• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush and Blair found guilty of war crimes for Iraq attack

This is a question of ethics, and of absolutes. I extended this scenario to every targeting of civilians by nuclear weapons. I wasn't a general, or a president in WWII, so I do not have all the information to make such a call. However, I believe the call that was made was unethical. To me the ends don't always justify the means.

If you remember I gave you an example of whether or not it would be moral and ethical for another country to nuke one of our major cities during a time of war, simply because it had a few military targets in it, and you couldn't have agreed more. That is what this discussion is really about.

If we allow the intentional killing of civilians, we are no better than the terrorists, and that I refuse to believe.

So, would it have been more ethical to pursue the course the would likely cost twice as many enemy lives and an exponential number of friendly lives, or not?
 
Simple "noun replacement" test for exceptionalism/bigotry/special pleading fallacy:

(after Bertrand Russell)

Take a statement in the form:

It is wrong for X to do Y to Z.

Leaving Y constant, trade the positions of X and Z.

*if one's position changes as a result of either form of swap, then the position is based upon exceptionalism and/or the value statement is not based upon Y.

For example:

It is wrong for private citizens to engage in violence against civilians in order to influence policy.
It is wrong for military forces to engage in violence against civilians in order to influence policy.

If one's position changed, that's a commission of exceptionalism, and the value statement is not about the act (Y).

It is wrong for people to engage in violence against civilians in order to influence policy.
It is wrong for people to engage in violence against military forces in order to influence policy.

If your position changes with the swap of Z, then that's a commission of exceptionalism, and the value statement is not about the act (Y).

Sadly, both of the above cases are a regular staple of what passes for public discourse in the U.S. One can practically flip to a commentary show at random and encounter exceptionalism within minutes.
 
Im sorry you supported the armed stuggle against the British army in Ireland, are we talking about the Easter rising or the IRA in Northern Ireland where they targeted civillains and unarmed military?

1. Could not care less what you think about my service.
2. I do not hold contempt for courts only mock trials from countries who had no involvment in the conflict and hold no bearing,
3. Your comparsion to nazi CC guard was one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. You realise that soldiers like me spent most of our time policing the local population and protecting them from the Mahdi and other groups who actively targeted them and us.
4. "That is not saying Iraq under Saddam was great, but it was hardly worse"....In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. Full political participation at the national level was only given to members of the Ba'ath Party, about 8% of the population. Halabja poison gas attack, the Anfal campaign, when we invaded we found thousands of mass grave which are still being uncovered now.
5. The Shi'ites and groups like it treated us like liberators.
6. Dont talk to me about not understanding the region as from the looks of it you seem to have your head up your ass if you think Iraq was a better place under Saddam.


by the way I could go on all night about the stuff Saddam did to those people

Im sorry you supported the armed stuggle against the British army in Ireland, are we talking about the Easter rising or the IRA in Northern Ireland where they targeted civillains and unarmed military?

Don't be sorry, it was/is a justifiable campaign. I supported the actions of Wolf Tone right up until Pearse. I supported Oglaigh na hEireann during the War of Independence right up until the Good Friday Agreement. I am being vague now, this isn't the thread for it, but I could expand on why I supported the I.R.A and Provo's.

Regarding your attempt to suggest that I support killing citizens, that is nonsense. You have ignored what U.N diplomats called genocide regarding the sanctions your country and America engaged in in Iraq. And just as another example, you ignored what Clinton did with the Kurds saying, basically, you didn't care because you were not American. Yet, I guarantee, if the Kurds in Turkey attacked America over what happened, you'd call them terrorists.

The British started the war long ago in Ireland. After partition, Unionist violence and sectarianism brought the crown forces back to Ireland. The actions of the British army then lead to the numbers of the I.R.A swelling exponentially - internment without trial, bloody Sunday, etc - up until then, the I.R.A had very few members and were genuinely hated in Belfast and Derry because they were no where to be found when RUC and B special animals attacked innocent protesters or when the British army intimidated them, among other things. I.R.A= I RAN AWAY suddenly appeared everywhere. The inatcion of the I.R.A lead to the split in 69 and the formation of the Provisional I.R.A, did not even start off wanting the Brit's out, they had certain demands, but the British army's capitulation to Unionist terror, as always, even fueled tensions higher.

