• 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!

Is Obama A War Criminal

Is Obama A War Criminal

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • No

    Votes: 32 84.2%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 3 7.9%

  • Total voters
    38
Is mr obama a war criminal? By the standards so many judged mr bush, then yes, he is a war criminal. Are/were those standards moronic, naive, childish, did I say moronic?, yes.

war-criminals.jpg

There is a solid argument, rooted in international law, that could classify the Iraq War as illegal, thus making Bush a war criminal. I'm not sure if I know enough to agree or disagree with this judgment, but the rationale behind this thinking is not moronic, naive, or childish. Either way drone strikes do not a war criminal make.
 
Last edited:
There is a solid argument, rooted in international law, that could classify the Iraq War as illegal, thus making Bush a war criminal. I'm not sure if I know enough to agree or disagree with this judgment, but the rationale behind this thinking is not moronic, naive, or childish. Either way drone strikes do not a war criminal make.

No, the Security Counsel gave 100% support for the use of force against Saddam Hussein for not complying with UN resolutions.
 
No, the Security Counsel gave 100% support for the use of force against Saddam Hussein for not complying with UN resolutions.

The UN Charter only permits the Security Council to authorize the use of force against an aggressor. However Saddam may or may not have pissed off the UN Weapons inspectors, he was not acting aggressively.

UN Security Council: Members

So one could argue that the Security Council actually did not have the right to authorize the use of force in such a situation, unless Saddam actually acted in an aggressive manner. Furthermore there is the argument that the UN Security Council's final resolution only laid out conditions that must be met before armed force was actually used, but did not actually permit a military invasion.

Here is a more comprehensive discussion of the issue:
Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Was Bush termed a "war criminal"? Obama continues one of the wars Bush started.

Is sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander?
 
The UN Charter only permits the Security Council to authorize the use of force against an aggressor. However Saddam may or may not have pissed off the UN Weapons inspectors, he was not acting aggressively.

UN Security Council: Members

So one could argue that the Security Council actually did not have the right to authorize the use of force in such a situation, unless Saddam actually acted in an aggressive manner. Furthermore there is the argument that the UN Security Council's final resolution only laid out conditions that must be met before armed force was actually used, but did not actually permit a military invasion.

Here is a more comprehensive discussion of the issue:
Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can argue all you want, okay. But if you do, I'll say that Johnson should have been hung for the Vietnam War. Clinton should have been hung for firing those cruise missiles. You really want to go there? Do you?
 
Let's not get distracted here. The case for the war crime of aggression is much harder to prove.

The real war crimes here are torture and extraordinary rendition of prisoners to torture (accessory to torture). How can we expect other countries to abide by human rights when we can't even hold our own ex-heads of state accountable for their human rights violations?
 
Last edited:
You can argue all you want, okay. But if you do, I'll say that Johnson should have been hung for the Vietnam War. Clinton should have been hung for firing those cruise missiles. You really want to go there? Do you?

Chill out dude. I was stating an argument. I did not say that it was MY opinion. Only that the argument exists. Just because the UN says it's okay to do something doesn't mean that the UN had the right to give permission. All this BS about Johnson and Clinton is just water under the bridge and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. And yeah, I think there are reasonable arguments for classifying Johnson and Clinton as war criminals. I'm not saying I think they are. Just that the arguments exist and that they are not unreasonable or moronic arguments.
 
Last edited:
Well ! I see that the "tea bagging conservatives" ,the haters of President Obama, have defecated all over this poll.
Now this poll should be flushed down the toilet.
Thus, all the polls are meaningless and should be ignored.
 
Last edited:
Well ! I see that the "tea bagging conservatives" ,the haters of President Obama, have defecated all over this poll.
Now this poll should be flushed down the toilet.


Oh waaa...
the_new_democratic_party_symbol.jpg



Obama's as much of a war criminal as G.W. Bush was... Obama followed Bush's foreign policies, continued the wars, kept Gitmo open, and refuses habius corpus to Gitmo detainees. If Bush was a war criminal, then so is Obama.
 
No.

No.

And..

No.
 
Obama's as much of a war criminal as G.W. Bush was... Obama followed Bush's foreign policies, continued the wars, kept Gitmo open, and refuses habius corpus to Gitmo detainees. If Bush was a war criminal, then so is Obama.

The difference is that Obama, as sitting head of state, is immune from prosecution. Bush, as a former head of state, is subject to prosecution.
 
Oh waaa...
the_new_democratic_party_symbol.jpg



Obama's as much of a war criminal as G.W. Bush was... Obama followed Bush's foreign policies, continued the wars, kept Gitmo open, and refuses habius corpus to Gitmo detainees. If Bush was a war criminal, then so is Obama.
So you think its OK for scamming tea bagging conservatives to upset a poll.....
Neither Truman, nor Reagan, Bush, and now Obama are "war criminals".
Who cares what scamming-fools think ?
 
