Should the various political leaders that were in power under George W Bush, including the President, be put on trial for war crimes? Discuss.
Yes - Starting a war of aggression is a war crime, starting a war without a UN resolution when you're not threatened likewise.
Lying to parliament/congress, lying to the people - not sure what they come under, maybe treason.
Lying to parliament/congress, lying to the people - not sure what they come under, maybe treason.
Fuck Israel
yikes!
should they be? Of course.
will they be. of course not.
should they be? Of course.
will they be. of course not.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-02-18 23:53:05)
I don't think GWB truely knew that the info was false. I believe Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and various CIA/FBI higher ups should be tried by the international court in the Hague.
no. Saddam should have been put on trial. Oh wait.CapnNismo wrote:
Should the various political leaders that were in power under George W Bush, including the President, be put on trial for war crimes? Discuss.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
wut?DBBrinson1 wrote:
no. Saddam should have been put on trial. Oh wait.CapnNismo wrote:
Should the various political leaders that were in power under George W Bush, including the President, be put on trial for war crimes? Discuss.
You do realize there was an UN resolution passed about Iraq which allowed the US go ahead...Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes - Starting a war of aggression is a war crime, starting a war without a UN resolution when you're not threatened likewise.
Lying to parliament/congress, lying to the people - not sure what they come under, maybe treason.
Edit: UN also allowed US and UK to govern Iraq
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scre … es1483.pdf
And I wouldn't even have allowed the UN "go ahead" for support, oil for food programme anyone? If you want to fix US invading other countries, fix the fucking UN first. Hell all UN employees have diplomatic immunity.
Last edited by Cybargs (2010-02-19 06:01:44)
No there wasn't.You do realize there was an UN resolution passed about Iraq which allowed the US go ahead...
Fuck Israel
War crimes are for the losing side.
Turquoise wrote:
War crimes are for the losing side.
In that case, all the cocksuckers in Europe should be on trial as well.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes - Starting a war of aggression is a war crime, starting a war without a UN resolution when you're not threatened likewise.
Lying to parliament/congress, lying to the people - not sure what they come under, maybe treason.
pay-per-view plz.
'Fix' the UN? You are linking a resolution as evidence of OK by UN and in the same breath saying it needs to be 'fixed'. The problem with the UN is that the permanent Security Council countries use UN authority when it is convenient and cast it off when it's not. You don't 'fix' the UN, you fix the apathy regarding the UN by the power players (the permanent 5 members of UN Security Council). Why would they fix an organization that gives credibility when they need it and gives what amounts to a murmur when its authority is sidestepped?Cybargs wrote:
You do realize there was an UN resolution passed about Iraq which allowed the US go ahead...Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes - Starting a war of aggression is a war crime, starting a war without a UN resolution when you're not threatened likewise.
Lying to parliament/congress, lying to the people - not sure what they come under, maybe treason.
Edit: UN also allowed US and UK to govern Iraq
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scre … es1483.pdf
And I wouldn't even have allowed the UN "go ahead" for support, oil for food programme anyone? If you want to fix US invading other countries, fix the fucking UN first. Hell all UN employees have diplomatic immunity.
Did you not read what they said or something? (the Nazis lost if you were unaware)m3thod wrote:
Nuremberg war crimes trials were such a waste of time eh?Macbeth wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
War crimes are for the losing side.
Read it completley wrongFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Did you not read what they said or something? (the Nazis lost if you were unaware)m3thod wrote:
Nuremberg war crimes trials were such a waste of time eh?Macbeth wrote:
Wait....why shouldn't the victor not be bound to war crimes trials? Why only the loser?
Last edited by m3thod (2010-02-19 16:30:07)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
The only way that'll happen is if Iraq somehow invade the US and the UK, destroy the military, destroy the government, install a new government who helps them track down Bush/Blair, and then they get the newly installed government to pass a verdict of execution for war crimes and shit
Or something
Basically what happened in Iraq except in reverse
Basically what turkwise said...
Or something
Basically what happened in Iraq except in reverse
Basically what turkwise said...
dude the victor writes the book on war crimem3thod wrote:
Read it completley wrongFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Did you not read what they said or something? (the Nazis lost if you were unaware)m3thod wrote:
Nuremberg war crimes trials were such a waste of time eh?
Wait....why shouldn't the victor not be bound to war crimes trials? Why only the loser?
Just Blair.Chou wrote:
In that case, all the cocksuckers in Europe should be on trial as well.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes - Starting a war of aggression is a war crime, starting a war without a UN resolution when you're not threatened likewise.
Lying to parliament/congress, lying to the people - not sure what they come under, maybe treason.
pay-per-view plz.
Fuck Israel
btw, judgment at nuremberg is a great movie
(with william shatner as aide/adjutant )
(with william shatner as aide/adjutant )
Lets do it.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
http://keeptonyblairforpm.files.wordpre … ir-etc.jpg
Fuck Israel
oh I would just be so damn happy to see that.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
http://keeptonyblairforpm.files.wordpre … ir-etc.jpg
we can at least dream....
Looks like someone needs to read the definition of war crime.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes - Starting a war of aggression is a war crime, starting a war without a UN resolution when you're not threatened likewise.
Lying to parliament/congress, lying to the people - not sure what they come under, maybe treason.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
"A war of aggression is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a war crime under the customary international law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression
"The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Counsel resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva. A "war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force.” We note with “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_o … aggression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression
"The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Counsel resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva. A "war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force.” We note with “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_o … aggression
Last edited by cl4u53w1t2 (2010-02-20 07:31:23)
Lets start with real war criminals and continue from there shall we? Perhaps Burmese, Somali, Rwanadan, infact fuck it, all African war criminals should be first. Ya know, the people that are responsible for destroying, via rape, torture or murder, millions of lives? Then we can go from there...
you said it. And that person is you.FEOS wrote:
Looks like someone needs to read the definition of war crime.