George W. Bush should be charged with crimes against humanity as well

Quote by Strat_Rus
First humanitarianism is America's first and greatest gift to the world. Unlike holier-than-thou Europeans and European wanna-bes like Australia, the US is humane and gives generously with no regards to its "soft power".

So i guess this makes up for all of the murders they commit? Is that why you bring up the point of humanitarian aid. The U.S. gov. could never give enough humanitarian aid to make up for all of the crimes they have commited towards humanity. Oh and you say welcome to the real world. No my friend it is welcome to your good leader bush's world and what possibly looks like your world as well. because the world of murder, deciet and corruption only makes up a very minute percentage of this world. It is people like you who believe it is actually alright to commit these acts. And justify it by saying "welcome to the real world". So next time please say welcome to my world.

and the large amounts of humanitarian aid sent by the u.s. to other countries do help in keeping all the atrocities it commits under the carpet just a bit longer. but countries are starting to get fed up with teh bull#. all great nations fall. it is a PROVEN FACT. but im not even so sure you can call the u.s. a great nation anymore. the numerous administrations this country has had over the last couple of decades have helped in tremendously tainting the american image towards teh rest of the world.

hammer

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Originally posted by pavil

Most governments at the time made the same assessment of Iraq in regards to WMD as the U.S. did..

Well,
When your pushing the same bs crap down the throats of ledaers who care not for facts, but for fame.. its quite easy to 'dupe' a country into following.

IE - Australia.

I mean, how the hell did australia have ANYTHING to support wmd's in Iraq.

The only reason we are in Iraq, is because our leader is that pathetic, he's willing to send his men and women into a war, just so he can have his photo taken with president bush, on the whitehouse lawn.
You only need too look at the photos of John Howard smiling ear to ear to see that..

As for the other small, minor countries that have no clout in the world, economimc and trade incentives were the only ' facts ' they needed to know about.. that why they joined.
the only 2 countries who had the ABILITY to have there own intel , was the UK and US.

being the US was lying, and using evidence it knew to be false, and it was also being led by the UK using evidence IT knew to be false.. well your left with a pretty pickle of a situation.

world leaders accusing a country of having wmd's, then invading and occupying them because of it.

yet, when that country turns out to have NO WMD'S, and the evidence used turns out being FALSE.. I cant understand how people can STILL, defend the ones stating the LIE!

How obvious does it need to be?

Russia, France, Israel, etc..... all believed that info too, so you believe Bush duped all of them too? Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and a host of others also believed it. This is one huge conspiracy.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
It's funny you should say that...

Bush oversaw and allowed the executions of more than 125 people during his time in Texas, if memory serves.

So I guess you're wrong, huh?

Those executions were the result of lawful proceedings in the State of Texas. Those executed had fair trials, appeals and suffered the punishment dictated by the State. They were not murdered, which implies an unlawful killing of a person. The decision to execute those criminals was done in a lawful way in the State of Texas.

Who is wrong?

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Please, can we refrain from personal attacks and baiting? I realize it's a sensitive subject, but reasonable gentlemen can disagree without lashing out.

Panda

Bush doesnt gas his own people. He doesnt MURDER his own people.

It's funny you should say that...

Bush oversaw and allowed the executions of more than 125 people during his time in Texas, if memory serves.

So I guess you're wrong, huh?

So Saddam gassing Kurds, and having hundreds of thousands murdered, kidnapped,raped, tortured, is the same has having murderers who have been convicted in a court of law executed? I hardly believe that Governor Bush met this qualification when allowing executions of criminals.

mur·der (mûr'dər)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

I think you've got them pegged wrong. They want what everyone in power wants - to stay in power. Do you believe, for one instant, that we don't have men with painted faces and guns sneaking through other countries right now, sowing chaos and destruction? Do you really think that we only do good, and our enemies only do evil?

The world is a fair sight more complex than that, and you do yourself a tremendous disservice when you boil everything down to black and white. Seriously, black and white is for old photographs, not international politics.

As for men with painted faces, do you believe that they are hunting down innocent civilians? Again you have to draw the distinction of what the purpose of their actions are. If no distinction between killing innocents and killing criminals/terrorists/enemy combatants can be made, I can see how their might be confusion.

