Do you think that Tony Blair and George Bush should both be tried at the Hague for their war crimes?

Question

There is a chance to find out what other people think at these web sites.


http://www.petitiononline.com/XV179/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/cgi-bin/mlk?http://www.mfaw.org.uk/blogs

I am not making any judgement, just posing a question.If you are not prepared to debate without being abusive it does not say much for your grasp of the ethics of democracy. 36 years Military service with 5 Campaign Medals.

And politically aligned slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan.

http://www.mfaw.org.uk/blogs

Answer 1

I absolutely do not think that Tony Blair and George Bush should be tried for anything whatsoever ... they are brave, courageous gentlemen who have placed themselves in harms way out of love for their respective countries and humankind ...

It is difficult to understand fully the plight of war; however, this is a necessary one, an extremely important and necessary one ...

Each and every time I read that one of our beloved guys have been murdered in the Middle East I sit and shed tears of sorrow; yet, nonetheless, I know that it is necessary ... sometimes I get 'mad' at President Bush ... I think
"what is he doing" ... "what has he done" ... but then I realize that what he has done will make life so much easier down the road ... of course, realizing that we will always have a presence in the Middle East forever and ever ...

We can never allow the horrific 9/11 event to reoccur ... ever ...

Answer 2

I'm not a Bush fan, but why aren't we questioning why the United Nations allowed Saddam to kick out the weapons inspectors in '98 and they were never sent back in? That was part of the sanctions at the end of the first Gulf war. And need I remind everyone of the Kurdish people that Saddam brutally killed with biological weapons? Has anyone seen the pictures of the children in the streets, their bodies and faces contorted in pain from the unexpected attack?

Clinton bombed Iraq in '98 when the weapons inspectors were kicked out but there was no reinforcement from the U.N or Nato. Bush didn't handle Iraq correctly BUT if the U.N had done their job, Bush wouldn't have had reason to go into Iraq in the first place. I am sick and tired of every other country hating the U.S until they want our money. Bring out troops home, seal up the boarders and see how long most of these countries and the U.N survive without our financial support.

Answer 3

No. First off, the articles you reference are about the alleged short-comings of the UK secretary of defense. Might be able to drag Mr. Blair in to that mess somehow, but how does that have anything to do with Bush?

Maybe you should spend a little time to find out exactly what actions would be involved in war crimes. Not adding some equipment that may or may not have saved the lives of some soldiers is not a war crime by any stretch of the imagination.

Blah Blah Blah, yeah we get it, you do not support the war. So what?

Answer 4

And all of those; a million.) Giving immunity for those that violated the F.I.S.A. act 2.) surprising rendition, sovereign immunity and states secrets and techniques 3.) Torture 4.) The Patriot Act 5.) Politicization of the dep. of Justice 6.) The disastrous wars of Iraq and Afghanistan 7.) Denying Habeas Corpus 8.) The safeguard united states of america Act 9.) the army Commissions Act 10.) the extreme mis-administration of the financial disaster 11.) appointing Ben Bernake as Federal Reserve Chairman 12) typhoon Katrina 13) dropping 9 billion in Iraq 14) gross and utter mis-administration of our financial device 15) tax cuts for the rich sixteen) Medicare section D 17) kin Spying 18) enjoying a extensive section interior the loan meltdown (encouraging irresponsible lending and borrowing) 19) Hiring cronies to all stages of government 20) Graft 21) Stealing distinctive presidential elections 22) dropping American prominence international extensive the two financial and socially 23) Exportation of jobs remote places 24) Deregulation 25) TREASON (mendacity US INTO conflict!) AS YOU suggested etc etc etc tried, prosecuted, impeached

Answer 5

So what does fire suppressant system in C-130's have to do with war crime?
I suggest you be more specific with accusations. War crimes is way too general.
However, consider this, Iraq was UN sanctioned, Abu Graib violations are/have been prosecuted/ Gitmo prisoners are enemy combatants not POWs.
People are in prison now for poking a little fun at some prisoners in Iraq. Torture? Murder? Hardly. We don't bind prisoners hands behind their backs and the cut their head off while they're still alive.

Answer 6

WHat if Bush brings law and order and opportunity to the people of IRAQ? WOuldn't that be a good thing? Have youe ver been to a 3rd world country and seen how people live day to day? How they are treated by dictators? Go and you'll see something that will make you think differenty about Bush

Answer 7

In response to your question, yes. My question is why it has not already been done.
It is a felony to lie to congress, Bush lied to congress to get us in this war.
Tony Blair and George Bush both broke an international treaty when they entered Iraq. They started a war of aggression, in violation to the Geneva Conventions which both countries are a signatory on.
Our War in Afganastan may be just as illegal since the FBI has come out and stated that it has no hard evidence to tie Osma Bin Laden to 911.
The document called the new american century gives us motive for this illegal war we're in you can check it out at www.pnac.com
Plus the fact that 911 was not ever investigated for the crime of 3000 murders. Why is it we did not look at who had put opions on american airlines, united or the companies in located in the world trade centers.
I think they have committed acts of treason against their respective countries, I would like to see them both tried at the Hague, then returned to their respective countries. I believe that all corporations who aided in this crime, along with all their assets should be seized. I believe their cabnet members should be tried right along beside them. I believe that any corporation who profitted from their war crimes should have their assets seized as well.
They should be returned to their respective countries to be tried for acts of treason. They should defineately be indicted and put out of office, but for that manuver to be effective we would have to indicte their respective cabinets. We would also need to seize all their assets, if we can seize assets of persons arrested for drug crimes in America, I do believe treason to be a greater crime and provides more justification for seizure.
Bottom line is they are criminals and should be treated like any other criminal. Indicted, tried and jailed. I do believe a treason conviction of this magnitude deserves the firing squad.
P.S.
couldn't get the spell check to work

Answer 8

Don't know about Toni Blare, but George Bush?
Bush freed those people from Sadam Hussain. If you are stating that he should be tried becouse of the soldiers he ordered into Iraq, then you are full of it (Name me a war/battle that didnot result in a death of a soldier on one side).

Answer 9

Many people have claimed that the Iraq war was unjust & the weapons search was based on ONE undergraduate dissertation. No weapons were found and innocent people were subjected to absolute terror & suffering, so yes, they should be tried...

...but if they are found innocent in court, what then my friend?

Answer 10

No but the New York Times should.