Full Version: Brave New World Order
Is Bush a [COLOR=yellow]War Criminal ????[/COLOR] because americans gov't is not really about doing away with Saddam's weapons of mass destruction,however threatening. It is adout remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Please define:
1. War Criminal.
2. The jurisdiction/venue that would have Constitutional authority to act were this the case.
(Hey - did you know we're not at war with Iraq...yet?
)
1. War Criminal.
2. The jurisdiction/venue that would have Constitutional authority to act were this the case.
(Hey - did you know we're not at war with Iraq...yet?
)
no. The president hasn't killed any people yet or launched genocide. BTW saddam has done war crimes to america and launched this gruesom picture...
QUOTE
Any of various crimes, such as genocide or the mistreatment of prisoners of war, committed during a war and considered in violation of the conventions of warfare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
war
QUOTE(juber3 @ Nov 29 2002, 02:36 PM)
BTW saddam has done war crimes to america
Really? And what war crimes are those, Juber? You seem to bandy this term about quite a bit and, at first, I thought, perhaps that you didn't know what it meant. Having read the definition you provide, I'm even more baffled. What war crimes has Saddam Hussein ever committed against the US?
President Bush a war criminal? The winners of wars define who and who is not a war criminal. If there is a war President Bush will no doubt win it; but first there must be a war and casualties must be counted before a winner is declared.
The Nuremburg war crimes trials at the end of WWII demonstrate an interesting example of the meaning and definition of war crimes. Admiral Doenitz commanded the German submarine force and was tried for practicing unrestricted submarine warfare against the allies. His defense was brilliant in its simplicity; he said it was no different than submarines of the US navy conducting unrestricted submarine warfare against the Empire of Japan. It may not surprise you that charges were dropped.
When there is a war and if there is heavy fighting in the cities of Iraq there will no doubt be heavy civilian casualties as a result of collateral damage (such an antiseptic term for a grim toll of death and destruction, the sorrow of widows and orphans). This fact points to the contradiction of President Bush's foreign policy, he says Saddam Hussein is the enemy but it will be the Iraqi people who will suffer the consequences. They do not want a war, but they can not oppose Hussein's police state. It is questionable that we can even find him if he decides to hide when Baghdad is taken, we do not seem to be doing such a good job of finding bin Laden.
Back to the question of war crimes. The US does not and would not recognize any international tribune that would charge him, so the question is not particularly relevant.
duncan@iwc
The Nuremburg war crimes trials at the end of WWII demonstrate an interesting example of the meaning and definition of war crimes. Admiral Doenitz commanded the German submarine force and was tried for practicing unrestricted submarine warfare against the allies. His defense was brilliant in its simplicity; he said it was no different than submarines of the US navy conducting unrestricted submarine warfare against the Empire of Japan. It may not surprise you that charges were dropped.
When there is a war and if there is heavy fighting in the cities of Iraq there will no doubt be heavy civilian casualties as a result of collateral damage (such an antiseptic term for a grim toll of death and destruction, the sorrow of widows and orphans). This fact points to the contradiction of President Bush's foreign policy, he says Saddam Hussein is the enemy but it will be the Iraqi people who will suffer the consequences. They do not want a war, but they can not oppose Hussein's police state. It is questionable that we can even find him if he decides to hide when Baghdad is taken, we do not seem to be doing such a good job of finding bin Laden.
Back to the question of war crimes. The US does not and would not recognize any international tribune that would charge him, so the question is not particularly relevant.
duncan@iwc
How can Bush be a war criminal if he's never been in a war?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.