Originally posted by neformore
Back to the topic with a little perspective.

Question.

What was the original reason the so called "Coalition of the Willing" went to War with Iraq for?

Lets stow the rhetoric. No one went into Iraq because of Saddam Husseins human rights record. We were all told that Iraq had WMD's that posed a clear and significant threat. If we were so concerned about Saddam Husseins human rights record we'd have gone into Iraq after the kurds were gassed in 1988, wouldn't we?

So lets drop all this guff about Saddam Husseins human rights record, because no one gave a stuff about it at all until it became clear that there were no real, substantial, about to be deployed WMD's in Iraq. No one cared in 1988, no one cared in 1991 (Bush Senior pulled back the troops despite the uprising in Southern Iraq against Hussein following the 1991 Kuwait invasion), and no one at all gave a toss until 9/11, and even then the impetous was put on terrorism and NOT Saddam Husseins human rights record.

So. These WMD's. The ones we were told about. The ones that Rumsfeld told us he knew where they were. The ones that this bad-ass filthy beast of a dictator Saddam didn't throw at any allied forces even though it was fairly bloody obvious that his army was screwed and he was going to get caught and probably killed for his actions. Where are they?

The answer is they didn't exist. Iraq lobbed its best Scuds at Israel in '91 and the UN mandated forces destroyed the rest. After 1991 Iraq became one of the most heavily surveilled countries on the planet, with constant pressure from UN weapons inspectors and the sanctions imposed on the country. And yet, in that time, they were supposed to have developed WMD's. They were supposed to have weapons that could wipe us out in 45 minutes of deployment. THAT is the basis of the second Iraq war and subsequent invasion.

So the question is this. Was the WMD claim a blatant fabrication?

IF it an be proved to be a fabrication (and there appears to be some compelling circumstantial evidence that it was) THEN Bush/Blair and whoever else went along those lines needs to be seriously looked over by an international court.

IF it can't be proved, then the leaders of the nations involved in the invasion have some grounds to claim that they were acting in their countries best interests for security. However - this is tenuous on the parts of Britain, the USA and Any country that didn't border Iraq quite simply because there was no IMMINENT threat. That caveat alone makes the wars legality highly dubious. The USA pushed that non-compliance with the UN weapons inspectors mandates and requirements provided enough evidence under international law to take military action, and that is how the war was justified without further recourse to the UN. The war itself was NOT UN mandated - that is to say it did not have the full backing of the UN Security Council.

Given that, the initial question "should GWB be chared with crimes against humanity" all hinges on the question of whether he knew Iraq had no WMD's, lied about it, and went to war anyway. If the answer to that is yes - and can be proved to be so - then he should be in the Hague, along with those who backed him.

If that can't be proved then he gets away with it on shaky legal ground. Just about.

Iraq had WMD before Desert Storm. There was never any allegation that the development/deployment was started post Desert Storm.

Originally posted by number1hammer
Quote by GT100fv
"So should FDR and Truman have been tried for crimes against humanity?"

All people who commit these crimes should be tried. Would you not agree? I agree with that. Good observation.


hammer

Is it possible for a leader of a country to not be charged for crimes under your standard, if they find themselves in war? I wasn't suggesting that FDR and Truman were guilty of anything, but that they did what they had to to stop the Axis. You don't seem to see that in some cases the death of 100,000 to prevent the death of 1,000,000, while a tough decision for anyone, is the correct one. Using your standard, good men could never stand up to tyrants, because as soon as there was any collateral damage, the good men would be war criminals. You may want to peruse the Old Testament again with regards to some of the other remarks you've made, as well.

Is it possible for a leader of a country to not be charged for crimes under your standard, if they find themselves in war?

As i stated. Dont you think it would be the right thing to do to ratify the rules of engagement by making it a law of war that civilian buildings cannot be targets of bombings. Its only fair dont you think.

