Bush should be up for War Crimes

[Deckard59]

Since it's now obvious to everyone in the United States, although the rest of the world knew before the war started, that there was never W. of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the question remains, what right did the United States have to attack Iraq.

True, Iraq didn’t meet all the requests of the Weapons Inspectors, but there was nothing to find. Iraq’s objections and lack of cooperation was somewhat within reason, especially now, when we can clearly see that Bush and the rest of the hawks were just using the United Nations.

Some do see the truth as to what happened, but still many fellow Americans feel they can pat themselves in the back because of all the horrific murders and human rights violations that they’ve uncovered and stopped. They feel that if the US didn’t go, those things would still be continuing today. That point maybe true, but in no way does that give a country the right to attack another country. All though not on the same scale, every country in the world is guilty of human rights violations, even the US.

When anyone looks now, it’s obvious to see that the United States only motive in attacking Iraq was because of Greed, Money and Power.

Without any legitimate reasons, it’s clear that the leader of such an aggressive war mongering country should be up for war crimes.

[Paavo]

He should, that's obvious to 99% of the world's population, but he won't. Thanks to some sleeping, thickheaded people in the US of A. :rolleyes:

[Anarchist]

Why? I don't see George W. Bush over there shooting at people. He's not even in Iraq.

[Stigmata66]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Deckard59 Posted on 02-12-2004 06:12 PM
Since it's now obvious to everyone in the United States, although the rest of the world knew before the war started, that there was never W. of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the question remains, what right did the United States have to attack Iraq.

True, Iraq didn’t meet all the requests of the Weapons Inspectors, but there was nothing to find. Iraq’s objections and lack of cooperation was somewhat within reason, especially now, when we can clearly see that Bush and the rest of the hawks were just using the United Nations.

Some do see the truth as to what happened, but still many fellow Americans feel they can pat themselves in the back because of all the horrific murders and human rights violations that they’ve uncovered and stopped. They feel that if the US didn’t go, those things would still be continuing today. That point maybe true, but in no way does that give a country the right to attack another country. All though not on the same scale, every country in the world is guilty of human rights violations, even the US.

When anyone looks now, it’s obvious to see that the United States only motive in attacking Iraq was because of Greed, Money and Power.

Without any legitimate reasons, it’s clear that the leader of such an aggressive war mongering country should be up for war crimes.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>



No. You're an idiot.

Saddam was a war criminal! Hundreds of thousands of dead in mass graves, rape rooms, torturing of athletes that preformed under the Qusay bar of excelence, and needless to say the use of chemical weapons against the kurds. That's a real war criminal.

I geuss you don't support war in Iraq, so you'd rather have a real war criminal in power that did that ^, than the US REBUILDING, EDUCATING, AND PROTECTING IRAQI'S AT OUR OWN EXPENSE.If that is not justification to go to war then I don't know what is.

[Paavo]

I'm so tired of lifting up someone that's done worse things to nullify one's actions that has done less. It does not take away the fact that the war in Iraq was/is clearly an illegal one.

I don't know how many times one has to say the same old god damned phrase:
YES, saddam was an asshole and he deserves to be hanged by his testicles.

And then add the next phrase, just as old and obvious:
NO, that does not make the war legal or justified.

The US, lead by Bush, invaded Iraq against the UN's will. And if that's not enough to make Bush a war criminal, the very reasonings used have turned out to be untrue. What else does it take?

And don't give me that crap about the massgraves and whatnot, they're there, but so is the man who gave the OK to alot of those horrible decisions, Rumsfeld. Jail them all and throw away the key.

[Packratt]

Bush as war criminal?

I suppose it's a possibility that this is one hazard of premptive policies that are applied unevenly. However, I do not believe that his actions thusfar qualify as a crime against humanity in violation of any law. (of course, Geneva Convention violations could be a consideration in regards to holding 'prisoners of war' during a war of indefinite nature against no specific enemy nation.

Of course... I do wonder, if one leader is tried as being a war criminal, is it not reasonable to also pursue charges against any other leaders who knowingly aided and abetted a war criminal? After all, didn't some previous American administrations support Saddam at the time that he was committing crimes against humanity?

[Stigmata66]

So you don't care about the live of Iraqi's? Massgraves, so what? SO WHAT! omg...So you'd rather have Saddam the hitler in training in power than have us go to war "illegally"?

Rumsfeld did not have mass numbers of Iraqis killed...

An illegal war, what law did we violate? The UN is a pointless, blind organization that lets things like the Rwanada genocide and Saddam happen. Why should ever listen to this pathetic organization of beauricratic fools.

[Paavo]

Stigmata66, I never said I don't care about the Iraqi people. That's not the point, is it?
The thread's about Bush and if he's a war criminal, not about saving lives. There are hundreds of wars anyone "should" start if it was about saving lives.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The UN is a pointless, blind organization that lets things like the Rwanada genocide and Saddam happen.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

"let saddam happen"?? The US put him where he was! There are pretty horrible things going on in China too, I don't see Bush saying shit about that.

[Mozart1220]

First, if we had the right to attack Iraq because they had scary weapons that they MIGHT use on us, do I have the right to kill my next door neighbor because he owns a gun and doesn't like me?

If we ahd the right to overthrow Iraq because of human rights issues, why are we not taking over South America, most of which is run by dictators worse than Hussein? Oh yeah...NO OIL INTEREST FOR BUSH.

If it is true that Hussein was financing or otherwise helping the terrorists that brought down the WTC, why are we not attacking Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of most of the key players including Osama Bin Laden, who I felt should have been our FIRST priority, not Hussein.

