Should former president Bush be tried of international war crimes?

[brainhulk]

Former UN Chief Nuclear Inspector thinks so...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_elbaradei_memoir

what say you?

 

[Powermoloch]

<-------- P&N Anandtech's hell

 

[chusteczka]

Why focus on Bush? He may be the figurehead but he was threatened with death and monetary disaster for his family by the bankers of this country, just as every other president in this country has been since at least the mid-1800's.

 

[BoomerD]

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld...take them all.

They're all equally guilty and should be charged with multiple war crimes...then executed when convicted.

 

[chusteczka]

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld...take them all.

They're all equally guilty and should be charged with multiple war crimes...then executed when convicted.

That solution does have some appeal to it.

 

[MotF Bane]

P
o
l
i
t
e

&

N
i
c
e

 

[protocol167]

xxx.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

When El Baradei also starts suggesting that leaders from Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and a few other locales in the ME also be brought to tribunals for crimes he might be viewed as soemone non-biased in his request. Until then he is pissing into his own mighty wind.

 

[Infohawk]

Sorry but international war crimes should be reserved for intentionally heinous acts like genocide, attacks on civilians, etc.

We should also be able to police our own. If there's some statute under which Bush and co can be punished, let's go for it. I doubt there is though and ultimately it's the American people who are at fault for electing the guy and then re-electing him.

 

[Stifko]

yes it should happen but it never will. it was and still is a foolish war.

 

[YoungGun21]

Sorry but international war crimes should be reserved for intentionally heinous acts like genocide, attacks on civilians, etc.

We should also be able to police our own. If there's some statute under which Bush and co can be punished, let's go for it. I doubt there is though and ultimately it's the American people who are at fault for electing the guy and then re-electing him.

Wrongfully founded wars aren't attacks on civilians or genocide?

I'm not necessarily saying they are, but I am asking: where does the line get drawn? It has been shown time and time again that the U.S. had no reason to go to war with Iraq, but we invaded, killed lots of civilians, and here we still are eight years later. Is it ok because we are a world superpower? Is it ok because we officially declared war?

 

[Greenman]

Have another slug of the koolaid boy's.

 

[catilley1092]

Screw that administration and the ground that they walk on. When Clinton was in office, although by human nature, was not perfect, we had a balanced budget for the last 7 out of 8 years he was there. He mandated it.

There were also plenty of jobs for everyone. If you didn't like where you worked, you could tell them to kiss your ass & leave, and have another within a week, that is, if one really wanted to work. There was a labor shortage.

Even as late as early 2000, gas could still be bought (around here) for less than $1. Funny thing, as soon as Bush got in, things reversed fast. The economy fell, and of course he allowed the blame to fall on 9/11 for it. Problem was, things were headed south PRIOR to 9/11. Bush & Cheney's real money came from oil, why would they want cheap gas for everyone.

And the war. Congress was lied to in order to push it through, there were no WMD's, in fact, much of what Hussein did have was provided by Reagan during their war with Iran. That war was personal, Bush wanted him, and done whatever to do it. Really, how would the US act, if a president from another country ordered OUR president to leave the country within 48 hours, or else? How would we feel if another bully demanded to inspect OUR facilities at will.

Prior to Bush/Cheney, this country was on a roll. We had jobs, easy credit, cheap energy (necessary for a healthy economy). They fucked it up, and didn't waste time in doing so. They even blamed the housing collapse on Clinton, problem is, that didn't happen until 2006, well into Bush/Cheney's 2nd term. So WTF did they do to prevent it? It happened under their watch.

If nothing else, they should be tried for the destruction of our country as we once knew it.

Cat

 

[Joseph F]

Holy shit... I can't believe that 43&#37; of the people who voted actually voted "Yes". 0_o

 

[Infohawk]

Wrongfully founded wars aren't attacks on civilians or genocide?

I'm not necessarily saying they are, but I am asking: where does the line get drawn? It has been shown time and time again that the U.S. had no reason to go to war with Iraq, but we invaded, killed lots of civilians, and here we still are eight years later. Is it ok because we are a world superpower? Is it ok because we officially declared war?