You don't seem to see that in some cases the death of 100,000 to prevent the death of 1,000,000, while a tough decision for anyone, is the correct one.

who is to say that the death of 100,000 innocent people is the correct decision to make. men in suits? i understand collatoral damage very clearly. but the fact of the matter is you cannot guarentee that 900,000 people would be saved in the example you provided above. noone can. what would the u.s. gov had done if the 2 a-bombs didnt stop the violence. just continue dropping them until they were all dead? when the decision was made to drop the a-bombs there was no guarentee it would stop the war. they took a chance thinking that japan would be so shocked it wouold give up. and they were right on that one. but like i said there was no guarentee.

Using your standard, good men could never stand up to tyrants, because as soon as there was any collateral damage, the good men would be war criminals.

Sure they can, it is called assasination. like i stated earlier. And i understand that innocent people are going to die. but it for 1. has to be a just cause(which the iraq war isnt) 2. it has to be totally, 100% accidental.(not targeting civilian areas. areas you know have a great chance to bring civilian casulties). that is the only way you can justify it. and even then it is tough to swallow. but knowingly targeting civilian areas and structures is war crimes.

You may want to peruse the Old Testament again with regards to some of the other remarks you've made, as well.

would you elaborate on this, im not sure i understand what you mean. but i will say this. i dont believe in any one paticular religion. but i do believe in god.


and also, could someone tell me how to put a group of words or phrases in bold. i try and do it by using the b in the toolbar and it only does like one word and it is all messed up. thanks in advance


be koool all
hammer

would you elaborate on this, im not sure i understand what you mean. but i will say this. i dont believe in any one paticular religion. but i do believe in god.


The point was is that you were "speaking for God," with some of your previous remarks. If you're not drawing on any one particular religion, what was the basis for some of the presumptions?



As for rules of engagement, the protected status of a building or site is extended, so long as it isn't being used unlawfully(it is a war crime to hide among civilians(i.e. human shields), use hospitals, schools, religious sites to stage military operations from). Your 100% accidental standard is simply unrealistic, and not even the Geneva and Hague conventions require that standard.

As for Truman, Japan, and the A Bomb, there were estimates of how many men it would take to invade mainland Japan, the prepping it would take before such an invasion, and the loss of life of Allied and Japanese. It's true that there's no way to say exactly what the losses would be, but based on previous engagements, a lot of correlations could be made. Suffice it to say, it was a tough decision to make, and it turned out to be the correct one. You can't make the standard for war crimes be- well if the plans works out, it's cool, otherwise your going to jail and hanging.

Originally posted by GT100FV
Iraq had WMD before Desert Storm. There was never any allegation that the development/deployment was started post Desert Storm.

Well, I have no idea why you quoted my entire post to make this point but I'll throw a few questions back at you about what you have raised.

Firstly, if the problem was there pre-Desert Storm in 1991 - 3 years after the gassing of the Kurds, why wasn't it dealt with there and then - after all it was much closer to the event and more relevant back then - instead of 10 years later?

Secondly, where are these weapons of mass destruction that posed a clear and imminent threat to the US, UK and other CoW countries, and why weren't they used by this horrible dictator - who didn't care for his own people, only looked out for himself and hated the west - thats just been executed?

(Someones going to say that they were buried or shipped out. Yeah right. So where would the USA ship its nuclear weapons to in the event of a threat to the sovereignty of the country, when the complete overthrow of the government is imminent and there is only one real chance of slowing down or stopping the enemy? - oh wait.....they'd all be buried in the Nevada Desert...)

They flew planes to Iran so they wouldn't be destroyed by the USAF, and buried other weapons prior to the '03 invasion. He was known for certain to have had WMD at least as recently as '98, and there was no reason to assume otherwise after that point, as he provided no evidence contrary(as was mandated by UN Resolutions against him). Based on his invasions into Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, he demonstrated a greater propensity than any other regime in the Persian Gulf to be a risk to stability. He had WMD, he'd worked on nukes, he'd attacked Israel, he'd funded Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal(as well as Palestian suicide bombers), he'd tried to assassinate George Bush Sr., and the list goes on. In the bipolar world of the Cold War(the West vs. Communism and against the spread of militant islam(the Ayatollah and his pals in Iran)), he had been a tool, but when he became an international threat/liability, that's when action was taken. Like it or not, the world runs on oil, and a madman can't be allowed to threaten global stability.

