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

My heart and my best intentions tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Ferencz
Benjamin Berell Ferencz (born March 11, 1920)[1][2][3][4] is a Hungarian-born American lawyer. He was an investigator of Nazi war crimes after World War II and the Chief Prosecutor for the United States Army at the Einsatzgruppen Trial, one of the twelve military trials held by the U.S. authorities at Nuremberg, Germany....

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/feb/07/nazi-death-squads-nuremberg-trials-benjamin-ferencz
Benjamin Ferencz, at 97 the last surviving prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, has fought for the victims of war crimes all his life. He talks about upholding ‘law not war’, where Theresa May is going wrong – and how to deal with Donald Trump

2000-2004

War Crimes Trials at Nuremberg
By Benjamin B. Ferencz
published: November 2004
source: Entry for Macmillan Reference USA's 3 Vol. Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.
.....
The Court respected the principle that no one should be punished for deeds that were not previously declared to be illegal, but that rule of equity was held inapplicable where the accused were leaders of such high authority that they must have known their abominable deeds were criminal by any civilized standard.
Presiding Judge, Lord Geoffrey Lawrence of Great Britain, read the sentences. Three of the defendants were acquitted. Twelve others were sentenced to death for having planned and participated in aggressive war, which the Tribunal condemned as "the supreme international crime", as well as for crimes against humanity and violations of the laws of war,

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry
The Iraq Inquiry (also referred to as the Chilcot Inquiry after its chairman, Sir John Chilcot)[1][2] was a British public inquiry into the nation's role in the Iraq War. The inquiry was announced in 2009 by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and published in 2016 with a public statement by Chilcot.
On 6 July 2016, Sir John Chilcot announced the report's publication, more than seven years after the inquiry was announced.[3] Usually referred to as the Chilcot report by the news media,[4] the document stated that at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein did not pose an urgent threat to British interests, that intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction was presented with unwarranted certainty, that peaceful alternatives to war had not been exhausted, that the United Kingdom and the United States had undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council, that the process of identifying the legal basis was "far from satisfactory", and that a war was unnecessary.[5][6][7] The report was made available under an Open Government Licence...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war
...The initiation of armed conflict: that is being the first to 'break the peace' when no 'armed attack' has yet occurred, is not permitted by the UN Charter, unless authorized by the UN Security Council as an enforcement action. Some authors have claimed that when a presumed adversary first appears to be beginning confirmable preparations for a possible future attack, but has not yet actually attacked, that the attack has in fact 'already begun', however this opinion has not been upheld by the UN.[4][5]

Click to expand...

post said:

This controversy is alive again but there is no current real interest in or discussion of the facts.

Click to expand...

post said:

This controversy is alive again but there is no current real interest in or discussion of the facts.

(Sorry, ran out of time to add a poll....the three answer choices were, 1.) Yes, official actions meet the definition of war criminal,
2.) In response to the thread title, the famous words of Ronald Reagan:

3.) No, official actions meet the definition of war criminal. )

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

No, he isn't.

Click to expand...

Hawkeye10 said:

He is however an idiot who cost America a great deal, and We The People were very stupid to allow it to happen on our watch.

Click to expand...

post said:

The UK inquiry on the Iraq war report was suppressed until 2016. Does it not say clearly that Tony Blair participated in a war against a country
that was no imminent threat to the UK, described in that report as an unnecessary war? Would it not be more sincere to select the Reagan response than to deny Bush ordered pre-emptive war, the supreme crime against humanity?

Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:

There seems to be a pattern of We the People being stupid. It’s getting worse by the year.

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

The invasion of Iraq was Saddam's fault. If the goob had allowed inspections unfettered nothing would have happened.

But we could have allowed the peaceful embargo that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraq...

Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html
December 1, 1995

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)70470-0/fulltext
Child mortality in Iraq
Sarah Zaidi
Published: 11 October 1997
Sir,
I, with others reported1
the results of a child mortality and nutrition survey I jointly conducted in Baghdad, in August, 1995, as a member of a mission sponsored by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Because of the high level of child mortality, I took part in a follow-up mission to Iraq, in April, 1996, with the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), a non-governmental organisation. The mortality rates estimated in 1996 were much lower than those reported in 1995, for unknown reasons. During a return mission by the FAO in August, 1997, I conducted detailed follow-up interviews with a subgroup of mothers....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

...The effects of the sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq have been disputed.[8][9][10] Whereas it was widely believed that the sanctions caused a major rise in child mortality, research following the 2003 invasion of Iraq has shown that commonly cited data were doctored by the Saddam Hussein regime and that "there was no major rise in child mortality in Iraq after 1990 and during the period of the sanctions".[11]

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

post said:

Instead, you were fooled into justifying pre-emptive war by the same administration that misled you about many other details obtained
via responsible intelligence gathering and political agenda free analysis of intelligence gathered.

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

The invasion of Iraq was Saddam's fault. If the goob had allowed inspections unfettered nothing would have happened.

But we could have allowed the peaceful embargo that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraq...

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

The invasion of Iraq was Saddam's fault. If the goob had allowed inspections unfettered nothing would have happened.

