British and American leaders likened to Nazi war criminals

Tony Blair and George Bush were compared to Nazi war criminals yesterday by Scott Ritter, the former UN chief weapons inspector.

"Both these men could be pulled up as war criminals for engaging in actions that we condemned Germany in 1946 for doing," he said.

He said the Prime Minister and the US President were "guilty of the crime of planning and committing aggressive warfare". Speaking in London at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Mr Ritter said the two leaders would have been in a much stronger position if they had got a UN resolution explicitly authorising the invasion.

Mr Ritter, who was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998, said intelligence services had been correct to say that Iraq's missile programme had been destroyed soon after the first Gulf conflict of 1991.

He recalled how he delivered a report in 1992 stating that the programme had been eliminated. It was met with "stony silence" and he was told that Iraq still possessed 200 missiles.

Source:
Telegraph

A war crime is a punishable offense, under International (Criminal) Law, for violations of the Law of War by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war in an inter-state conflict is a War Crime, while violations in internal conflicts don't necessarily amount to war crimes.

So let's see which Fundamental Principles of Laws of War they broke:

• That wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction - FAILED
  
• That wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible - FAILED
  
• That people and property that do not contribute to the war effort be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship - FAILED

To this end, laws of war are intended to mitigate the evils of war by:

• Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering; - FAILED
  
• Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; - FAILED
  
• Facilitating the restoration of peace. - FAILED

[edit on 9/10/05 by Souljah]

It seems Bush and Blair is the real enemy of our time and they're the ones who is creating all sorts of trouble. I'm tired of people saying the Americans and their allies are the only ones who have the nerve to rid the evil of this world.

Bush and Blair should be stop.

Since the Americans had withdrew from the International War Crimes Tribunal, this gives people the idea that they're above the international law. Nobody is above the law.

Crimes committed by the Americans is equivalent to those of Saddam Hussein's.

Isn't Blair Bush's lap dog, or is that the other way around?

I agree, those two are war criminals.

So which is today's reason why we're over there? WMDs? Osama?

Originally posted by Amethyst
Isn't Blair Bush's lap dog, or is that the other way around?

I agree, those two are war criminals.

So which is today's reason why we're over there? WMDs? Osama?

We are now liberating them by killing children, arresting innocents and later torturing them, blowing up bridges, and seizing mosques.

Weren't we saying this (he was a Nazi) even before he took office...since his grand father, or great grand father was indeed a nazi criminal? I thought this was old news. Oh, well. I still support the notion that Bush and Blair are no better than Osama and Hussien, if not worse!

And I have to live under Bush's Empire. ugh.

edit: spelling

[edit on 9/10/2005 by FallenOne]

Yep, Prescott Bush was a Nazi supporter. And the apples don't fall too far from the tree.

Ever notice how "homeland" smacks of "Fatherland"? Yesterday's Enabling Act is today's Patriot Act.

Yesterday the Reichstag Fire, today 9/11.

Lol, like anyone really pays attention to the UN. The superpowers have been breaking international laws since the UN was created.

Originally posted by Heartagram


Crimes committed by the Americans is equivalent to those of Saddam Hussein's.

You really have no clue what you're talking about.

Originally posted by FallenOne
Weren't we saying this (he was a Nazi) even before he took office...since his grand father, or great grand father was indeed a nazi criminal? I thought this was old news. Oh, well. I still support the notion that Bush and Blair are no better than Osama and Hussien, if not worse!

And I have to live under Bush's Empire. ugh.

edit: spelling

[edit on 9/10/2005 by FallenOne]

If it's so bad living in the US, then you should seriously consider leaving the country. You'll be doing us a favor too.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by RK_Pr0t0c0l]

Originally posted by Souljah
For everybody that enjoyed this thread, the following topic is a MUST read!

Open Letter to Amnesty International on the Iraqi Constitution

Thank You!

You should read this one too.

Iraq and the Laws of War

and so the circle of hate continues...
Just asking..where were these people during bosnia?
Falklands?
Africa?

Originally posted by RK_Pr0t0c0l
Lol, like anyone really pays attention to the UN. The superpowers have been breaking international laws since the UN was created.

Originally posted by Heartagram


Crimes committed by the Americans is equivalent to those of Saddam Hussein's.

You really have no clue what you're talking about.