We have such naive people on this board. There is over 100,000 people homeless from just one county in Mississippi from the Katrina Disaster. And you want to spend another how many billion in a country that the majority thinks of us as a disgrace and blasphemy toward their civilization?

I have to say, people on here who use terms like "Euros" suffer a bit from xenophobic tendencies. You aren't entitled to everything you want in this world simply because you believe your nation is righteous.


Alot of you have drank the kool aid on this war. And you need to come to terms you were willing pawns in a geopolitical strategy that goes back before you were born.

When Merle Haggard tells you to get out of Iraq? It's over, bambino
He's right. What about rebuilding America?
It's a wrap. Say Gnite, Gracie. Thank you MR Haggard


www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by number1hammer

who is to say that the death of 100,000 innocent people is the correct decision to make. men in suits? i understand collatoral damage very clearly. but the fact of the matter is you cannot guarentee that 900,000 people would be saved in the example you provided above. noone can. what would the u.s. gov had done if the 2 a-bombs didnt stop the violence. just continue dropping them until they were all dead? when the decision was made to drop the a-bombs there was no guarentee it would stop the war. they took a chance thinking that japan would be so shocked it wouold give up. and they were right on that one. but like i said there was no guarentee.

Casualty estimates for the Invasion of Japan

Take a look at the link above. On the Allied side alone there were projections on the low side of 1.2M casualties with 267,000 dead and on the high end of 1.7 to 4 Million casualties with 400-800K dead. Those numbers do not include Japanese casualties and death, so at the very least double those numbers. The Japanese would be fighting on their home Islands and with Okinawa as an example, it was going to be bloody for all involved.
Battle of Okinawa


It is pretty obvious that the Atomic bombs saved lives on both sides, at a cost of two cities and their inhabitants.
It can be said with relative certainty that the A-bombs saved far more lives than they took. If they hadn't worked, the invasion would have occurred.

Normally I wouldn't make such a seemingly close-minded statement, but anyone who believes that Bush deserves the death penalty is a complete nut-job in my mind and it's a waste of breath and energy to even debate them.

[edit on 2-1-2007 by Herman]

if you think Bush should be charged for war crimes or whatever. i have 3 questions

1) Can anyone give me the name of a leader of a real country( 600 people, 10 cars, and 19 sheep don't count) who would you say is a fair and just leader, and hasn't committed a war crime

2)Are you guys saying EVERY American president should be/have been charged with war crimes? Because reading some of your posts, EVERY American president sounds like they were evil and wrong

3)If you are saying Bush did commit a war crime, what do you do? Kill him, take away his freedom, take away his money, or what. What ever you decide to do(i would say) would be server pain(psychological) intentionally inflicted on him for what ever reason you pick (deterrence, revenge, punishment, or what not) would be...drum roll please...TORTURE. If you don't see a difference between Sadam and Bush, then what's the difference between Bush and you?? Since you want to psychologically and maybe physically torture Bush

I believe bush should be criminaly liable for every death in Iraq.
The information he published was FAKE.
He knew the evidence was fake.
He did nothing to stop 911

Every soliders death, every citizens death could of been avoided had the president of the USA, chosen diplomatic/peace actions, against WAR.

he's a blood thirstiy SOB, who's only inspiration is GREED!

GW Bush destroyed in 1 term, everything your previous 42American Preisidents worked to setup.

The great America, loved and respected and admired by majority of the world, is now public enemy number 1.
More people are scared of AMERICA, than they are Terrorists...
You cant go and ILLEGIALLY invade, occupy and destroy a foreign nation and expect the world to follow, especially when all the evidence you used for justification turned out to be TOTAL CRAP!

All for 1 man, 1 stupid, stupid man... chose to create a war, based on fake evidence.. just to make money.

Hell, Id be calling for hte death penalty of bush simply for hhte safety of americans.

Id be doing everything in my power to ensure that he is NOT the president, should another attack occur in the next 2yrs.

do you really trust him to make the righ decision should something significant occur.