The same actions happened after 1916. The men of 16 were really hated by the Dublin populace and the people of Dublin spat on the volunteers. It was only when the British introduced internment and executed the leaders of 16 that the I.R.A's number's exploded and people decided to take up armed conflict. During that conflict, many I.R.A men killed their own Irishmen in a bloody war. I don't condone any innocent people being killed at all, even if it were nasty Black and Tan men who burned Cork city center down, but I understand why it happened.

I do not hold contempt for courts only mock trials from countries who had no involvment in the conflict and hold no bearing,


What court is going to put on trial their own President and imprison him for war crimes? How many people went to prison over Iran-Contra? Even those found guilty? I'll tell you how many, none! Only one person spent any time in a jail during the Iran-Contra scandal. Perhaps you can tell me who he was.

Your comparsion to nazi CC guard was one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. You realise that soldiers like me spent most of our time policing the local population and protecting them from the Mahdi and other groups who actively targeted them and us.

I wasn't comparing you to a Nazi, at all. Go back and read what I said.

In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. Full political participation at the national level was only given to members of the Ba'ath Party, about 8% of the population. Halabja poison gas attack, the Anfal campaign, when we invaded we found thousands of mass grave which are still being uncovered now.

And that is all terrible. But none of that has anything to do with why you invaded, none at all. Also, a lot of those bodies were probably killed by U.S sold weapons, going back right until 1982. I'm sorry, but you were not sent over there to build a nation and a democracy. That was not a war aim, at all.

You're also ignoring the fact that the sanctions on which your country and America imposed caused the deaths of 500,000 children and destroyed the infratructure, as did your bombings for ten years.

5. The Shi'ites and groups like it treated us like liberators.

The presence of America is one of the main reasons why a civil war is happening. No one, at all, supports what you just said, not one. It was a gargantuan mistake(another one) when the yanks told the world we would be greeted as liberators.

6. Dont talk to me about not understanding the region as from the looks of it you seem to have your head up your ass if you think Iraq was a better place under Saddam.

Evidence where I said that? What, I gave you U.N experts saying that "genocide" was happening under U.N sanctions, which your country engaged in? Funnily enough, going back to the I.R.A, when John Major was hiding under his cabinet desk when mortar missiles were fired at him, he called the I.R.A terrorists, whilst discussing sanctions on Iraq that killed 500,000 people. The irony, eh?

You don't understand the region, at all it seems. You think you're over there to bring democracy. You probably think 9/11 was about hatred of freedom and women in the workplace. If not, please tell me what it was about and why you think that democracy is going to work in the region and why all Islamic parties have come after the Arab Spring and why they are implementing Shari'ah and why Afghanistan and Iraq are also implementing Islamic laws that discriminate against women?

by the way I could go on all night about the stuff Saddam did to those people

But I haven't denied anything you said about Saddam being a bad guy, have I? It goes without saying that he was bad. I could go on all night about why 9/11 happened and why Bin Laden's plans are working, brilliantly. But that is another topic.
 
Last edited:
So, would it have been more ethical to pursue the course the would likely cost twice as many enemy lives and an exponential number of friendly lives, or not?

I thought I answered this. Ethical? Yes. Tactical? No.

Simple "noun replacement" test for exceptionalism/bigotry/special pleading fallacy:

^^ Like times a million.
 
It's ethical to choose the path that causes greater death?
Sometimes it can be. Like I said, it may not be tactically smart, and maybe they still should've done it. But I simply can't call it ethical, or anything but murder.

Besides, who can really tell how many would've died. There's where the problem comes in. Say we're fighting Russia and they decide "well, we could save so many lives if we just nuke washington DC right now!".
 
Sometimes it can be. Like I said, it may not be tactically smart, and maybe they still should've done it. But I simply can't call it ethical, or anything but murder.

So, the number of people killed is not the concern, it's just the manner or weapon used to kill them that makes it unethical?
 
So, the number of people killed is not the concern, it's just the manner or weapon used to kill them that makes it unethical?
It's largely the fact that the decision is subjective. As I pointed out, who knows how history would've actually gone. Murdering civilians to save the lives of others, may be just to some, but it is still ultimately unethical.
 
Pearl Harbor not a surprise attack (which was allowed to happen, FDR had prior knowledge due to communication intercepts), the Japanese broke radio silence

Gen. MacArthur himself said the nuclear attack was not necessary, even more govmnt officials agree. Look it up!

Its evil to even imply people should be used as guinea pigs!