It's as simple as intentionally trying to kill civilians vs. unintentionally doing it. Everything suggests that Bush thought they were going to go in with roses thrown at him. Was he an idiot? Sure. Did he really WANT civilians to die? No.

Nothing that happened was even remotely close to genocide either. People have to really watering down that term.

 

[YoungGun21]

It's as simple as intentionally trying to kill civilians vs. unintentionally doing it. Everything suggests that Bush thought they were going to go in with roses thrown at him. Was he an idiot? Sure. Did he really WANT civilians to die? No.

Nothing that happened was even remotely close to genocide either. People have to really watering down that term.

Over 100,000 "civilians killed in war-time" shall we call them? That's a hefty total for a war that was really just a hostile takeover by us.

 

[KlokWyze]

It's as simple as intentionally trying to kill civilians vs. unintentionally doing it. Everything suggests that Bush thought they were going to go in with roses thrown at him. Was he an idiot? Sure. Did he really WANT civilians to die? No.

Nothing that happened was even remotely close to genocide either. People have to really watering down that term.

OK. How about sacrificing our US servicemen? Afghanistan was an obvious choice. I don't anyone is going to call that one out, but Iraq was clearly chosen, for absurd reasons. What are the real reasons for the invasion/occupation anyways? Just a way to bolster the defense industry with more sales? Ensure oil production in the region?

 

[gevorg]

Massacre is probably the right term to describe NATO war crimes in Iraq.

 

[Infohawk]

Over 100,000 "civilians killed in war-time" shall we call them? That's a hefty total for a war that was really just a hostile takeover by us.

Doesn't really have anything to do with what I posted. Meditate on the difference between manslaughter and murder.

 

[woolfe9999]

Not one benefit could ever come to the American people from such an international fiasco. The short answer is "no."

 

[sammyunltd]

Screw that administration and the ground that they walk on. When Clinton was in office, although by human nature, was not perfect, we had a balanced budget for the last 7 out of 8 years he was there. He mandated it.

There were also plenty of jobs for everyone. If you didn't like where you worked, you could tell them to kiss your ass & leave, and have another within a week, that is, if one really wanted to work. There was a labor shortage.

Even as late as early 2000, gas could still be bought (around here) for less than $1. Funny thing, as soon as Bush got in, things reversed fast. The economy fell, and of course he allowed the blame to fall on 9/11 for it. Problem was, things were headed south PRIOR to 9/11. Bush & Cheney's real money came from oil, why would they want cheap gas for everyone.

And the war. Congress was lied to in order to push it through, there were no WMD's, in fact, much of what Hussein did have was provided by Reagan during their war with Iran. That war was personal, Bush wanted him, and done whatever to do it. Really, how would the US act, if a president from another country ordered OUR president to leave the country within 48 hours, or else? How would we feel if another bully demanded to inspect OUR facilities at will.

Prior to Bush/Cheney, this country was on a roll. We had jobs, easy credit, cheap energy (necessary for a healthy economy). They fucked it up, and didn't waste time in doing so. They even blamed the housing collapse on Clinton, problem is, that didn't happen until 2006, well into Bush/Cheney's 2nd term. So WTF did they do to prevent it? It happened under their watch.

If nothing else, they should be tried for the destruction of our country as we once knew it.

Cat

Clinton was not a good president. He just had an easy time thanks to the economic growth of the 90's.

 

[IGBT]

your obama is a well tanned mirror image of bush so you'd better make room for two in your gallows.

 

[between]

...

 

[Macamus Prime]

Invading a country, based on information that was false.

Now, hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded. If we won't hold him responsible for this, his God will. And frankly, he may escape the sling here, but once he dies, there something much worse waiting for him,...

 

[Jaskalas]

That solution does have some appeal to it.

So dd the reign of terror.

If the gallows is what you want, as divided by party line, then the gallows is what you'll get.