First, may God bless America and I hope to see peace to rise up all through out the world. It is also appropriate for all to support the American troops even if you see anything wrong with this ongoing war.

The main idea of the Iraq war was to retrieve the WMD and disable Saddam (because of his connections with Al Qaeda)
It's been confirmed over and over that the main purpose of this war is purely inaccurate.

And my question is:
Should Bush be held responsible for war crime after the end of his tenure as the United States president?

DEFINITELY

He is responsible for the worst things to happen to human beings, next only probably to Adolf Hitler

WHY??

he is the one responsible for the peace you have now, and yet you ingrates are talking about war crimes
he is a patriot and should be praised

I've always had peace. Bush has created problems for several millions of people worldwide

bibiking1:

WHY??

he is the one responsible for the peace you have now, and yet you ingrates are talking about war crimes
he is a patriot and should be praised

Not just about you. I am looking at a wider perspective than that which the typical American sees

I think NO
Bushes decision to go to war actually came after Osama Bin Laden struck on September 11. First was Afganistan, Iraq was next.

Should Bush Be Prosecuted For War Crime?

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think what he did was needed considering the circumstances.

He is responsible for the worst things to happen to human beings, next only probably to Adolf Hitler

you are right, bush is definitely worse than pol pot, pinochet, stalin, idi amin etc. oh bush the evil dictator. why don't we charge congress with war crimes since they voted for the war too.

can u nuts list the war crimes that bush committed. and pls don't tell me bush ordered abu grahib

It's been confirmed over and over that the main purpose of this war is purely inaccurate.

it's not bush's fault, he had faulty intelligence.

actually, i'd say it was a case of the intelligence he wanted. happens all the time. underlings are pressured to make a case for something the boss has alraedy made up his mind to do.

for me george bush unilaterraly chose to invade a sovereign country on false premises. he has made the world a much more dangerous place.



post 911, iran iraq and noth korea were labelled the axis of evil. right now sabers are being rattled at iran. everyone is quiet about north korea.

why? because north korea actually does have nuclear weapons. that's the message bush has sent out to the rest off the world - u'd better have WMD, or one day we just might invade your ass.

abu gharib, extraordianry rendition etal, happened on his watch. of course, the buck stops somewhere else.

rumsfield, the advocate of 'stress positions' 'accepted full responsibility' for abu ghraib(whatever that meant)

enough blathering. bush may not be a war criminal(directly), but his administataion bears responsibilty for the war crimes commited by the united states armed forces in iraq.

oyb:

actually, i'd say it was a case of the intelligence he wanted. happens all the time. underlings are pressured to make a case for something the boss has alraedy made up his mind to do.

for me george bush unilaterraly chose to invade a sovereign country on false premises. he has made the world a much more dangerous place.



post 911, iran iraq and noth korea were labelled the axis of evil. right now sabers are being rattled at iran. everyone is quiet about north korea.

why? because north korea actually does have nuclear weapons. that's the message bush has sent out to the rest off the world - u'd better have WMD, or one day we just might invade your ass.

abu gharib, extraordianry rendition etal, happened on his watch. of course, the buck stops somewhere else.

rumsfield, the advocate of 'stress positions' 'accepted full responsibility' for abu ghraib(whatever that meant)

enough blathering. bush may not be a war criminal(directly), but his administataion bears responsibilty for the war crimes commited by the united states armed forces in iraq.

Are you sure everyone is quiet about North Korea?? Or is just that you do not listen or read news about North korea?? The new is from today.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/JC29Dg01.html

http://www.koreatimes.co/www/news/nation/2008/03/120_21436.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=ahee7tMNrjYk&refer=japan

President Lee Myung-bak urged North Korea, Wednesday, to give up its nuclear ambitions in order to establish itself as a self-supporting economy, as well as maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula.

The President made it clear that his government would engage in open dialogue with North Korea on the basis of national consensus and in cooperation with the international community.

The remarks were construed as the President's intention not to implement South Korean-backed big-ticket cross-border business projects until substantial progress is made in the international talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, North Korea experts said.

During the second-inter Korean summit in Pyongyang last October, former President Roh Moo-hyun promised North Korean leader Kim Jong-il a package of business projects using South Korean taxpayers' money, inviting severe criticism from conservatives.

Lee said, however, existing inter-Korean business programs, such as a South Korean-backed tour of Mount Geumgang in the North and the operation of a joint industrial complex in North Korea's border city of Gaeseong, should be continued, though there is still ``room for improvement.''

Unification Minister Kim Ha-joong backed Lee's policy line on North Korea demanding more reciprocity from the communist neighbor. Kim pledged the government would control the pace of inter-Korean economic cooperation in line with progress at the six-party nuclear talks involving the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia.