"Admiral Kimmel, in a 1958 interview, articulated the reason he and General Short were kept in the dark about the impending attack -- Roosevelt needed the attack a pretext to enter the war. "

9-11 Review: The Pearl Harbor Attack

Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor?: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

"In November, 1940, FDR ordered the Red Cross Disaster Relief director to secretly prepare for massive casualties at Pearl Harbor because he was going to let it be attacked."

DID FDR ALLOW JAPANESE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR ON PURPOSE? | Steven Robert Travers | Blog Post | Red Room

Admiral Kimmel is covering his ass. He and Short made a number of really stupid decisions, in spite of warnings that the Japanese were likely to attack someplace.

As for your supposed link, do you honestly think an American President would announce to anybody that he was going to let American territory be attacked? Get serious.

Those are facts. Look up the one about the Red Cross.

Here are some more examples of phony "surprise" plots since 9/11 ...

http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-terror-report-plot-365-899/
 
Last edited:
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Bush and Blair found guilty of war crimes for Iraq attack - Salon.comWell im not expecting anything to really come from this? To bad our own courts cant hold people responsible like this. Kind of shows what the world thinks of us, our foreign policy, and most of all these two men.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
Since when does does a country that only has about the population of New York City speak for "the rest of the world"? And since when does what an uncivilized 3rd world wasteland thinks about Bush have any relevance.

Liberals always sides against their own. Disgusting.
 
But ... international law is simple in this regard. As long as you have the guns to support your view, you are right. It is when you don't have the guns that you are a war criminal. Why do you think that no official of Czechoslovakia ended up in Nurnberg for deporting 20 million people in 1945, in the same time as German officials were on trial there for deporting others? Clearly Malasia has less guns than the USA, so the USA is not a war criminal, neither is Britain, or any of their allies.
 
"Russia Today"

Stopped reading there :lol:

Agreed.

RT is definitely not to be taken seriously. It's as bad if not worse than MSNBC imho.
 
Agreed.

RT is definitely not to be taken seriously. It's as bad if not worse than MSNBC imho.

Surprisingly their actual TV cast isn't so bad, but yeah, their online is atrocious.
 
If George Bush is guilty of war crimes, then so is Obama.

There will be a trial, once God's kingdom is reestablished on this Earth. "Judgment is mine, saith the Lord." That goes for the rest of us too. We all will account for whatever wrongs we did in life, so my goal is not to point the finger at Bush, Islamic Fundamentalists, or anybody else, but to better myself so that I do not face the wrath of God when I meet him.
 
Last edited:
Those are facts. Look up the one about the Red Cross.

Here are some more examples of phony "surprise" plots since 9/11 ...

FBI organizes almost all terror plots in the US — RT

"Russia Today"

Stopped reading there :lol:

Agreed.

RT is definitely not to be taken seriously. It's as bad if not worse than MSNBC imho.

Yeah - you Right Wingers have to live in glass houses like Fox News, because the truth is too scary for you. Nature abhors a vacuum, that being the absence of truth in your American media. And your nonexistent, bogus standards, preconceived notions of quality and so called straight reporting are not fooling anyone, people recognize censorship when they see it.

Now go back to watching the Mike Huckabee show.
 
Last edited:
The RT article is legit, the same story is tossed around alot of major news sources, wash post, nyt, etc. I haven't seen it make it to TV. It's common knowledge to anyone who cares that the FBI is virtually (or plainly) entrapping everyone in most every attempted terror plot since 9/11.

I did remember something about a dozen black teens using FBI 'terror' money to order boots, a teenie bopper panther club of somesort on cable. Fox was trying to sell them off as a hardened domestic terror group. After a few days when it became clear to anyone that wanted to read into the story for more than 5 minutes that they were basically entrapped by the FBI the story sort of faded away.
 
Yeah - you Right Wingers have to live in glass houses like Fox News, because the truth is too scary for you. Nature abhors a vacuum, that being the absence of truth in your American media. And your nonexistent, bogus standards, preconceived notions of quality and so called straight reporting are not fooling anyone, people recognize censorship when they see it.

Now go back to watching the Mike Huckabee show.

You know, Kane, I'm not a "right-winger." I don't view/listen to partisan shows. I don't view Mike Huckabee.

Perhaps you should know what you're talking about before coming to such hasty conclusions.
 
You know, Kane, I'm not a "right-winger." I don't view/listen to partisan shows. I don't view Mike Huckabee.

Perhaps you should know what you're talking about before coming to such hasty conclusions.

