History is written by the winners, and so are the definitions of "war crimes". The actions of the Nazis and Japanese that were deemed "war crimes" were actions which only the "Axis" perpetrated. There were many equally heinous acts by them (eg. bombing civilian populations) that were *not* considered "war crimes" because the US, UK and the "Allies" committed them also and could have faced charges.
As the saying goes, there's justice and "just us". Yes, Shrub is a war criminal. He should be arrested, tried, convicted and executed, but it will probably never happen. For the US to surrender Shrub to a trial in the Hague would require the US admitting its country is guilty of war crimes, and that is something the US is unwilling to do.
Since 2003, both Rumsfeld and Gonzalez have attempted to rewrite the definition of what is a war crime, and Rumsfeld threatened economic terrorism - oops, economic sanctions - against any country that attempts to prosecute US soldiers or other citizens for war crimes.
Regarding Iraqis, the US set up special "rules" for trying US citizens for actions committed in Iraq, but the trials *must* be filed and held in the US, NOT in Iraq. What poor Iraqi farmer whose crops the US destroyed, or woman whose husband and sons were arrested and executed without trial has the money or knowledge to go to the US and file a lawsuit? Clearly the intent by the Shrub junta is to prevent any real justice and consequences for the two illegal wars.
2006-08-25 02:24:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
We didn't arm Iraq, idiot. They have Russian tanks, Russian and French planes, and Russian and Chinese small arms. The chemical and biological weapons he used in the 1980's he didn't get from us either. Osama bin laden is a cowardly terrorist who has convinced a lot of imbecilic losers to blow themselves up so they can have 72 virgins. George Bush is the leader of the free world and could care less what his standing in the polls is. Popularity doesn't equate to being right. Lincoln got 38% percent of the popular vote in 1860, and Churchill was virtually alone in advocating standing up to Hitler. These men are statesmen not political hacks.
2006-08-26 01:53:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by mk_matson 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Interesting question, but no. And you better hope like heck nothing like that ever happens. Read a bit more history, and lots more current affairs and I think you will discern the answer for yourself. There is a major difference in the two people in question, and if you don't know that by now, keep reading the news. There is also a major difference in how they came to power. Bush, like it or don't (how's your voter status?) was elected by the people, to represent them. Saddam? well, you already said you don't want to hear the truth about him in your question. As far as "us" arming "him"? Keep studing. I'm not saying you are wrong, but, I know I don't have all the answers and I congratulate you in seeking. We, the American people, vote our voice, our choice, in national elections. If we don't like it, we vote otherwise. If you don't like Saddam? Well, you already said you don't want to know the truth. My guess is you would be voting on the other side of Heaven.
2006-08-25 07:21:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by Golden 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Saddam being the brutal dictator is not BS. son. We've armed and supported many...Not the point. And please, Don't be so naive to believe in "statistics". You need to get off the Bush-bashing wagon. It's getting so old. Don't you think we all want our troops out of there?? Things are not always as they appear.. another thing you need to learn.
2006-08-25 06:47:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
You've allowed yourself to become very political, friend. Be careful of this: it leads often to opinionatedness and rigid self-rigteous indignation. We all could use some spiritual or religious instruction in our lives to help protect us from these perils (of becoming not part of the soluton, but one of the combattants, part of the problem). People who are democratically elected (and the 2000 election is irrelevant now that Bush easily won in 2004) are not readily prosecutable unless they deliberately violate international law. The current president may have done this (violated international law) but it is not useful to call him a "terrorist" and such. The way the political world is ordered, there is no one to (figuratively speaking) arrest the transgressing policeman. Who arrests the policeman? You need to find calm and cogent answers to these questions. Politcal recalcitrance and opinionatedness are threats to peace also.
2006-08-25 06:31:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by voltaire 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
whatisinhodog is a whiny liberal without the brain power to reason on his own. He can only repeat what the Dem's put out as talking points. The Bush bashing is getting really old. Maybe you f***ing Dem's would get more votes if you could come up with an original idea. Oh that's right that requires a functioning brain.
2006-08-25 06:55:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
The US is already taking steps to make sure that no Americans are prosecuted for war crimes. What does that tell you? It certainly tells me that the US goverment is concerned and knows that others can see justification.
Please watch the 2003 documentary film that Robert MacNamara made last year. The Fog of War. In the film he states that his personal actions of firebombing Japanese civilians during WW2 would have led to him being prosecuted as a war criminal had the US lost the war. You see, only those who lose are considered to be war criminals.
Bush and his gang have a lot at stake in seeing that this war continues until US victory. Sorry, I don't like that word either because we all know there will never be any victory in the middle east. Just year after year of bloodshed and escalating war in ever expanding territories and perpetual terrorist reprisial actions all around the world.
2006-08-25 06:34:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by Riorose 2
·
1⤊
3⤋
Primarily 20 percent of the Iraqis who benefitted from Saddam want us out.
The Shias and the Kurds would prefer to retaliate and establish their own spheres of influence, without the stabilizing presence of the USA and coalition forces.
However, we cannot allow Iran to use their Shia influence to annex Iraq, and we cannot allow the Kurds to reform Kurdistan, which would benefit Iran, but not Turkey. Iran would largely disagree with my last statement.
2006-08-25 06:17:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Lewis Y 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
No they don't, they have a far greater right.
How many people have died in Iraq (and Afghanisan) compared to on 911? Did Bin Laden invade the US after bombing the hell out of everyone? Has Bin Laden been supporting terrorist organizations all over the World for decades as the CIA does? Did Laden create and train the CIA? Are the people of American living in abject poverty? Is Bin Laden running the World economy so that it directly benefits him?
Is Laden even real? If so, where the hell is he? And is he still working for the CIA? Who was really behind 911?
Anyhow, Bush is a very powerful man and the Iraqis have no chance: he can murder them in droves and will never get punished. God Bless America? Well, he certainly hasn't blessed Iraq....
2006-08-25 06:31:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by airmonkey1001 4
·
1⤊
5⤋
Golden
the only difference between Bush and Saddam is that Bush has not physically tortured use yet ,,,,, but he has tortured us economically,,,,, and regardless of what anyone says ,,his elections were fixed
2006-08-25 07:36:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by willow6262 4
·
1⤊
1⤋