But we could have allowed the peaceful embargo that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraq...

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

We should have just kept killing them peacefully.. Right?

How many hundred thousands?

Click to expand...

post said:

.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry
The Iraq Inquiry (also referred to as the Chilcot Inquiry after its chairman, Sir John Chilcot)[1][2] was a British public inquiry into the nation's role in the Iraq War. The inquiry was announced in 2009 by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and published in 2016 with a public statement by Chilcot.
On 6 July 2016, Sir John Chilcot announced the report's publication, more than seven years after the inquiry was announced.[3] Usually referred to as the Chilcot report by the news media,[4] the document stated that at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein did not pose an urgent threat to British interests, that intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction was presented with unwarranted certainty, that peaceful alternatives to war had not been exhausted, that the United Kingdom and the United States had undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council, that the process of identifying the legal basis was "far from satisfactory", and that a war was unnecessary.[5][6][7] The report was made available under an Open Government Licence...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war
...The initiation of armed conflict: that is being the first to 'break the peace' when no 'armed attack' has yet occurred, is not permitted by the UN Charter, unless authorized by the UN Security Council as an enforcement action. Some authors have claimed that when a presumed adversary first appears to be beginning confirmable preparations for a possible future attack, but has not yet actually attacked, that the attack has in fact 'already begun', however this opinion has not been upheld by the UN.[4][5]

Click to expand...

post said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

...The effects of the sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq have been disputed.[8][9][10] Whereas it was widely believed that the sanctions caused a major rise in child mortality, research following the 2003 invasion of Iraq has shown that commonly cited data were doctored by the Saddam Hussein regime and that "there was no major rise in child mortality in Iraq after 1990 and during the period of the sanctions".[11]

Click to expand...

DaveFagan said:

3 3 3
Let there be no doubt. He is the worst war criminal of this century.
Lies to War. 1.5 million dead. A ruined country.
/

Click to expand...

enderpotato00 said:

Not really. He was crappy president from what I understand. I was pretty young when he was still in office so I couldn't tell ya completely.

Click to expand...

post said:

You keep posting, you bring nothing but your unsupported opinions which are discredited before and after you post them. This is a debate forum.

Click to expand...

post said:

Instead, you were fooled into justifying pre-emptive war by the same administration that misled you about many other details obtained
via responsible intelligence gathering and political agenda free analysis of intelligence gathered.

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

Why was Iraq invaded? Because Saddam Hussein DID NOT allow unfettered inspection of suspected sites for production and storage of WMDS - FACT

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis suffered through the embargo - FACT.

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

All FACTS.

On the other hand...

Instead, you were fooled into justifying pre-emptive war by the same administration that misled you about many other details obtained
via responsible intelligence gathering and political agenda free analysis of intelligence gathered. - OPINION

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

Why was Iraq invaded? Because Saddam Hussein DID NOT allow unfettered inspection of suspected sites for production and storage of WMDS - FACT

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis suffered through the embargo - FACT.

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

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

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

All FACTS.

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

On the other hand...

Instead, you were fooled into justifying pre-emptive war by the same administration that misled you about many other details obtained
via responsible intelligence gathering and political agenda free analysis of intelligence gathered. - OPINION

Click to expand...

StuPedaso said:

If I wanted to find out if there is a 30-06 bullet in your house, short of destroying your house, could you prove there wasn't one? Does not address the FACT Saddam AGREED to inspections.


And war. Wartime casualties due to coalition forces were FAR LESS than the embargo deaths.

Because he lacked evidence to prove he didn't have something he didn't have. Ignores the FACT Saddam AGREED to inspections.



Yep, ALL ... including mine. OPINION noted.



Yep, OPINION - We agree. Post's post was OPINION

Click to expand...

DaveFagan said:

David Kelly and Scott Ritter conducted unfettered inspections of Iraq and stated unequicocally that Iraq did not have WMDs. Kelly was assassinated, likey by MI6 or CIA and Ritter defamed. They were officially in Iraq to do the inspections.
/

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

Why was Iraq invaded? Because Saddam Hussein DID NOT allow unfettered inspection of suspected sites for production and storage of WMDS - FACT

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis suffered through the embargo - FACT.

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

All FACTS.

On the other hand...

Instead, you were fooled into justifying pre-emptive war by the same administration that misled you about many other details obtained
via responsible intelligence gathering and political agenda free analysis of intelligence gathered. - OPINION

Click to expand...

post said:

You keep posting, you bring nothing but your unsupported opinions which are discredited before and after you post them. This is a debate forum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry
The Iraq Inquiry (also referred to as the Chilcot Inquiry after its chairman, Sir John Chilcot)[1][2] was a British public inquiry into the nation's role in the Iraq War. The inquiry was announced in 2009 by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and published in 2016 with a public statement by Chilcot......

