Bush & Saddam Should Stand Trial

[Mephisto]

Who doesn't hate a war criminal?

I know, I know this is just the opinion of one man, but that man just might have the credentials to know what he's talking about:

Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor

Aaron Glantz
OneWorld US
Fri., Aug. 25, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferencz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138319/1/4536
_____________

This sounds pretty familiar too . . .

He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war.

"Every war will lead to attacks on civilians," he said. "Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes."
___________

His opinions are only those of one man, but I don't think anyone here can complain that he's being partisan in his opinion.

 

[BPSCG]

His opinions are only those of one man, but I don't think anyone here can complain that he's being partisan in his opinion.

Nah, not partisan at all. "Bush is like the Nazis."

Is there no well so filled with idiocy that you won't happily slurp from it?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Who doesn't hate a war criminal?

I know, I know this is just the opinion of one man, but that man just might have the credentials to know what he's talking about:

Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor

Aaron Glantz
OneWorld US
Fri., Aug. 25, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferencz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/138319/1/4536
_____________

This sounds pretty familiar too . . .

He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war.

"Every war will lead to attacks on civilians," he said. "Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes."
___________

His opinions are only those of one man, but I don't think anyone here can complain that he's being partisan in his opinion.

I am sure this gentleman is aware of the futility of trying to outlaw war, as an infamous 1928 treaty attempted to do. If you are interested, take a peak at the Kellogg-Briand Pact, where 60 nations agreed to outlaw war. Notice how well it worked. How do you enforce that law? With force. What is war? Armed force. It is a self defeating course of action, not to mention hypocritical.

So, I have to ask this genius, who is going to bell the cat? Who is going to arrest, and forward to any international kangaroo court, George W Bush?

I am dying to hear his answer, given the impotence shown by the international community in the Milosivic farce trial.

DR

 

[Mephisto]

Nah, not partisan at all. "Bush is like the Nazis."

Is there no well so filled with idiocy that you won't happily slurp from it?

Don't be stupid! I merely posted the opinion of a Nuremburg prosecutor. He's the one you should talk to if you believe Bush is being unfairly portrayed.

I suppose you're going to tell me that you don't agree with a prosecutor who worked on the behalf of thousands upon thousands of Jews who were tortured and mercilessly killed during WWII?

 

[Cylinder]

I suppose you're going to tell me that you don't agree with a prosecutor who worked on the behalf of thousands upon thousands of Jews who were tortured and mercilessly killed during WWII?

You really are morphing into a living, breathing logical fallacy. That's unfortunate.

 

[Upchurch]

Maybe I should have taken the time to read the article, but what is the war crime that Bush is being accused of?

 

[Cylinder]

Maybe I should have taken the time to read the article, but what is the war crime that Bush is being accused of?

Waging wars of aggression, according to the quote. That one is easy to refute, since the US made a separate cease-fire agreement with Iraq in 1991 and combat operations had not ceased in the intervening period.

 

[Mephisto]

I am sure this gentleman is aware of the futility of trying to outlaw war, as an infamous 1928 treaty attempted to do. If you are interested, take a peak at the Kellogg-Briand Pact, where 60 nations agreed to outlaw war. Notice how well it worked. How do you enforce that law? With force. What is war? Armed force. It is a self defeating course of action, not to mention hypocritical.

So, I have to ask this genius, who is going to bell the cat? Who is going to arrest, and forward to any international kangaroo court, George W Bush?

I am dying to hear his answer, given the impotence shown by the international community in the Milosivic farce trial.

DR

I agree with you DR, but I think it's at least somewhat important to announce the obvious - war is bad for people. You're right about how to enforce such a law, and I wouldn't expect any country to step up to lead Bush to the gallows, but SOMEONE should formally voice the opinion that the world is comprised of mostly innocent people (of all cultures, races and religions) and we should collectively condemn imperialistic practices.

Or, we could just scoff that we've done anything that warrants being compared to Saddam and continue with business as usual killing and dying in Iraq.

 

[Katana]

Take a look at the story. It's not about outlawing war, it's about the fact that Bush did not abide by the UN charter. It sounds like that was his war crime.

"Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferencz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.

 

[Apollyon]

I agree with you DR, but I think it's at least somewhat important to announce the obvious - war is bad for people. You're right about how to enforce such a law, and I wouldn't expect any country to step up to lead Bush to the gallows, but SOMEONE should formally voice the opinion that the world is comprised of mostly innocent people (of all cultures, races and religions) and we should collectively condemn imperialistic practices.

Stupid ol' Bush can't even be a proper imperialist. He gave the damn country back to them. What an idiot.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Stupid ol' Bush can't even be a proper imperialist. He gave the damn country back to them. What an idiot.

For an interesting look at American Imperialism, check out Meade's "Special Providence" which came out before the Iraq War, and IIRC before 9-11. His term is "global hegemon," and he examines the influences of four common US foreign policy styles/archetypes on the policy formulation of America, both pre and post hegemon era. Well worth a look.

DR

 

[Upchurch]

Take a look at the story. It's not about outlawing war, it's about the fact that Bush did not abide by the UN charter. It sounds like that was his war crime.

