• 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!

Former POTUS George W. Bush is not a war criminal.

ecofarm said:
I suggested the minimum. And you can't claim all those 500k were killed by Americans. They were mostly killed by terrorists that Saddam's genocidal tyranny created.
Click to expand...

Terrorists that Saddam's tyranny had kept in check.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Terrorists that Saddam's tyranny had kept in check.
Click to expand...

Terrorists that were created by Saddam's tyranny and would rise at the end of his reign no matter how that occurred. Saddam made their rise inevitable. He didn't care because he knew he'd be gone before the damage he'd done was realized.
 
Fledermaus said:
How many were killed by coalition troops?
Click to expand...

1.5 million dead Iraqis delivered by GW Bush and the consequences of a war based on WMD lies..

https://www.democracynow.org/2003/12/30/scott_ritter_how_the_british_spy

"SCOTT RITTER: Well, Amy. If you compare my public statements with Richard Butler’s public statements in regards to Iraq weapons of mass destruction programs, I think I have a very good track record. In fact, it’s been 100% in terms of being accurate. I don’t make anything up. Every time I say something, it’s a statement of fact, and you can go to the bank with it. Richard Butler, on the other hand, has been publicly contradicted on any number of occasions about his assessments and about his statements. This is a man who testified before the United States Congress and told them that these weapons existed, that he knew they existed. I called him on this, on television on CNN. I called him a liar in front of everybody. I said, “You’re lying. You cannot make that statement of certainty.” I never once told him that Iraq retained unaccounted-for weaponry. I told him, it’s a matter of record in the United Nations, that we cannot account for all of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and related weaponry. Therefore, we must investigate them as if Iraq was retaining them, that we cannot treat this as a light subject. Our job is complete disarmament. If we have unaccounted for material, we must pursue it and pursue it aggressively. This was my advice to Richard Butler" partial from interview. link leads to interview.
 
I’ve struggled with this as a British Iraq vet. On this site actually i argued against the Chilcot report until i actually read it, then i got drunk, spent a few days hiking in Wales and came to a dark conclusion.
I and many others were sent to war based on a lie by leaders that had no exit plan, no plans for the future of Iraq and with no regards to the civilian population of Iraq. The same civilian population we asked to defend in Basra during the insurgency.

I’m still proud of my part in the Iraq war and the ppl i served with from numerous countries because we did our job. That being said Bush, Blair etc should all be in the hauge. They sent us into hell knowing it was all based on false intel and they thought little of the consequences.
 
DaveFagan said:
1.5 million dead Iraqis delivered by GW Bush and the consequences of a war based on WMD lies..

https://www.democracynow.org/2003/12/30/scott_ritter_how_the_british_spy

"SCOTT RITTER: Well, Amy. If you compare my public statements with Richard Butler’s public statements in regards to Iraq weapons of mass destruction programs, I think I have a very good track record. In fact, it’s been 100% in terms of being accurate. I don’t make anything up. Every time I say something, it’s a statement of fact, and you can go to the bank with it. Richard Butler, on the other hand, has been publicly contradicted on any number of occasions about his assessments and about his statements. This is a man who testified before the United States Congress and told them that these weapons existed, that he knew they existed. I called him on this, on television on CNN. I called him a liar in front of everybody. I said, “You’re lying. You cannot make that statement of certainty.” I never once told him that Iraq retained unaccounted-for weaponry. I told him, it’s a matter of record in the United Nations, that we cannot account for all of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and related weaponry. Therefore, we must investigate them as if Iraq was retaining them, that we cannot treat this as a light subject. Our job is complete disarmament. If we have unaccounted for material, we must pursue it and pursue it aggressively. This was my advice to Richard Butler" partial from interview. link leads to interview.
Click to expand...

How many were killed by coalition troops?

Please try again.
 
post said:
You've posted 13 of the 34 posts in this thread. You ignored my request that you present supporting cites for your posted opinions.
You did not offer any supporting link in any of your 13 posts. With no supporting cites presented, your opinion amounts to your opinion no matter how highly you regard it.

Was it unreasonable of the California professor to say Barbara Bush raised a son who was a war criminal? The support for Trump indicates all rules of decorum and civilty are abandoned.
The evidence makes a reasonable case the PM of US Iraq War ally, Tony Blair, is a war criminal. The US property party of two right wings, democrat and republican blocked any
official inquiry in the US similar to the UK Iraq, aka Chilcot..
Click to expand...

Saddam Hussein DID NOT allow unfettered inspection of suspected sites for production and storage of WMDS.

Is that or is that not a fact?

Iraq to Block U.S.-Led Arms Inspections

WASHINGTON — Rekindling a smoldering confrontation with the U.S. and its allies, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein declared Monday that Iraq will block arms inspections by a United Nations team led by an American, a step President Clinton described as a "clear and serious" breach of the Persian Gulf War cease-fire.