[Stigmata66]

Well you said:
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
And don't give me that crap about the massgraves and whatnot, they're there<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Which lead me to the conclusion that you don't care about the iraqi people.


p.S.About the legitmacy of the UN
RWANDA

[m5lange1]

Whether you agree with him or not I think it is going WAY overboard to call Bush a war criminal. Where does that stop? Every president who goes through the due process (as Bush did) should run the risk of being a war criminal if mistakes have been made?

If that had always been the case the history books would have no leaders, only war criminals.

It also sets a very shaky ground for any future leader who has a legitimate reason to declare war in defense of our country. He got the permission and did what the government gave him permission to do.
If you disagree vote him out of office but please remember any decision made in hatred at this president will carry over to one yuo may someday fully support.

[castille]

Most leftists don't care about Saddam's war crimes.

They point out minor "crimes" Americans committ - missing an Iraqi soldier and a bullet hits a civilian.

They don't care about the 1.2 million Iraqis executed by Saddam, or the other millions raped and tortured.

The thing about leftist causes is simple: they're not humanitarians. They're political activists. Political activists are interested in THE CAUSE, not the people.

[Packratt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Most leftists don't care about Saddam's war crimes.

They point out minor "crimes" Americans committ - missing an Iraqi soldier and a bullet hits a civilian.

They don't care about the 1.2 million Iraqis executed by Saddam, or the other millions raped and tortured.

The thing about leftist causes is simple: they're not humanitarians. They're political activists. Political activists are interested in THE CAUSE, not the people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

It's an interesting use of reversal... When one accuses the opposition, "leftists", of being apathetic to human suffering, does it follow that one then proclaims their camp, "rightists", are acting in a beneficient manner out of altruistic motive?

If so, then please do explain why the "rightists" have not declared pre-emptive war on other nations with worse records of brutality?

Otherwise, it's a rather empty argument, isn't it? After all, it's then the equivalent of saying that "you guys don't care about people, but neither does our side." When that is considered, then I must ask... What is your point?

[castille]

I'm not a rightist.

However I notice the leftists are the ones claiming to be great humanitarians. Since they make such great claims, they must back them up.

[Packratt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
I'm not a rightist.

However I notice the leftists are the ones claiming to be great humanitarians. Since they make such great claims, they must back them up.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Interesting, happy to lable others but unwilling to lable yourself?

Use of sweeping generalizations that are supposed to have negative connotations in order to nullify the arguments that you do not agree with is a debate tactic usually used by those who do not have a valid counterargument.

But, let's say I agreed with your supposition that "the left" (if such a thing existed) was apathetic to human suffering... Purely for the sake of argument mind you...

I still ask in return, what is your point?

[castille]

What is my point? Well since you still can't read, I'll explain it again.

My point is that the leftists, who claim to be great humanitarians, don't really give a damn about humanity. Their concern is the "Great Cause", the greater game. And if this requires millions of Iraqis to be executed by Saddam....well thats not the leftists problem.

If you STILL don't get it....well theres nothing I can do. I'm not a teacher for mental illness.


By the way, since you asked me to label myself, I'm a centrist. Not the American term (you shouldn't assume everyone thinks like an American), mind you. I believe, like Deng, that the ends justify the means. If 3000 Iraqi lives must be lost to protect the lives of 11 million Iraqis, then so be it.

Hey, I just realised thats like redistributing wealth. You make the rich sacrifice to give to the poor. Similiarly, you make some Iraqis sacrifice in order to give life to others.

[Packratt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
What is my point? Well since you still can't read, I'll explain it again.

My point is that the leftists, who claim to be great humanitarians, don't really give a damn about humanity. Their concern is the "Great Cause", the greater game. And if this requires millions of Iraqis to be executed by Saddam....well thats not the leftists problem.

If you STILL don't get it....well theres nothing I can do. I'm not a teacher for mental illness.


By the way, since you asked me to label myself, I'm a centrist. Not the American term (you shouldn't assume everyone thinks like an American), mind you. I believe, like Deng, that the ends justify the means. If 3000 Iraqi lives must be lost to protect the lives of 11 million Iraqis, then so be it.

Hey, I just realised thats like redistributing wealth. You make the rich sacrifice to give to the poor. Similiarly, you make some Iraqis sacrifice in order to give life to others.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Hmm, I must be in the wrong place... I was invited here and agreed to register based on the assumption, which originated when I read the notice on the board, that ad hominem attacks were not tolerated.

Of course, it was a humourous attempt at a personal insult which I can only assume meant to insinuate that I suffer from a mental illness purely for questioning your opinion. But instead ended up seeming to suggest that there was such a thing as an instructor that taught people how to have a mental disorder and that you were not a teacher of that sort.

Thanks for the laugh, and for showing me that this board is no different than any other.

[Stigmata66]

Yeah Castille is right, I'm sorry.

Did he hurt your feelings awwww isn't that cute...insults mean nothing,live with it.

[Packratt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
Yeah Castille is right, I'm sorry.

Did he hurt your feelings awwww isn't that cute...insults mean nothing,live with it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Wow, even repleat with one liner flamebaits.

Here I thought there would be some actual debates here, not kindergarten taunts.

I am really sad... Sad that besides that this site is being misrepresented, that even the baiting and insults are dissapointing.

[french_jew]

The fucking leftists claim to be great humanitarians....
But there's an exception.

When it's about America, they don't give a shit if a lot of people are dying, they'll be against the USA in any case.

Nathan