Originally posted by FallenOne

If it's so bad living in the US, then you should seriously consider leaving the country. You'll be doing us a favor too.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by RK_Pr0t0c0l]

Your Mood. Perhaps you bite too?
The typical stereotype cowardly response

Originally posted by FallenOne
Weren't we saying this (he was a Nazi) even before he took office...since his grand father, or great grand father was indeed a nazi criminal?

oh please....

Since when does a person that is born in 1946 has any guilt for the genocide perpetrated by the Nazi regime? Since when can you call them Nazi?

[edit on 13-11-2005 by Riwka]

Originally posted by Souljah
That wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction - FAILED

The goals were to liberate the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq and install the Democratic Process. Yes, we've liberated them, but the Democratic Process has not been installed properly.

That wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible - FAILED

And it will be... A soon as the Democratic Process is installed to their governments.

That people and property that do not contribute to the war effort be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship - FAILED

How many civilians are being killed? A lot less than the amount of insurgents and terrorists that are being killed. The fact that there will be attrition in a war is inevitable. Get over it.

Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering; - FAILED
Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; - FAILED

How have those been failed? I fail to see it...

Facilitating the restoration of peace. - FAILED

See what I said about the Democratic Process.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
The goals were to liberate the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq and install the Democratic Process. Yes, we've liberated them, but the Democratic Process has not been installed properly.

Ah Yes - Install Democratic Process, even if they do not want it. Lets FORCE them one then. You think the Iraqi people feel Liberated, now that they are under the threat of terrorist attacks on daily basis?

And it will be... A soon as the Democratic Process is installed to their governments.

Wrong. There are people living in those Lands that do not want anything to do with USA or what they are selling to them - meaning that they will revolt until Judgement Day.

How many civilians are being killed? A lot less than the amount of insurgents and terrorists that are being killed. The fact that there will be attrition in a war is inevitable. Get over it.

As I see everyday - when US forces kill "suspected insurgents" it does not matter, if they are actually civilans: if they are DEAD they are Insurgents or as you prefer "Terrorists". And with every civilan death more, there will be more resistance. Simple matter of Physics.

How have those been failed? I fail to see it...

And how EXACTLY is the US helping that Process?

By Torturing and Abusing Prisoners of War which are protected by Internatioanl Laws and Geneva Conventions?

By NOT counting the Civilans Losses - or "Collateral Damage"?

Yes, that will sure win the Hearts of the Iraqi and other Muslim Nations, which USA holds in Check in this War on Terror.

Originally posted by Souljah
Ah Yes - Install Democratic Process, even if they do not want it. Lets FORCE them one then. You think the Iraqi people feel Liberated, now that they are under the threat of terrorist attacks on daily basis?

Right, and the celebration after the end of Saddam's reign was because they loved him SOOO much! From what I've understood the majority of people, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, are glad to have us there. You just hear from the very loud minority more often.

And with every civilan death more, there will be more resistance. Simple matter of Physics.

How many civilians have been killed in the war so far by the US and her Allies? How many civillians did Saddam and the Taliban kill in their reigns? How many civillians died in the many terrorist attacks on the US and her Allies? Oh, and it's not physics, it's sociology.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Right, and the celebration after the end of Saddam's reign was because they loved him SOOO much! From what I've understood the majority of people, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, are glad to have us there. You just hear from the very loud minority more often.

Right - I remember certain pictures when the citizens of Europe Cheered when the German Forces marched through their cities, and it does not mean that everybody was HAPPY about it, right? No, they did not Love Saddam - but tell me, how does their Life look today? Constant Threat of Bomb Attacks? Constant Threat of Soldiers on the Streets, you just never know when they are going to open fire or drop bomb on your House, because "Suspected Insurgents" were hiding there. Seriously, do you REALLY Think that US presence in Iraq or the Middle East is HELPING to Increase the Peace there? IMHO it is doing quite the Opposite...

How many civilians have been killed in the war so far by the US and her Allies? How many civillians did Saddam and the Taliban kill in their reigns? How many civillians died in the many terrorist attacks on the US and her Allies? Oh, and it's not physics, it's sociology.

How many Civilans were Killed in Vietnam and Cambodia during the Vietnam Wars?

