• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Tutu says Bush and Blair should face trial at the Hague

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
cybrsage said:
Bush haters do.
Click to expand...

I guess you could count me as a Bush Hater if you defined that broadly.

I hate that he helped blow a huge hole in the side of the economy that the stimulus they did apply was inadequate to fully repair it.

I hate that he chose people in his administration that went on to screw over people who gave valid advice on how to invade Iraq (which *didn't* need to be invaded in the fucking first place).


yet

in response to the OP's post about what Mr. Tutu said

blankslate said:
Never gonna happen...
Click to expand...
 
If you think Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes, you are a hater...or an idiot. The choice is yours.
 
cybrsage said:
If you think Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes, you are a hater...or an idiot. The choice is yours.
Click to expand...

War crimes? No. The only thing you could maybe nab them on is unfair treatment of POWs with the waterboarding and Gitmo stuff. They didn't sanction genocide or pillaging or the rape of civilians.

What you can get them on is crimes against peace. The US clearly aggressed Iraq with little to no valid reason. There were no WMDs and the evidence that Saddam was linked to AQ is tenuous at best.

But the victors of war rarely get caught on any of this.
 
Not ever going to happen.

And of course this idiot loses all credibility with this:

The Iraq war "has destabilized and polarized the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history," wrote Tutu, who was awarded the Nobel prize in 1984.


They must not teach history in Africa.


Also, people's understanding of international law is lacking. We had several "legal" reasons to resume our war with them. As soon as they fired a single SAM at our no-fly zone patrol, we had the right to nix the Gulf War cease-fire.
 
crownjules said:
War crimes? No. The only thing you could maybe nab them on is unfair treatment of POWs with the waterboarding and Gitmo stuff. They didn't sanction genocide or pillaging or the rape of civilians.

What you can get them on is crimes against peace. The US clearly aggressed Iraq with little to no valid reason. There were no WMDs and the evidence that Saddam was linked to AQ is tenuous at best.

But the victors of war rarely get caught on any of this.
Click to expand...

How many were waterboarded?
 
While I personally believe waterboarding is torture, it was not legally classified as torture at the time. It now is, but back then it was not.

Also, international law is way too vague on what is and is not torture.
 
blankslate said:
If you think Bush was a good president you're an apologist or a full on retard.... the choice is yours.
Click to expand...

I realize you have to go all stupid to protect yourself, it is a natural thing people like you do, but try not to be so blantant about it.

Other than you, no one even mentioned Bush being a good president. This thread is about the doofuses (or is it doofi?) who think Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes.

You would not happen to be one of those doofuses, would you?
 
cybrsage said:
I realize you have to go all stupid to protect yourself, it is a natural thing people like you do, but try not to be so blantant about it.
Click to expand...

Please, you threw up the pithy line first so I answered in kind.

As far as Desmond Tutu is concerned his opinion doesn't matter because what he said is never gonna happen.

cybrsage said:
You would not happen to be one of those doofuses, would you?
Click to expand...

President Bush or VP Cheney never advocated anything that would be on the level of a war crime despite having lied about relevant facts about the reasons for going into the war.
The fact that President Bush hasn't been much mentioned during the recent RNC and now has to really think hard about whether he wants to travel abroad is karmic punishment for those lies.

Does that answer your question?

Or are you going to continue to post stupid shit in these forums?
 
Last edited:
blankslate said:
President Bush or VP Cheney never advocated anything that would be on the level of a war crime despite having lied about relevant facts about the reasons for going into the war.
The fact that President Bush hasn't been much mentioned during the recent RNC and now has to really think hard about whether he wants to travel abroad is karmic punishment for those lies.

Does that answer your question?
Click to expand...

Why do you care what Tutu has to say? You got all butt hurt when I said Bush haters care.
 
Reread my post at the top of this page.

I don't like Bush. And depending on how broadly you define the category "Bush Hater" I could fall into it.

Yet what Desmond Tutu is saying really doesn't matter.

Therefore you made an overly broad generalization.
 
a777pilot said:
Bull Shit!

He made some mistakes but over all what he did was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Lying about Yellow cake, is not a mistake its a lie. A lie used to lead us to premeptive war where soldiers died.

as a former troop your disdain for the lost lives of soldiers is sickening.
 
Last edited:
Its my understanding that waterboarding is illegal under the geneva convention which the USA is a signatory too. But the debate, take the benefits of the doubt of GWB&co and Obama, is who is covered under the Geneva convention?

As the main defination of the Geneva convention was how standing armies of one nation conducted themselves when pitted against another country.

But since "terrorists" are not a legitimate standing army of any established nation, does the Geneva convention convey any war crime protections to them when captured on any battlefield? Or for that matter, can means or weapons prohihibted under the Geneva convention be used against "terrorists" but not legitimate armies?

And the vagueness gets doubly vague when one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. In all kinds of war crimes trials even before WW1, the defendants, all try inventive defenses, but usually war crimes courts and not defendants's define the legitimacy of the defenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top