[edit on 2-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I believe bush should be criminaly liable for every death in Iraq.
The information he published was FAKE.
He knew the evidence was fake.
He did nothing to stop 911

Every soliders death, every citizens death could of been avoided had the president of the USA, chosen diplomatic/peace actions, against WAR.

he's a blood thirstiy SOB, who's only inspiration is GREED!

GW Bush destroyed in 1 term, everything your previous 42American Preisidents worked to setup.

The great America, loved and respected and admired by majority of the world, is now public enemy number 1.
More people are scared of AMERICA, than they are Terrorists...
You cant go and ILLEGIALLY invade, occupy and destroy a foreign nation and expect the world to follow, especially when all the evidence you used for justification turned out to be TOTAL CRAP!

All for 1 man, 1 stupid, stupid man... chose to create a war, based on fake evidence.. just to make money.

Hell, Id be calling for hte death penalty of bush simply for hhte safety of americans.

Id be doing everything in my power to ensure that he is NOT the president, should another attack occur in the next 2yrs.

do you really trust him to make the righ decision should something significant occur.

[edit on 2-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]

I agree with you Agit8dChop BUT he was democratically *cough* elected for a second term by his country men. It was them that gave him the power to destroy their country, kill their servicemen and destroy and kill in Iraq. They allowed/enabled him!

Originally posted by DCP
1) Can anyone give me the name of a leader of a real country...who would you say is a fair and just leader, and hasn't committed a war crime

What does fair and just have to do with it? You just kind of slipped that "fair and just" thing in there, didn't you? We're not saying we expect our leader to be some paragon of honor and integrity, but we do expect him to not commit crimes that cause the death of thousands!! It's not like we're crying about a speeding ticket here.

And there are plenty of world leaders who aren't criminals:

The Netherlands
Sweden
France
Spain
Iceland

Just off the top of my head...

We're just asking that Bush be tried, not that he be perfect.

2)Are you guys saying EVERY American president should be/have been charged with war crimes?

No. I'm not sure why you think this, but the only leaders I'm concerned about currently are the current ones.

3)If you are saying Bush did commit a war crime, what do you do?

If he is found to have committed war crimes, then he should do the time, just like everyone else in this country has to do. If you consider a criminal paying the price for his crime to be TORTURE ( ) then the US prisons are FULL of people being tortured!

Why shouldn't Bush have to pay for knowingly commiting crimes? Why do you think he is above the law?

what's the difference between Bush and you??

BH...lets keep France and Spain off that list. I think they have been responsible for a few attrocities or acts of violence in the past century. Spain...well Generalissimo Francisco Franco (Made famous by SNL Chevy Chase!) was a dictator who murdered thousands upon thousands. I think the rest are safe though.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I believe bush should be criminaly liable for every death in Iraq.
The information he published was FAKE.
He knew the evidence was fake.
He did nothing to stop 911

Where is you proof? How do you know he knew the evidence was FAKE? Have you read his mind? When your CIA director tells you it is a "slam dunk" you are supposed to doubt him? When multiple countries and the UN itself tell you that Saddam has not fully complied you are supposed to take a twice invading dictator of a neighboring countries, one who systematically killed his own citizens at his word that he has destroyed his WMD?

If Bush knowingly took steps to prevent the 9/11 plot from being uncovered, where is your proof? Don't cite the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US as proof of this as the briefing offers no specifics.

url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/]http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/[/url]

If you read the briefing Bin Laden had been threatening since 97-98 to bring the fighting to America. If you are going to condemn Bush, then you might as well condemn Clinton for the same thing. Terrorists will always have the advantage when it comes to attacking Democratic societies. Our freedom and openness are Achilles heels that they exploit.

Does anyone here think the Patriot Act and other measures would have been put in place prior to 9/11, let alone passed by Congress? That's basically what you are asking Bush to have done to prevent the attacks in the first place. Hindsight is wonderful. It's always very easy to second guess after the fact.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
BH...lets keep France and Spain off that list. I think they have been responsible for a few attrocities or acts of violence in the past century.

He asked about other countries' leaders. I don't think he meant all the leaders they've ever had. I'm speaking of the current leaders only. And that includes Spain's current leader, who pulled their troops out of Iraq.