Remember when Saddam used to Gas the Kurds - Why didnt America Have a problem with that at the time IT Happened? Why is it a Problem Today, and not in the time of Cold war, when the Great Enemy of the Free World was the Russkies? Nobody cared about Middle East at that time, it was a Cold War Playground, and USA is responsible for regime changes for nearly every country in Middle East for their Corporate and GEO-Strategic intentions. But the Selective Memory of the world today, never recalls that - people just know that Middle East is the Home of Wild A-rab Men, most of them Terrorists that blow themselves up, Rape women or Stone them to death in Public.

How Ignorant.

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Originally posted by Amethyst
Isn't Blair Bush's lap dog, or is that the other way around?

I agree, those two are war criminals.

So which is today's reason why we're over there? WMDs? Osama?

We are now liberating them by killing children, arresting innocents and later torturing them, blowing up bridges, and seizing mosques.

No different from what the Arabs do anyway.

If you give unstable Arab countries Nuclear energy you will create WW3 and you would not have the internet you are using here it would be cut off if that happens.

Secondly yes Bush and Blair were wrong technically but not as wrong as the Arabs wanting to blow Isreal and The Jews up, who are the real Nazi's I wonder? The Arabs gave Hitler there hand of the idea of killing the Jews it was documented in the papers in the 1930/40s. Who are the real Nazi's please stand up?

[edit on 13-11-2005 by The time lord]

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Originally posted by Amethyst
Isn't Blair Bush's lap dog, or is that the other way around?

I agree, those two are war criminals.

So which is today's reason why we're over there? WMDs? Osama?

We are now liberating them by killing children, arresting innocents and later torturing them, blowing up bridges, and seizing mosques.

Yep, that and probably much more. Regarless of popular belief, the government could do just about anything during a war. I'm sure that there is much more torturing going on than just those we see on T.V. Listen, George Bush is an idiot. That's it, it can't be said enough times. Call him a nazi and whatever else you want but in truth, he' just an idiot. This war has brought hell and destruction to Iraq. Believe me, my grandparents went through WW2 and they could define war very well. The Iraqis themselves say that GB is just as bad as Saddam. How is George Bush different from Saddam? They've both caused chaos! Besides, I wouln't say that GB is actualy trying to help Iraq because it seems like he just wants the land (and oil). Think about it, once the government sets up democracy, whats going to happen? Iraq will become the Iraqi USA, just as most of Europe's countries have. I just hate thinking about how soldiers and all them people are getting butchered while that greedy pig is in his office, relaxing and planing his next visit to a foreign country.

Originally posted by Souljah
Tony Blair and George Bush were compared to Nazi war criminals yesterday by Scott Ritter, the former UN chief weapons inspector.

Scott Ritter is nothing more than sour grapes. He definately
is NOT a reliable source of information about anything in that region!
(or probably anything else on the planet for that matter! )

emperors-clothes.com...

Wanna' talk Scott Ritter? Let's start with that $400,000 'gift' he
got from Saddams buddies to 'make a film'!

[edit on 11/13/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Scott Ritter is nothing more than sour grapes. He definately
is NOT a reliable source of information about anything in that region!
(or probably anything else on the planet for that matter!

)

Why is that?

Because YOUR Source says so?

What Makes YOUR Source more Reliable then any other?

Becase your GOVERMENT Source told you so?

Wanna' talk Scott Ritter? Let's start with that $400,000 'gift' he
got from Saddams buddies to 'make a film'!

WoW!



Wanna Talk BILLIONS of Dollars that your Goverment got from Saddam, when they sold him Weapons (Chemical agents also)?

Or the Oil-4-Food SCAM?

Here it is, the one you LOVE, Scott Ritter:

The U.S. has accused UN officials of corruption in Iraq’s oil for food program. According to Joy Gordon and Scott Ritter the charge was actually an attempt to disguise and cover up long term U.S. government complicity in this corruption. Ritter says, “this posturing is nothing more than a hypocritical charade, designed to shift attention away from the debacle of George Bush’s self-made quagmire in Iraq, and legitimize the invasion of Iraq by using Iraqi corruption and not the now-missing weapons of mass destruction, as the excuse.” Gordon arrives at the conclusion that, “perhaps it is unsurprising that today the only role its seems the United States expects the UN to play in the continuing drama of Iraq is that of scapegoat.”

Source:
Project Censored: The News that did not make News

www.harpers.org...

www.commondreams.org...

So because one guy reports you doing it then you report him that makes you inocent?
Hmm gotta try that some time.