Iraq to Block U.S.-Led Arms Inspections - latimes

FACT



Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis suffered through the embargo .

Is that or is that not a fact?

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

The study also found steeply rising malnutrition among the young, suggesting that more children will be at risk in the coming years. The results of the survey will appear on Friday in The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Association.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html

FACT


The embargo was maintained because Saddam Hussein DID NOT keep to the agreements that were signed as part of the ceasefire.

Is that or is that not a fact?

According to Rubin, sanctions were the sole available choice that did not imply allowing Saddam Hussein to do what he pleased in the region. And officials of the first President Bush's administration, hardly known for endorsing many of the policies later formulated by Clinton's foreign-policy team, broadly agree. ''What we were trying to do by putting sanctions in was to prevent Hussein from threatening the region,'' recalled Gen. Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser for the first President Bush. ''They worked in the sense that he was never able to rebuild his conventional army. When this war started, the Iraqi Army had no more than one-third of the strength it had possessed at the beginning of the first gulf war. But imagine that there had been no sanctions. Is it reasonable to suppose that the weakened Iraqi Army we just faced would have been so weak? I doubt it.''
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/magazine/were-sanctions-right.html

FACT










What war crime was Bush convicted of?
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
How many were killed by coalition troops?

Please try again.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/16/dick-cheney-iraq-war-wmd

"The occupation of Iraq by the United States is far more brutal, bloody and destructive than anything Saddam ever did during his reign. When one examines the record of the US military in Iraq in terms of private homes brutally invaded, families torn apart and civilians falsely imprisoned (the prison population in Iraq during the US occupation dwarfs that of Saddam's regime), what is clear is that the only difference between the reign of terror inflicted on the Iraqi people today and under Saddam is that the US has been far less selective in applying terror than Saddam ever was. "
 
George W. Bush = War Criminal .................... go rot in Hell with War Criminal Ronny RayGun ..................

take Ronny some bottled water GW ................ he might need a couple ................
 
DaveFagan said:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/16/dick-cheney-iraq-war-wmd

"The occupation of Iraq by the United States is far more brutal, bloody and destructive than anything Saddam ever did during his reign. When one examines the record of the US military in Iraq in terms of private homes brutally invaded, families torn apart and civilians falsely imprisoned (the prison population in Iraq during the US occupation dwarfs that of Saddam's regime), what is clear is that the only difference between the reign of terror inflicted on the Iraqi people today and under Saddam is that the US has been far less selective in applying terror than Saddam ever was. "
Click to expand...

Americans are too arrogant, too rich, too insulated, too busy, too ****ing whatever to deal with that REALITY ................ Americans are ******s .............
 
DaveFagan said:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/16/dick-cheney-iraq-war-wmd

"The occupation of Iraq by the United States is far more brutal, bloody and destructive than anything Saddam ever did during his reign. When one examines the record of the US military in Iraq in terms of private homes brutally invaded, families torn apart and civilians falsely imprisoned (the prison population in Iraq during the US occupation dwarfs that of Saddam's regime), what is clear is that the only difference between the reign of terror inflicted on the Iraqi people today and under Saddam is that the US has been far less selective in applying terror than Saddam ever was. "
Click to expand...

A COMMENTARY....

How many were killed by coalition troops?

Got numbers?

Please try again.
 
Fledermaus said:
A COMMENTARY....

How many were killed by coalition troops?

Got numbers?

Please try again.
Click to expand...

All the dead were killed under false pretenses. Deaths ordered by the USA. They are still dying from DU contamination. Many people here in the USA built the DU ammunition.
/
 
Fledermaus said:
Dodge

Dodge

Dodge

How many were killed by coalition troops?

Why are you doing more dodging than answering?
Click to expand...

They are still dying due to the ignorance of people like yourself that will not read the documented truth of the past and take responsibility for their evil actions. You represent the problem.
/
 
How many were killed?

From:

http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf

This investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has, directly or indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Paki- stan, i.e. a total of around 1.3 million. Not included in this figure are further war zones such as Yemen. The figure is approximately 10 times greater than that of which the public, experts and decision makers are aware of and propagated by the media and major NGOs. And this is only a conservative estimate. The total num- ber of deaths in the three countries named above could also be in excess of 2 mil- lion, whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...

Bold phrases by me.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
DaveFagan said:
They are still dying due to the ignorance of people like yourself that will not read the documented truth of the past and take responsibility for their evil actions. You represent the problem.
/
Click to expand...

DaveFagan

The man who couldn't answer straight....

How many were killed by coalition troops?

Truth....