Click to expand...

post said:

.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry
The Iraq Inquiry (also referred to as the Chilcot Inquiry after its chairman, Sir John Chilcot)[1][2] was a British public inquiry into the nation's role in the Iraq War. The inquiry was announced in 2009 by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and published in 2016 with a public statement by Chilcot.
On 6 July 2016, Sir John Chilcot announced the report's publication, more than seven years after the inquiry was announced.[3] Usually referred to as the Chilcot report by the news media,[4] the document stated that at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein did not pose an urgent threat to British interests, that intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction was presented with unwarranted certainty, that peaceful alternatives to war had not been exhausted, that the United Kingdom and the United States had undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council, that the process of identifying the legal basis was "far from satisfactory", and that a war was unnecessary.[5][6][7] The report was made available under an Open Government Licence...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war
...The initiation of armed conflict: that is being the first to 'break the peace' when no 'armed attack' has yet occurred, is not permitted by the UN Charter, unless authorized by the UN Security Council as an enforcement action. Some authors have claimed that when a presumed adversary first appears to be beginning confirmable preparations for a possible future attack, but has not yet actually attacked, that the attack has in fact 'already begun', however this opinion has not been upheld by the UN.[4][5]

Click to expand...

post said:

You offer no cites, you simply repeat your opinion, over and over. The U.S. conducted no similar, thorough study as the UK Iraq inquiry and report.
The report was hidden, suppressed for years because its conclusions defined Tony Blair as a war criminal. This is the third time I am posting this!:

SECOND TIME:


FIRST TIME:


The claims of huge increase in embargo driven infant mortality were a result of Iraqi propaganda intended to ease embargo restrictions and flawed infant mortality
survey's hampered by the influence of the Saddam autocracy.: (YOU PRESENT NO EVIDENCE....only right wing Bush apologist rhetoric.)

https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2010.00437.x

Click to expand...

fledermaus said:

saddam hussein did not allow unfettered inspection of suspected sites for production and storage of wmds.

Is that or is that not a fact?


Hundreds of thousands of iraqis suffered through the embargo .

Is that or is that not a 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?

Click to expand...

post said:

.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/iraq_inquiry
the iraq inquiry (also referred to as the chilcot inquiry after its chairman, sir john chilcot)[1][2] was a british public inquiry into the nation's role in the iraq war. the inquiry was announced in 2009 by prime minister gordon brown and published in 2016 with a public statement by chilcot.
on 6 july 2016, sir john chilcot announced the report's publication, more than seven years after the inquiry was announced.[3] usually referred to as the chilcot report by the news media,[4] the document stated that at the time of the invasion of iraq in 2003, saddam hussein did not pose an urgent threat to british interests, that intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction was presented with unwarranted certainty, that peaceful alternatives to war had not been exhausted, that the united kingdom and the united states had undermined the authority of the united nations security council, that the process of identifying the legal basis was "far from satisfactory", and that a war was unnecessary.[5][6][7] the report was made available under an open government licence...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/preemptive_war
...the initiation of armed conflict: That is being the first to 'break the peace' when no 'armed attack' has yet occurred, is not permitted by the un charter, unless authorized by the un security council as an enforcement action. Some authors have claimed that when a presumed adversary first appears to be beginning confirmable preparations for a possible future attack, but has not yet actually attacked, that the attack has in fact 'already begun', however this opinion has not been upheld by the un.[4][5]

Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/.../statement-by-france-to-security-council.html
Statement by France to Security Council

FEB. 14, 2003

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 14 — Following is a transcript of the remarks of the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, before the United Nations Security Council today, as recorded by the Federal News Service.

DOMINIQUE GALOUZEAU DE VILLEPIN (French minister of foreign affairs):
....
The question today is simple. Do we believe in good conscience that disarmament via inspections is now leading us to a dead end, or do we believe that the possibilities regarding inspections presented in 1441 have still not been fully explored?

In response to this question, France believes two things. First, the option of inspections has not been taken to the end. It can provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq.

Secondly, the use of force would be so fraught with risk for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort.

So what have we just learned from the reports by Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei? We have just learned that the inspections are purchasing results. Of course, each of us wants more, and we will continue together to put pressure on Baghdad to obtain more. But the inspections are purchasing results. At earlier reports to the Security Council on 27 January, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA identified in detail areas in which progress was expected. Significant gains have now been made on several of these fronts.....

Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...1f3-9965-57f7c14e0caf/?utm_term=.0d93ff997aa9

Blix's Report Deepens U.N. Rift Over Iraq

By Glenn Kessler and Colum Lynch March 9, 2003 Email the author

The chief U.N. weapons inspector today provided a cautiously upbeat assessment of Iraqi disarmament,..
....
"The military agenda must not dictate the calendar of inspections," said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. "We cannot accept an ultimatum as long as the inspectors are reporting cooperation.".....

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

Does not address the FACT Saddam AGREED to inspections.

Ignores the FACT Saddam AGREED to inspections.

Click to expand...

StuPedaso said:

To you perhaps, still Saddam, it turned out, didn't have weapons of mass destruction; how was he supposed to prove that. Proving a negative is very complicated. My point is, the Dubya administration was out to destroy Sadam's government; no matter what.<--period.

He was making deals with the Russians we didn't like, Bush/Cheney wanted the OIL. That's all there, really, was to it.

Click to expand...