George Bush and Tony Blair are War Criminals.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/23/bush_and_blair_found_guilty_of_war_crimes_for_iraq_attack/singleton

This is quite interesting. Will it ever be possible to execute this judgement? What are your thoughts on the verdict?

Thats actually something epic coming. West recognising criminals its former bosses. Thats smth I bow down to u sirs. Hope that excuse for a human Sakaashvilli is next

Lawl. I doubt they're ever going to be punished for all their actions.

But I'd so love it if they would.

LOL like they will ever be punished. These two were worse than Bin Laden.

Mamad wrote:All American presidents are war criminals if you think about it.

By your logic all world leaders are war criminals.

RedOranje wrote:

Mamad wrote:All American presidents are war criminals if you think about it.

By your logic all world leaders are war criminals.

By your logic all people are war criminals.

RedOranje wrote:

Mamad wrote:All American presidents are war criminals if you think about it.

By your logic all world leaders are war criminals.

Essentially that is the case (even though America is only blamed for it ). World leaders having a big ass military in front of them and using it just because they can and using propaganda to get the people on their side, when in fact war doesn't help anyone. But karma will strike back and teach them a lesson.

beatrixasdfghjk. wrote:

RedOranje wrote:

Mamad wrote:All American presidents are war criminals if you think about it.

By your logic all world leaders are war criminals.

By your logic all people are war criminals.

Actually, that would be an extension of HIS logic. I'm proud of you for giving it a go though!

RedOranje wrote:

Mamad wrote:All American presidents are war criminals if you think about it.

By your logic all world leaders are war criminals.

Totally agree with this, except that some are worst. Obviously the countries that have been invading sovereign nations are far more worst than the rest...

Gentlemen... Let's look at this objectively. Depending on your point of view, nearly any military action could be taken as a "war crime" by the opposing side. Indeed, in the aftermath of an aggressive move, most nations portray the attack as a heinous crime against humanity. In all honesty, they are probably right (any action that results in the deaths of large numbers of people is difficult to justify). However, many nations have taken part in less veiled affronts to the concept of world peace than Britain and the USA in 2003.

Does anyone remember the Kellog-Briand pact. (My apologies for using the widely used, American name for it.) The signing members of the pact essentially renounced war, prohibiting war as an instrument of national policy. This all happened in 1928. Know which nations signed it? America, Japan, the UK, France and Germany. In other words, the same nations that would begin tearing the world apart a decade later. The moral of this story is that international agreements and regulations are easily created in times of peace and just as easily forgotten in times of crisis.

DTOR ruling the topic.

Idrisozet wrote:

RedOranje wrote:

Mamad wrote:All American presidents are war criminals if you think about it.

By your logic all world leaders are war criminals.

Totally agree with this, except that some are worse. Obviously the countries that have been invading sovereign nations are far worse than the rest...

Sorry for the intrusion .

Red, I can't get made a Grammar Policeman, can I?
Life dream .

RedOranje wrote:DTOR ruling the topic.

Is what I does. :king:

Let's just say this topic is right up my alley.

Also, it really doesn't take a major in political sciences to know that war will always be part of politics, like von Clausewitz said.

It's just the extension of diplomacy by other means, or however you'd translate it.

All countries do despicaple things, if you can't see the shades of grey between the black and the white, the world will drive you batshit mental.

So what are you guys trying to say? That cases like this are impossible to judge and hence these trials are meaningless?

I still think the developed countries are shielded a lot more than the other countries. The point this tribunal is trying to make is that such double standards exist and their aim is to address that issue.

Blair will plead insanity in court. Bush, on the other hand, will have to settle at chronic imbecility.

I think it's great that they've been convicted, I just don't think they'll be punished.

It's still good someone did it.

Finally, someone convicted them. the International Court will look like the dummies they are if they don't take this seriously. Bush and Blair did far worse then Bin Laden, Saddam and Gaddafi combined.

Ordinho10 wrote:Finally, someone convicted them. the International Court will look like the dummies they are if they don't take this seriously. Bush and Blair did far worse then Bin Laden, Saddam and Gaddafi combined.

Really?...