Not even close to your fever dreams. No where near what RT, Al Jazeera or Baghdad Bob told you.

You have zero clue. You are just mouthing long rejected talking points... As usual.
 
Fledermaus said:
How many were killed by coalition troops?

Not got killed in an intersection. Not killed by a pissed neighbor. Not whacked by someone for practicing the "wrong" type if Islam. Not ate bad lamb or goat.

Killed by coalition troops
Click to expand...

The COALITION includes the USA in the leadershio role and the deaths are all the responsibility of the coalition. Face facts. 50 teams of UN inspectors in Iraq found no WMD. LIES. LIES. and more LIES and you swallow them like candy. Swallow the turd.
/
 
DaveFagan said:
The COALITION includes the USA in the leadershio role and the deaths are all the responsibility of the coalition. Face facts. 50 teams of UN inspectors in Iraq found no WMD. LIES. LIES. and more LIES and you swallow them like candy. Swallow the turd.
/
Click to expand...

How many were killed by coalition troops?

Last chance to actually answer the question.

(Though we both know you won't)

Just keep them memes coming,
 
ecofarm said:
I suggested the minimum. And you can't claim all those 500k were killed by Americans. They were mostly killed by terrorists that Saddam's genocidal tyranny created.
Click to expand...

Many of those deaths are squarely on the heads of the Bush administration. Paul Bremmer's "de-Baath'ification" program and his disbanding of the Iraqi military unleashed the insurgency which led to Al Qaeda and later ISIL gaining such a strong presence in Iraq. In one swipe of the pen he put the overwhelming majority of skilled laborer's, law enforcement, utility managers, government leaders, and teachers out of a job. He also put tens of thousands of armed soldiers on the unemployment line. Literally fired them and let them keep their guns, grenades, rockets, mortars, etc.

Our complete lack of understanding of the tribal and sectarian divisions in that country doomed it when we declared ourselves their new rulers. We had no clue and no plan to deal with the immense power vacuum that would be created when Bush put Bremmer in charge of that country. The only reason we got into Baghdad as fast as we did was because we had made promises to Iraqi generals that if they pulled their forces out of the capital and told them to stand down, we allow them to keep their jobs and assist in forming up the new government. We needed them to keep the population under control and to avoid an insurgency, or help us stamp it down if one started. The generals held up their end of the deal. They pulled them out of the city, told them to take off their uniforms and go home until they were recalled once the U.S. had taken control of the city. What did they get in return? Mass pink slips and a go **** yourself, we're in charge now. And Bremmer knew this was likely to happen, he warned warned before he gave the order not to do it or it would flip the country upside down and start an insurrection that would be next to impossible to control.

So when all hell broke loose and we had no plan to contain the Shia reprisals against the minority Sunni's who had held them down for decades. It looked an awful lot like we took sides and that painted even bigger targets on our troops. The borders were unprotected, everybody had a gun, and very little hope for a normal life. Hospitals started shutting down, basic utilities were being sabotaged, in some areas food and clean water became scarce to the point some people starving, and disease and pestilence became real issues.

So that pretty much falls squarely on our shoulders, because none of that would have happened if we hand't run in there like a bunch of cowboys in camo trying to save the poor Iraqi's. Let's face it, that invasion was never about liberating the Iraqi people. We set by and watched other dictators slaughter their own people for decades and never tried to stop it. Hell we even backed some of them with training and weapons. This was about an opportunity to rally the U.S. against Saddam by falsely proclaiming he was involved in the 9/11 attacks. When that didn't work we accused him of having WMD's. That didn't work out so well either. OIF was a war of choice, not one of necessity. What we did plunged that country into the abyss, we have blood on our hands for going in there. Bush and his administration were warned repeatedly by their own generals that the only way this thing would work is if we get, topple Saddam, transfer power to western friendly Iraqi generals, and get out quickly. They were also told staying in any longer than necessary to get Saddam would likely lead to a country wide insurgency. And we all know how that ended.
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
How many were killed by coalition troops?

Last chance to actually answer the question.

(Though we both know you won't)

Just keep them memes coming,
Click to expand...

The issue is much deeper than simply how many were killed by coalition military action.
 
Lerxst said:
So that pretty much falls squarely on our shoulders, because none of that would have happened if we hand't run in there like a bunch of cowboys in camo trying to save the poor Iraqi's.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Chaos was made inevitable by Saddam's obliteration of social and human capital. The longer he stayed, the worse it got.

Let's face it, that invasion was never about liberating the Iraqi people. We set by and watched other dictators slaughter their own people for decades and never tried to stop it. Hell we even backed some of them with training and weapons.
Click to expand...

I disagree. While US policy last century was 'divide and destabilize', that didn't work. Policy became nation building.