``When it gives up its nuclear weapons programs, North Korea will be able to achieve stability, maintain peace and establish a foundation so that the country will become a self-supporting economy,'' Lee said during a policy briefing session by the Ministry of Unification in Seoul.

``We should continue to make efforts to convince the North to scrap its nuclear program within the six-party framework. We're ready to cooperate with North Korea as soon as the nuclear issue is resolved,'' he said.

Lee referred to an inter-Korean agreement signed in 1991. The pact calls for basic principles for inter-Korean reunification, such as denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula, reconciliation of the two Koreas, mutual non-aggression and cross-border exchanges.

In its report on North Korea policy goals ― in a major turnaround ― the ministry put priority on ways to resolve human rights problems, including the repatriation of South Korean prisoners of war (POWs) and those believed to have been abducted by North Korean agents since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.

``(The ministry) will try to resolve the issue of POWs and abductees as its foremost policy goal from the perspective that the protection of the people is the nation's basic responsibility,'' the ministry said in its report.

The previous Roh Moo-hyun and Kim Dae-jung governments were reluctant to address the North's human rights issue at inter-Korean talks, fearful of harming their engagement policy toward Pyongyang.

The ministry also plans to come up with measures to ensure the transparent and safe delivery of South Korean humanitarian aid to North Korean citizens.

To help facilitate President Lee's flagship ``Vision 3000'' North Korea policy, the ministry will launch a related task force, according to the report. Vision 3000 calls for providing conditional economic assistance to the North over the next decade in cooperation with the international community to help boost North Korea's per capital national income to $3,000.

it's not bush's fault, he had faulty intelligence.

@bawomolo:

He was also warned by the same "faulty intelligence" (confirmed by George Telnet, former CIA Chairman) to exhaust all available options before striking the war.

The whole world also dedicated a day (just few months before the war) to simultaneously protest against the Iraq war (FYI: According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war; including a rally of 3 million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally).

He also did not get the necessary approval of the United Nation before striking the war.

And all these did not stop Mr. Bush!

actually, i'd say it was a case of the intelligence he wanted. happens all the time. underlings are pressured to make a case for something the boss has alraedy made up his mind to do.

how was it the intelligence he wanted, when there's was a split between rumsfeld, negroponte etc. bush had no control over the intelligence he got, neither did condelezza rice or collin powell.

for me george bush unilaterraly chose to invade a sovereign country on false premises. he has made the world a much more dangerous place.

congress votes no, america doesn't go to war.

post 911, iran iraq and noth korea were labelled the axis of evil. right now sabers are being rattled at iran. everyone is quiet about north korea.

why don't u ask russia and china who have no problem blocking sanctions against iran and north korea. a millitary strike against iran is atually still an option.

abu gharib, extraordianry rendition etal, happened on his watch. of course, the buck stops somewhere else.

yeah i guess george bush must be stationed in army boots watching every prison in iraq. since when was the president responsible for the actions of every officer.

enough blathering. bush may not be a war criminal(directly), but his administataion bears responsibilty for the war crimes commited by the united states armed forces in iraq.

the soldiers responsible for the abu grahib incidents were charged, other soldiers have been charged in a few cases too. u can only claim war crimes if there are direct orders from command.

The whole world also dedicated a day (just few months before the war) to simultaneously protest against the Iraq war (FYI: According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war; including a rally of 3 million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally).

pls list the war crimes that bush committed.

please list the war crimes that bush committed.

@bawolomo:

Why don't you go ahead and list them?

May be Nigeria should also go ahead and bomb Togo and Ghana just because we think they have deadly juju that could destroy the entire African continent.

What do you think?

Why don't you go ahead and list them?

so am the one that accused bush of committing war crimes

May be Nigeria should also go ahead and bomb Togo and Ghana just because we think they have deadly juju that could destroy the entire African continent.

yeah because there is juju that can wipe out the whole of africa. some of u nuts seem to forget it was saddam that refused to allow IAEA inspectors access to iraqi nuclear facilities.

irrespective of what anyone thinks,i believe the judge that will prosecute bush for war crimes has not being born

some of u nuts seem to forget it was saddam that refused to allow IAEA inspectors access to iraqi nuclear facilities.

@bawomolo:
And where is Saddam today?

irrespective of what anyone thinks,i  believe the judge that will prosecute bush for war crimes has not being born

@lucabrasi:
My friend, anything is possible.
I believe that Bush is being protected because of the already questionable integrity of the United States. It makes no sense to further damage what is already been damaged.
This is also one of the major reasons why Bush's impeachment will never be approved (eventhough the evidences are enough to impeach him).

FYI: A successfull impeachment will give a solid premise for war crime prosecution.

The empire (The United States of America) must be protected at all cost! 
And that is an intelligent move.