Regardless of whether you agree with Bush and Blair's decisions (for the record, I do not), this seems like a difficult conclusion to draw. At worst, Blair and Bush deceived their constituency, violated the rights of sovereign nations, destabilized the governments of the aforementioned nations, and set in motion actions that resulted in the deaths of enemy combatants and, regretfully, some civilians. These actions are certainly quite serious. However, they did not attempt genocide, advocate violence against innocents to achieve political goals, or oppress the very people they were sworn to protect among other atrocities.

I have difficulty lumping the two into the same category. I see no underlying evil in their actions, only misguided and ill-informed decisions. Once again, I do not mean to make light of the results of these ill-informed decisions. They have had dire consequences, for sure. However, you will be hard pressed to convince me that Tony Blair or George Bush are equivalent to Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi. History is rife with examples of ordinary men that have been put into extraordinary situations. Unfortunately, those men are not always able to handle the tasks set in front of them. Believe it or not, but good men are capable of causing horrible things.

Actually, may be not Blair, but Bush is pretty much equivalent.

Despite all good intention of fighting terrorism and for democracy, Iraq and Afghanistan are bloodbaths today, countries with little hope. Also the number of civillians dead in NATO bombings and operations with the use of illegal weaponry such as cassette bombs is dramatic, even though statistics is probably undermined in media

No they are not.

20 Years from now, we'll appreciate what they brought to this world.

donttreadonred wrote:

Ordinho10 wrote:Finally, someone convicted them. the International Court will look like the dummies they are if they don't take this seriously. Bush and Blair did far worse then Bin Laden, Saddam and Gaddafi combined.

Really?...

Regardless of whether you agree with Bush and Blair's decisions (for the record, I do not), this seems like a difficult conclusion to draw. At worst, Blair and Bush deceived their constituency, violated the rights of sovereign nations, destabilized the governments of the aforementioned nations, and set in motion actions that resulted in the deaths of enemy combatants and, regretfully, some civilians. These actions are certainly quite serious. However, they did not attempt genocide, advocate violence against innocents to achieve political goals, or oppress the very people they were sworn to protect among other atrocities.

I have difficulty lumping the two into the same category. I see no underlying evil in their actions, only misguided and ill-informed decisions. Once again, I do not mean to make light of the results of these ill-informed decisions. They have had dire consequences, for sure. However, you will be hard pressed to convince me that Tony Blair or George Bush are equivalent to Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi. History is rife with examples of ordinary men that have been put into extraordinary situations. Unfortunately, those men are not always able to handle the tasks set in front of them. Believe it or not, but good men are capable of causing horrible things.

How do you define 'some' as?

Sepi wrote:No they are not.

No they are not.

20 Years from now, we'll appreciate what they brought to this world.

How are they not????

BTW what good did they bring that they would be appreciated in 20 years' time? At least not by the countries they invaded, I'm sure. And that's what really tells the truth of what happened other than people elsewhere being brainwashed by what the media tells them is happening.

@english_jewel
That's a fair point. Some is a very ambiguous term. I won't sit here and pretend to quote you figures and rationals. The killing of civilians is never acceptable. However, for the sake of my argument, the intention was to describe the intended target of the actions. Bin Laden, Hussein and Gaddaffi's targets were civilian, intending to create fear to unsettle foreign powers and control domestic groups. Civilian casualties as a result of US and Nato attacks are collateral, meaning that they were not intended. The killing of civilians was never the goal of the attack. While the deaths of civilians is never irrelevant, my definition of "some" is.

To be honest, I suppose this specific aspect of the argument has a lot of bearing upon your personal moral theory. Do you believe that a person's intentions have anything to do with whether they are a good person or not. Is it simply a person's actions that matter, and their intentions are of no consequence?

donttreadonred wrote:@english_jewel
That's a fair point. Some is a very ambiguous term. I won't sit here and pretend to quote you figures and rationals. The killing of civilians is never acceptable. However, for the sake of my argument, the intention was to describe the intended target of the actions. Bin Laden, Hussein and Gaddaffi's targets were civilian, intending to create fear to unsettle foreign powers and control domestic groups. Civilian casualties as a result of US and Nato attacks are collateral, meaning that they were not intended. The killing of civilians was never the goal of the attack. While the deaths of civilians is never irrelevant, my definition of "some" is.

Fair point