I agree the initial rebuilding was fumbled by the US, and it contributed to difficulties; however, the void was created by Saddam and would be revealed upon his leaving today or tomorrow, one way or another, and the longer he stayed the worse the ramifications become.
 
Fledermaus said:
How many were killed by coalition troops?

Not got killed in an intersection. Not killed by a pissed neighbor. Not whacked by someone for practicing the "wrong" type if Islam. Not ate bad lamb or goat.

Killed by coalition troops
Click to expand...

Fledermaus.

Read the report. It breaks it all down as precisely as possible but it cannot be summarised into one easy number due to complexity. That is why I linked the whole report rather than a summary or a review.

With respect to Iraq, the US invaded that country and is therefore responsible for all deaths caused by that invasion either directly or indirectly. As the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces and the leader of the Executive Branch which was in charge of foreign relations and policy leading up to the war, former president George W. Bush is at the top of the chain of responsibility for all deaths (both American and Iraqi) as he is the captain of the 'ship of state' and the captain of a ship has vicarious responsibility and liability for all actions done under his command by subordinates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

The USA waged unnecessary aggressive war against Iraq without explicit UN mandate which is defined as a crime against peace. US soldiers, Marines, airmen intelligence operatives and private contractors committed war crimes in Iraq. As Commander in Chief former President G. W. Bush is culpable and liable for those crimes too. So, yes, former president G. W. Bush should be indicted and tried for war crimes and crimes against peace and if found guilty he will be a war criminal.

Of course America and the US state will never let such a trial occur, so until the hypothetical day of his conviction, G. W. Bush is an alleged war criminal only.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I disagree. Chaos was made inevitable by Saddam's obliteration of social and human capital. The longer he stayed, the worse it got.
Click to expand...

Not as badly as it got during the occupation and insurgency. And certainly not as quickly. By dismantling the government of Iraq we created a wide open operational area for outside forces. Al Qaeda was able to get in and influence the Sunni's to engage the coalition forces and their Iraqi collaborators as godless oppressors. It also opened the door for Iran to unify Shia's against both the U.S. and the Sunni's.

I disagree. While US policy last century was 'divide and destabilize', that didn't work. Policy became nation building.
Click to expand...

There is no credible evidence that OIF was actually about liberating the Iraqi people and bringing them western democracy. Even if that were the reason, it would be illegitimate. The U.S. wasn't benevolently exporting our version of freedom and democracy and human rights. If that were the case we would have been all over the continent of Africa putting down genocide and mass slaughter. This was more about taking advantage of the opportunity 9/11 gave us to go back into Iraq and finish the job GWB's dad started. The difference being GHWB did the right thing by stopping the military campaign once Iraqi forces were expelled from Kuwait. Even that war wasn't about helping the poor Kuwaiti's. It was about halting Saddam before he went after Saudi Arabia and rolling him back. Which we did.

I agree the initial rebuilding was fumbled by the US, and it contributed to difficulties; however, the void was created by Saddam and would be revealed upon his leaving today or tomorrow, one way or another, and the longer he stayed the worse the ramifications become.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. He had two sons that could have continued his legacy for years. Who's to know? Maybe power transfers to one of Saddam's other allies in party? What we do know is that it was the U.S. that took him out and dismantled the government and all the services they provided to the people for daily life. And we dismantled the military. We were a foreign invader who followed a different religion, different form of government, and had almost zero respect for their customs or way of life. We didn't just fumble and create some difficulties, we plunged that country into a bloody insurgency and opened the door for thousands of foreign fighters to come in exacerbate the situation. That was on us.
 
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus.

Read the report. It breaks it all down as precisely as possible but it cannot be summarised into one easy number due to complexity. That is why I linked the whole report rather than a summary or a review.

With respect to Iraq, the US invaded that country and is therefore responsible for all deaths caused by that invasion either directly or indirectly. As the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces and the leader of the Executive Branch which was in charge of foreign relations and policy leading up to the war, former president George W. Bush is at the top of the chain of responsibility for all deaths (both American and Iraqi) as he is the captain of the 'ship of state' and the captain of a ship has vicarious responsibility and liability for all actions done under his command by subordinates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

The USA waged unnecessary aggressive war against Iraq without explicit UN mandate which is defined as a crime against peace. US soldiers, Marines, airmen intelligence operatives and private contractors committed war crimes in Iraq. As Commander in Chief former President G. W. Bush is culpable and liable for those crimes too. So, yes, former president G. W. Bush should be indicted and tried for war crimes and crimes against peace and if found guilty he will be a war criminal.

Of course America and the US state will never let such a trial occur, so until the hypothetical day of his conviction, G. W. Bush is an alleged war criminal only.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

So it ought to be able to show how many were killed by coalition troops....

How many?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom