Don't you think G.W. BUSH should be sent in front of a tribunal for terrorist acts in Iraq?

Question

Where is the difference between, to enforce its own country in its democracy vision like Saddam HUSSEIN did and to lie and create a complete false story in order to lead nations in a war to satisfy an economic and power need in the name of democracy like BUSH is still doing? Remove chemical weapons and link with Al Qaeda, why should we fight against Saddam rather than some other dictator? Perhaps, it should have been more fair to spend all this money in fighting Taliban who have been trained, armed and supported by US! Bush is exactly doing the right way to generate more and more terrorist in the world. Terrorism is neither a country, nor an army. Terrorism is a death plant which is growing with death blood.

Answer 1

'Terrorism' as interpreted by G.W. Bush is anything he says it is. Bush has committed a war crime by committing war against a sovereign country that was clearly of no threat to the USA or any other Western Country. He has committed acts that violate laws protecting humanity. And, he has undermined our constitution and thereby undermined democracy and freedom itself.

Bush should be held accountable as a matter of utmost importance and urgency.

Answer 2

As a sitting head-of-state, GWB can not be prosecuted. All sitting heads-of-state are exempt from War Crimes prosecution. However, when his 2nd term expires, or if he steps down prematurely for any reason, he becomes vulnerable to prosecution for War Crimes under the Geneva Convention. It is my understanding that Canada (our staunch ally to the north) already has a suspended warrant out for him, VP Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Condoleza Rice, for war crimes. Of course, the warrant is suspended because it's not enforceable until they are no longer in office.

I recently saw a grass-roots documentary called 9/11: Press For Truth, which says that there is very strong evidence (that has been reported in the press, but few people have connected the dots) to show that Pakistan should have been our target instead of Iraq - if our goal was to fight terrorism. Instead, we've given Pakistan a pass, called them an "important ally", and even made critical blunders allowing Taliban and Al Queda members to cross the border into Pakistan - and done nothing.

Answer 3

Okay I am going to start by saying I will not address you contentions about the tribunal and George Bush, because this contention gets more silly every time I read it. I will however address the inaccuracies in your question.

Saddam Hussein's regime was not a democracy.
Saddam Hussein did have, and has used chemical weapons against both Iranian and Iraqi citizens (Kurds)
Saddam Hussein did support terrorism. He offered 25,000 to families of suicider bombers.
Saddam Hussein was in violation of 17 different UN resolutions.
We should fight despots wherever we find them in the world, but if we are going to do so we should always complete the mission. Not turn and run when it gets difficult as we did in Somalia, and as many are now proposing we do in Iraq.
We have never supported the Taliban or provided weapons to them. We did support the Muja Hadeen in the late 70's and early 80's in their fight against the Soviet Union, but these are not, contrary to popular belief the same group.
The alternative to fighting terrorism is to let it grow unchecked. While we cannot completely protect ourselves against terrorist attack, we can make those who perpetrate and support such acts responsible for the consequences of their actions. Just ignoring terrorism, or blaming ourselves is not going to eliminate the problem. The fundamental mindset of Islamic terrorists is that the western way of life must be eliminated, and it's people converted or killed. This mindset did not begin with the war in Iraq, and it will not end when we leave Iraq. In order to best protect our citizens we must be diligent, and ready to attack these terrorists where they live and breath, this includes taking down regimes which sponsor their efforts.

paulisfree04: Your information is also incorrect. We did not need a declaration of war in Iraq. Congress declared war on Iraq in 1991. The end of hositilies in the first Gulf War was a ceasefire, under condition that they would leave Kuwait and observe UN resolutions pertaining to their weapons programs. Although they left Kuwait under fire, they did not follow UN resolutions. This places them in violation of the terms of the ceasefire, a new declaration of war was not required to resume hostilities.

Answer 4

No one escapes punishment. The universal system of justice is perfect.

For anyone interested in 9/11, the war in Iraq, etc., check out this website: http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11timeline6...

Its a timeline of events surrounding 9/11 from the 70's to the present. Each entry is referenced by actual articles in the main stream news media. No theories just facts. Excellent reading.

Answer 5

Somewhere along your trip you seemed to forget that our adventure into Iraq had the approval and authorization of the American Congress and not George W. Bush by his lonely-self.

Iraq is an AMERICAN venture, which means YOU did it ( if you are an American) since it is YOUR Congress doing what you want them to do.

If you are an American, you need this message: Smarten up Brother. If you feel you need to blame someone, look in a mirror and blame the image you see.

Answer 6

No he should be on trial for terrorizing America, rigging two elections, and declairing war without declariation of congress

Answer 7

Yes. Bush is a war criminal and a traitor to the US Constitution.

Answer 8

If GW needs a character witness or two, I'll bet he can get them. In fact, he could file a counter suit for slander and stupidness on the likes of you.

Answer 9

to be hones t with you, my feelings towards G.W. Bush is much to strong for me to say right not but i really do think that he should .

Answer 10

sure and you and the rest of the terrorists can be the judges right? tell obl I said hello!