Man, I have a few contract/agreements I wish I could remove my signature from when they became inconvenient

 

[Mephisto]

Stupid ol' Bush can't even be a proper imperialist. He gave the damn country back to them. What an idiot.

We're giving it back to them?

Iraq Facilities
A 20 April 2003 report in The New York Times asserted that "the U.S. is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region." The report, citing anonymous sources, referred to one base at Baghdad's international airport, another near Al-Nasiriyah in the south [presumably meaning Tallil AB], the third at the H-1 airstrip in the western desert, and the fourth at Bashur AB in the north.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm
___________

"And many analysts feel that the administration wants to keep a presence in Iraq irrespective of Iraqi military preparedness in order to safeguard America's larger strategic interests in the region (chiefly oil).

Joost Hiltermann, of the International Crisis Group (ICG), told Asia Times Online it would be strange if America didn't intend to stay in Iraq. "One of the reasons they invaded, as far as I can tell, is because they needed to shift their military operation from Saudi Arabia," he said, "and Iraq was probably the easiest one in terms of a big country to support their presence in the Gulf." The idea that the US wanted to swap Iraq for Saudi Arabia was acknowledged by then-deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz in an interview with Vanity Fair in 2003.

Persistent reports that the US is constructing permanent bases in Iraq lend credence to the view that the Bush administration plans to stay."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH06Ak02.html
___________

US bases in Iraq: sticky politics, hard math

By David R. Francis

If a new Iraq government should agree to let American forces stay on, how many bases will the US request?

One, as the United States Army currently maintains in Honduras? Six, the number of installations it lists in the Netherlands. Or maybe 12?

The Pentagon isn't saying.

But a dozen is the number of so-called "enduring bases" located by John Pike, director of GlobalSecurities.org. His military affairs website gives their names. They include, for example, Camp Victory at the Baghdad airfield and Camp Renegade in Kirkuk. The Chicago Tribune last March said US engineers are constructing 14 "enduring bases," but Mr. Pike hasn't located two of them.

Note the terminology "enduring" bases. That's Pentagon-speak for long-term encampments - not necessarily permanent, but not just a tent on a wood platform either. It all suggests a planned indefinite stay on Iraqi soil that will cost US taxpayers for years to come.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html
___________

Chicago Tribune March 23, 2004

14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq
Long-term military presence planned

By Christine Spolar

From the ashes of abandoned Iraqi army bases, U.S. military engineers are overseeing the building of an enhanced system of American bases designed to last for years.

Last year, as troops poured over the Kuwait border to invade Iraq, the U.S. military set up at least 120 forward operating bases. Then came hundreds of expeditionary and temporary bases that were to last between six months and a year for tactical operations while providing soldiers with such comforts as e-mail and Internet access.

Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

 

[Katana]

Man, I have a few contract/agreements I wish I could remove my signature from when they became inconvenient

Yeah. I picked up on that, too. Unbelievable...then again, it's Bush.

 

[Apollyon]

So because we have a military presence in Germany and Japan we never gave back those countries either?

Since you seem to adore definitions - imperialism

 

[fishbob]

Is there no well so filled with idiocy that you won't happily slurp from it?

I like that.
It applies nicely to many here.
Bush can do no wrong - Bush can do no wrong - Bush can do no wrong - Bush can do no wrong.

 

[Mephisto]

So because we have a military presence in Germany and Japan we never gave back those countries either?

Since you seem to adore definitions - imperialism

You're comparing two Imperialistic countries responsible for a world war costing untold lives with Iraq? First, Japan attacked us, Iraq did not . . .

And now who is comparing our actions to Hitler? I never said anything about Germany.

(edited to ask) Which of these definitions couldn't be used to describe our actions in Iraq?

1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2. advocacy of imperial interests.
3. an imperial system of government.
4. imperial government.
5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

 

[Apollyon]

You're comparing two Imperialistic countries responsible for a world war costing untold lives with Iraq? First, Japan attacked us, Iraq did not . . .

Germany didn't attack us either.

And now who is comparing our actions to Hitler? I never said anything about Germany.

I never once mentioned Hitler. In fact, it was you who did so as my references were to post-Hitler Germany.

(edited to ask) Which of these definitions couldn't be used to describe our actions in Iraq?

1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2. advocacy of imperial interests.
3. an imperial system of government.
4. imperial government.
5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

I'd say 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

But all the rest apply.

 

[Jimbo07]

It applies nicely to many here.
Bush can do no wrong - Bush can do no wrong - Bush can do no wrong - Bush can do no wrong.

It's handy, really.

So long as the U.S. isn't a party to the ICC, nobody is going to try members of this administration for being either stupid or belligerent.

 

[Beerina]

We're giving it back to them?

Iraq Facilities
A 20 April 2003 report in The New York Times asserted that "the U.S. is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region." The report, citing anonymous sources, referred to one base at Baghdad's international airport, another near Al-Nasiriyah in the south [presumably meaning Tallil AB], the third at the H-1 airstrip in the western desert, and the fourth at Bashur AB in the north.

So...we're staying for quite awhile in a country we invaded and are hoping to turn peaceful and free? We're still in Germany and Japan and South Korea, last time I checked. And I wouldn't say we haven't "given it back" to any of them just because we have bases there, still.

Would you?