Will the US and reigning Pres. be brought up Internationally on War Crimes?

Question

Is suspicion enough reason for invasion?
At the end of WWII, the US was very hard and righteous on Germany and
Japan. Do you think that the rest of the World will comprehend that the US
is only testing the water to see how far it can go? After all, there are more than 750 US military bases in some 133 countries. US military budget exceeds Europe combined. And, foreign weapons sales-profit exceeds any other country. Germany invaded Poland on pretense. Japan invaded Manchuko on pretense. US invaded Iraq on pretense.Germany and Japan paid-- and everything costs. Is it now time for the US to pay for its stupidity?

Thanks to those who truly reflected.
The Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries .
That is from the 2000 gov't web. The same number is listed today by both Congress and
Dept. of Defense. However, there are 23 recent bases in the Middle east.

The Congressional Budget office has projected a scenario
"that would require the appropriation of $368 billion for military
operations over the 2007-2016 period."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html
The US already has 890 military installations in foreign countries, ranging from major Air Force bases to smaller installations, say a radar facility. From the csmonitor.

The Pentagon has revealed that coalition forces are spending millions of dollars establishing at least six "enduring" bases in Iraq - raising the prospect that US and UK forces could be involved in a long-term deployment in the country.

Sorry if the question seemed harshly put.

PS America had four ships sunk in 12,'37.

Answer 1

Good luck with that. Who's going to come and get him, and why would we let them? We're not a signatory of that treaty.

Answer 2

Doubt it. We never did sign the treaty that created the World Court system and we have never signed any international treaty that allows United States Citizens to be tried in foreign courts for war crimes of any kind.

The best you could hope for is impeachment and that won't happen either because the Congress understands that Bush has lost most of his power as of January of next year.

Answer 3

I do not believe that the war is based on false pretenses. The leader of Iraq (Saddam) was in violation of 12 UN resolutions and was guilty of the same type of crimes that Hitler was. I do not agree with all of Bush's timming for the war or with all of his choices he made leading up to it but it is not wrong. As far as WMD go they did have them but Bush's choice to give them a time table for invasion facilitated the removal/ hiding of the WMD's. There are no grounds for war crime trials as of now.

Answer 4

Iraq and the lies/errors that precipitated it to one side there are very real potential areas for war crimes charges however it is very unlikely that the chain of command in these cases would run all the way to the White House. Somebody would fall on their sword before that happened (or be pushed onto it).

Or have we all forgotten our secret CIA prisons. Thats about as illegal as you can get under international. But hey so what if we do the same stuff to our enemies as China, North Korea and Cuba do to theirs......

See the Irony!

Answer 5

How can you preach so authoritatively on a subject you have no concept of whatsoever?

First, you make no since, in fact you weren't even able to peace together a cognizant question. If you're like twelve or something then its okay, but if you're older than twelve.........well, you need to try a little harder. What do you mean "testing the waters"? Testing the waters for what? Why would you hold that America having 750 bases (by the way the last official estimate from the Department of Defense is from 1992 which only listed 471 military instillation's, so you're holding up factually unsubstantiated numbers) world wide is a sign of us testing the waters?

Secondly, if you want to compare Japan's invasion of Manchuko (which is actually spelled Manchukuo just so you know for your future reference, that way the next time you decide to berate America about international affairs, you’ll have a little bit more credibility considering people won’t think your are too stupid to spell a country right), and Germany's invasion of Poland and every other nation that started ww2, to America's invasion of Iraq, then a bowl of jello and a brick wall look the same to you, which if your sight is as bad as your knowledge of history and your ability to practically apply it to current affairs; wouldn't surprise me.

Saddam Hussein had no sovereignty to begin with; he lost it in 1990 when the U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions on him for invading Kuwait, but I'll bet you already knew that, right? Furthermore, it was a U.N. cease fire signed on March 3,1991 by Mr. Hussein that "temporarily suspended U.S. military hostilities against Iraq, in exchange for Saddam Hussein’s agreement to abide by the terms and conditions of that cease fire" which he failed to do starting in 1993 when he attempted to assassinate former President Bush while he was visiting Kuwait City, but I'll bet you already knew that too, right?

He continued to violate that agreement over and over again, while ignoring 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions. In 2002 the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 1441 which called for Saddam Hussein to allow access of suspected weapons sites, he said that he would and then constantly refused to do so. In America; Congress authorized President Bush to use force to remove Hussein from power, and now, finally, one of the most brutally oppressive, totalitarian dictators on the planet, who ran a nation that has been most aptly, and appropriately describe as a concentration camp above ground and a mass grave underneath it is no longer able to terrorize his people. Our action was a long overdue act of mercy for the Iraqi people, and you and your stupidity have the nerve to criticize the one nation in the world who had the power to do something about this human tragedy, and unlike most nations, actually did (save the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Italy, and Australia)?

The war in Iraq was legal, necessary, and just. Saddam Hussein was the only world leader to publicly praise the 9-11 attacks, the only world leader to give sanctuary to known terrorists after 9-11 when all other nations were kicking them out, the only nation (excluding Iran, and Syria) to allow a terrorist organization (ansar al-islam) to act as an unofficial arm of the nation’s central government, and the only nation to allow Abu- Musab Al- Zarquwi to wage his Islamic Jihad against his Kurdish enemies in the northern part of that country. That, coupled with the fact that every credible intelligence agency in the world believe that Iraq possessed existing stockpiles of Chemical, and Biological weapons, was more than enough justification for an invasion of that nation.

You asked “shouldn’t we have to pay for our stupidity?” The real question is; why should America have to pay for your stupidity.

Answer 6

Probably not but they should be. If you have heard of the "shadow conspiracy" you would know that all world leaders are in on it. The only reason why conflicts and wars are started is so that they can make more money and support the idea of a one government world. International law means nothing to anyone anymore.

Answer 7

Your complete lack of knowledge on Iraq astounds me. Go read about the Gulf War, the UN sanctions and the 12 years of Saddam showboating for his arab neighbors by not complying.

As for bringing us anywhere, what country or group of countries have the cajones to try. Try that and we'll reduce you losers to glowing rubble.

Answer 8

Just as soon as you are brought to trial for 'war crimes.'

Unless you think that there has to have been an actual violation of a written statute - you are just as guilty as we are.

Answer 9

No, because no one has the balls to do so.

Answer 10

I doubt it.