You are a right winger.
 
You know, Kane, I'm not a "right-winger." I don't view/listen to partisan shows. I don't view Mike Huckabee.

Perhaps you should know what you're talking about before coming to such hasty conclusions.

You made a thread about a rightwing talkshow host just about too radical for airwaves and were talking about planning on reading his book werent you?
 
"Admiral Kimmel, in a 1958 interview, articulated the reason he and General Short were kept in the dark about the impending attack -- Roosevelt needed the attack a pretext to enter the war. "

9-11 Review: The Pearl Harbor Attack

Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor?: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

"In November, 1940, FDR ordered the Red Cross Disaster Relief director to secretly prepare for massive casualties at Pearl Harbor because he was going to let it be attacked."

DID FDR ALLOW JAPANESE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR ON PURPOSE? | Steven Robert Travers | Blog Post | Red Room

I'm sure you'd both agree that the nukes on Japan were not necessary, were only used to display U.S. post-war dominance, and were used asfter the war in Japan was won, as U.S. officialls admit?

(just so that we get our history leeson accurate.)

It was a n-u-c-l-e-a-r bomb. If dropping a nuke on a city is not intentionally targeting civilian populations, then nothing is.


Well, I guess there's nothing to say to that, you clearly do not believe in the geneva convention, the rules of war, or even downright dignity, but at least you admit it.


In Afghanistan, if there were insurgents hiding in a local village, we would engage the insurgents in the buildings that they were hiding, using the maximum necessary force possible. We did not, however, drop a MOAB and level the entire village, killing 200 people to get to 20 insurgents. You can not use the guise of war to do whatever the hell you want. There are just, and unjust killings.

You condone the intentional killing of civilians, and I accuse you of having no honor whatsoever.

Right. And another unjust killing were the troops at Pearl Harbor that were sacrificed.

"Historians are still arguing over whether President Franklin Roosevelt knew in advance that Japanese forces were about to launch a devastating attack against the U.S. Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941.

Mr. Roger A. Stolley, a resident of Salem, Oregon, has something important to add to this discussion. In the following essay, which first appeared in the Salem daily Statesman Journal, December 7, 1991, he provides personal information to confirm that Roosevelt not only anticipated the Japanese attack, but specifically ordered that no steps be taken to prevent it. (Mr. Stolley's essay is reprinted here with grateful permission of the author.)

John Toland, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who addressed the October 1990 IHR conference in Washington, DC, tells us that Stolley's essay "rings true."


HISTORICAL NEWS AND COMMENT: ROGER A. STOLLEY: Pearl Harbor Attack No Surprise
 
You are a right winger.
Well, if you believe that, please feel free to prove it.
You made a thread about a rightwing talkshow host just about too radical for airwaves and were talking about planning on reading his book werent you?
That does not a republican make. Perhaps you should read my thread titled "Thoughts from a Disillusioned Republican."
 
Well, if you believe that, please feel free to prove it.That does not a republican make. Perhaps you should read my thread titled "Thoughts from a Disillusioned Republican."

So you're disillusioned.... and a republican?.....
 
"Admiral Kimmel, in a 1958 interview, articulated the reason he and General Short were kept in the dark about the impending attack -- Roosevelt needed the attack a pretext to enter the war. "

9-11 Review: The Pearl Harbor Attack

Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor?: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

"In November, 1940, FDR ordered the Red Cross Disaster Relief director to secretly prepare for massive casualties at Pearl Harbor because he was going to let it be attacked."

DID FDR ALLOW JAPANESE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR ON PURPOSE? | Steven Robert Travers | Blog Post | Red Room

Oh my! You mean there are still people out there that think FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked on December 7th?
 
I'm sure you'd both agree that the nukes on Japan were not necessary, were only used to display U.S. post-war dominance, and were used asfter the war in Japan was won, as U.S. officialls admit?

(just so that we get our history leeson accurate.)

If by necessary, you mean they weren't the only option available, you're correct. The other option was to put 1 million American troops on the ground to invade the Japanese mainland, costing hundreds of thousands of American lives and killing more civilians than the two nukes killed, combined.

Not to mention, that the Japanese were very close to fielding a nuke and had even gotten so far, as to plan a test detination for 12 August 1945.

So, in the sense avoiding another 2+ years of war and hundreds of thousands of American casualties and probably millions of Japanese casualties, it was very necessary.
 
Back
Top Bottom