly are you trying to prove? I already told you it was a place where disputes between countries are resolved and you actually link to it..to prove what exactly?

 :rollin:

And your link listed my figures..thank you for confirming them for me.

 :Hangman:

If the only response you can come up with is to ridicule someone, you should step out of this debate.

[sab]

Oh this is utterly hilarious. Are you really that Gullible? You have cited the "kuala lumpur war crimes tribunal' which is a creation of the Homophobic Muslim leader of malaysia. They have no power whatsoever to convict anyone. Seriously you really have to question your own sanity to quote this shit. Seriously pal you are off the deep end. Do you watch Press TV as well.


Then you link to me the international court of justice -what exactly are you trying to prove? I already told you it was a place where disputes between countries are resolved and you actually link to it..to prove what exactly?

 :rollin:

And your link listed my figures..thank you for confirming them for me.

 :Hangman:

If the only response you can come up with is to ridicule someone, you should step out of this debate.

Why should I ? When someone comes up with such utter nonsesne as the muslim, anti semitic Kuala lumpur war crimes tribunal ONLY ridicule is the appropriate response.  Ill stay in this debate and ridicule anyone who comes up with this lunacy. YOU have no power to order me to do anything...just  like the Kual lumpur qwar crimes tribunal.

[Plu]

Unfortunately, you just wasted whatever credibility you managed to build up with earlier posts.

Also, you will not stay and ridicule whomever you like, you'll discuss things like a rational human, unless you want to be demoted to a chewtoy.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Why should I ? When someone comes up with such utter nonsesne as the muslim, anti semitic Kuala lumpur war crimes tribunal ONLY ridicule is the appropriate response.  Ill stay in this debate and ridicule anyone who comes up with this lunacy.

When you have given reasoning beyond "lol homophobes" and get a stonewalled response, you have the right to ridicule. You also have not adequately explained your position. As it is, you have really done nothing other than ridicule everyone who remotely disagrees with you.

YOU have no power to order me to do anything...just  like the Kual lumpur qwar crimes tribunal.

Fortunately I did not give an order. I merely gave you a helpful suggestion that will prevent josephpalazzo from tearing you a new asshole.