The difference is that Obama, as sitting head of state, is immune from prosecution. Bush, as a former head of state, is subject to prosecution.
And it would be totally uncalled for...
Lets go forward, learning from our mistakes, if any...
 
Well ! I see that the "tea bagging conservatives" ,the haters of President Obama, have defecated all over this poll.Now this poll should be flushed down the toilet.
Thus, all the polls are meaningless and should be ignored.

Well, if by that you mean some of us are of the opinion all presidents should be held to the same standard whatever their party affiliations then, yes, we have defecated all over this poll.

Derek_aghast.sized.jpg
 
The difference is that Obama, as sitting head of state, is immune from prosecution. Bush, as a former head of state, is subject to prosecution.

So, in your wisdom, and partisanship, are suggesting we prosecute mr bush knowing full well that by that criteria we would then turn around and prosecute mr obama? Is that your suggestion? Really?
 
And it would be totally uncalled for...
Lets go forward, learning from our mistakes, if any...

Nonsense. Let's put criminals on trial for their crimes. If we want to hold Rwandan torturers accountable, then we have to hold American torturers accountable too.
 
So, in your wisdom, and partisanship, are suggesting we prosecute mr bush knowing full well that by that criteria we would then turn around and prosecute mr obama? Is that your suggestion? Really?

Yes, really. All war criminals should really stand trial, really. Anything else I can clear up for you?
 
War crimes. You people are a joke. The "Greatest Generation" dropped two atomic bombs in Japan on civilian cities. Hitler massacred millions and millions of civilians as a matter of policy and machine. Today, our presidents waterboard 4 people and kill some civilians via legitimate military targetting and the weaker of our society wish in vain to drag the nation through the gutter. Pathetic.
 
Yes, really. All war criminals should really stand trial, really. Anything else I can clear up for you?

The problem is that civilians today tend to believe whatever is presented in front of them and are absolutely hungry to self-flaggilate in order to prove to the world how better they are. In the end, they just look foolish in their quest to brand everything a war crime.
 
Last edited:
Civilians die in all wars, but calling them collateral damage is revolting. Dead babies are not collateral damage, just dead babies. We have stepped up to take Great Britans place in the world. The English have apparently gotten tired of wasting all their money fighting for corporation greed. But not to worry, we will take on the burden. Corporate wars are immoral, and ought to be illegal. The real reason for the war in Iraq was that their oil profits were given to the people of Iraq. World oil corporations could not tolerate that. The first thing we did in Iraq is privatize their oil. Killing civilians or soldiers for that is wrong. If you think I am wrong about the reason for the war, go back to the first thing we did, privatizing the oil.
 
Civilians die in all wars, but calling them collateral damage is revolting. Dead babies are not collateral damage, just dead babies. We have stepped up to take Great Britans place in the world. The English have apparently gotten tired of wasting all their money fighting for corporation greed. But not to worry, we will take on the burden. Corporate wars are immoral, and ought to be illegal. The real reason for the war in Iraq was that their oil profits were given to the people of Iraq. World oil corporations could not tolerate that. The first thing we did in Iraq is privatize their oil. Killing civilians or soldiers for that is wrong. If you think I am wrong about the reason for the war, go back to the first thing we did, privatizing the oil.

Well, let's look at this. You began with a self-righteous tone about what is and is not collateral damage. Dead babies are just dead babies, right? To the military mission, civilainsdeaths are unfortunate and we have spent billions of dollars perfecting precision weapons to alleviate this burden of war. But in the end, dead babies are collateral damage.

For over ten years, we watched and insured dead babies throughout Iraq via UN sanctions because we were too stupid as a Western people to finish the Gulf War. No care for those babies? After 9/11, a man named Osama Bin Laden (remember him?) used our decrepit mission over Iraq as an excuse for 3,000 dead Americans. Whether you wish to attribute this to corporate greed or not, this war had to be finished once and for all. But in your quest to hate on the war in Iraq (merely part two of the same war), you completely dismissed the little dead babies in Iraq throughout the 90s,didn't you? You seem to be a humanitarian of convenience. Very leftist of you.

It's obvious from this one post that you haven't thought about the entire event at all. Just passing on the rhetoric of the anti-war protestor's bumper sticker.
 
Last edited:
He's a republican, professor. This isn't rocket science. :mrgreen:

No. Bush tortured people, and excused torture. If I were seeking prosecution I would start there. Did Obama do this? If so, bring him up. Bush started a needless war. Not sure that is a "WAR CRIME" per sa, but it should be a crime of some sort. If Obama starts one the same war, charge him under whatever law that shoud fit.
 
Back
Top Bottom