@bawomolo:
And where is Saddam today?

where he belongs, do u see the people of iraq reminiscing the days of saddam??

pls mention the war crimes

where he belongs, do u see the people of iraq reminiscing the days of saddam??

please mention the war crimes

My man, stay focused.
My point is: You do not take a drastic action because you hate one man. United States is competent and strong enough to easily drop this dude (Saddam) with out creating all these mess.

Saddam is gone, and Iraq will also be gone for many years to come; for what?

Do you get it?

My point is: You do not take a drastic action because you hate one man. United States is competent and strong enough to easily drop this dude (Saddam) with out creating all these mess.

a removal of saddam required an invasion. sanctions and isolation by the UN definitely didn't stop him. air strikes by the clinton administration definitely didn't stop saddam.

Saddam is gone, and Iraq will also be gone for many years to come; for what?

the reconstruction of iraq wouldn't happen withing a millisecond. is this what u call u a war crime again list the war crimes.

This is also one of the major reasons why Bush's impeachment will never be approved (eventhough the evidences are enough to impeach him).

pls list the evidence needed to impeach bush.

@ Blatant

DEFINITELY

He is responsible for the worst things to happen to human beings, next only probably to Adolf Hitler

Worse than Joseph Stalin, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Mao Ze dong, Ceaucescu, Abacha, Arafat?

a removal of saddam required an invasion. sanctions and isolation by the UN definitely didn't stop him. air strikes by the clinton administration definitely didn't stop saddam.

If dropping Saddam was the main issue or goal, United States would have easily accomplished that goal without any sweat.

If dropping Saddam was the main issue or goal, United States would have easily accomplished that goal without any sweat.

ok philosopher Big B1, please explain how saddam would be "easily" removed. u still haven't answered my question though. what war crimes should bush be charged with. why don't u charge congress with war crimes too, they sure didn't mind funding the war.

I went against my natural pacifist instincts and suported the war, cause I wanted a dictator removed
and for a brief period you could sense dictators around the world at alert, trying to legitimise their regimes.

But my wishes were betratyed by a poorly executed effort.

Shortsightedness and largely conceit put paid to all that. Rumsfeld revealed all that is pompous and derisory
about America. No plans about the borders, no adequate post-invasion plans, not enough military numbers etc.

Frankly I do not think it is our place to pontificate on the culpability of Bush.

It should be left to the families of thed thoundsands of lives lost, Americans and non Americans.

doyin13:

I went against my natural pacifist instincts and suported the war, cause I wanted a dictator removed
and for a brief period you could sense dictators around the world at alert, trying to legitimise their regimes.

But my wishes were betratyed by a poorly executed effort.

Shortsightedness and largely conceit put paid to all that. Rumsfeld revealed all that is pompous and derisory
about America. No plans about the borders, no adequate post-invasion plans, not enough military numbers etc.

Frankly I do not think it is our place to pontificate on the culpability of Bush.

It should be left to the families of thed thoundsands of lives lost, Americans and non Americans.

That happens to be the stance I take on this issue myself.

This is Cheney in '94

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnV4tMvI0ME

Si vis pacem para bellum. I think the war would have happened anyway though, whether Bush invaded Iraq or not, afterall Saddam had to die sometime and like all dictatorship governments the government and middle class are weakened. After Saddam died there would have been a massive power struggle eventually erupting in war, but thats by the way. The point is, it was not the U.S place to invade Iraq and it was done under false pretense i.e Terrorism. The government lied to its people in order to achieve a selfish goal. Bush shouldn't be prosecuted for war crimes, I mean what war crimes are you going to prosecute him for exactly? and besides it not my place to suggest what the American people should do to their president since I'm neither Iraqi nor American.

Big B1:

@lucabrasi:
My friend, anything is possible.
I believe that Bush is being protected because of the already questionable integrity of the United States. It makes no sense to further damage what is already been damaged.
This is also one of the major reasons why Bush's impeachment will never be approved (eventhough the evidences are enough to impeach him).

FYI: A successfull impeachment will give a solid premise for war crime prosecution.

The empire (The United States of America) must be protected at all cost!
And that is an intelligent move.

hmmn dyu realli beleive thats going to happen,i dont think so, the way all the families, the bush,cheney even bin ladins and the rest of them are interlocked removing one link will get the rest in deep shit so theres no question of breaking that link ever

Yes. His lies as a justification for the silly war has led to the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis. The man deserves to be hanged for his crimes.

George W. Bush and every member of his bloodthirsty cabal of death is a war criminal as far as I'm concerned. However, it would be virtually impossible to try him for war crimes, for obvious reasons.

The eternal consolation is that the socio-political equivalent of Newton's Third Law is and will continue to manifest itself - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.