Is Saddam the only war criminal in the modern world

[Sorrow]

oh.

[WaD]

I dont think Bush or tony are war criminals, of corse the arguments they ued before the invasion can be discused.

The difference between Sadam and Bush/Tony, is that saddam killed civilians on purpose while the coalition have tried to avoid the loss of civilian, though alot have died accidentaly.

[Mr. Happy]

If some of the Iraqi people don't like the government we installed then it's their right to try and change it. They're not terrorists, or insurgents, their freedom fighters.

What is the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists other than your own opinion on the matter?

I've been called inpersuadable, my view is all that matters

My promised list of Bush's war crimes
Bush is fighting, in his own words, a War, which has no formal declaration.

Thats War Crime 1.

Proper treatment of POW's has been infirnged upon.

Thats War Crime 2.

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).[2]

IMHO, he was wrong, and the shock and awe and other bombings created excessive civillian damage, injury, and destruction of the environment.

That's War Crime 3.

Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction; in other words we should have left after determining there were no WMD's and ousting Saddam. Any action thereafter violates this.

That's War Crime 4

Ok, this next one pushes it

Although the 'insurgents' aren't protected or governed by, and are technically war criminals for not fighting in a uniform (although to my understanding this only applies if they fight a foreign force), they are also techinically civillians because they do not display a a uniform or badge. This means fighting them is illegal.

War Crime 5? (not really, but MAYBE)



1, 2, and 4 are the big ones. The provable ones. The one's for which Bush can be legally hanged.

[firedfns13]

if people hate him so much... whyd they reelect him over the hippy dude.. uhm whats his face,... senetor guy...

anyway, i think people hate america becuase they hate america, not just the president;
besides, everyone blames the president for everthing, itll always be like that.

[Mr. Happy]

Part of the re-election has to do with our election system. The people don't elect the president, a group called 'The Electoral College' does. When we vote for president we are, theoretically, telling the Electors for our state who they should vote for. Although, they technically don't have to vote for who we tell them to they, by convention, do.

Actually, there is nothing in our constitution mandating a popular vote. When you vote it really doesn't mean anything, but it's still a good thing to do because the electors generally follow it.

The system was installed, supposedly, to reduce the power of larger states over that of smaller states, although in practice it doesn't. In fact it was really installed because our founding father's were of English origin, and English nobility/class system/politics is a very elitist one.

Now, a big problem with this system is that a President can win the popular vote, but lose the Electoral vote, as was the case with Al Gore. Most people in the country voted for him, however a number of states didn't. Because each state has a number of Electors based on its population, it is possible for a president to get more electoral votes than popular votes.

And so we got Bush.

Bush was reelected, over the election of John Kerry for several reasons, some of the more important ones I will list:

1. A group of lying assholes whom we're later discredited called 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' destroyed his military record, dissuading some people whom were 'on the fence' for not voting for him.

2. No matter how well or poorly he handled it, Bush was President during 9/11. Thus he is seen as saving, or protecting America from further attacks afterward, or whatever. The WTC attacks were only our second experience with international terrorism and so were still fresh in people's minds. Thus, the simple fact he was around when it happened made him more popular. Same thing happened with the mayor of New York, Rudy Giulliani. Everyone hated Guilliani until 9/11 happened and then he was seen as a 'savior.'

3. There are these people called 'hicks' or 'hillbillys' in America. They live in the rural areas and often have no connection with the real world. They are generally poorly educated and watch 'Fox News,' a horribly biased and unprofessional TV news network that is pro-Bush. They voted for him because they don't understand the issues, and like guns.

4. Republicans are better at mudslinging, although Democrats participate just as much.

5. We have these horrible electronic voting machines. It has been demonstrated by a group of electoral officials, concerned citizens, and a computer scientist that using a zip disk with a simple program you can easily rig an election with them, with no record of it happening. The owner of the company that produces the most popular machine said publicly that he "would give the election to Bush." Although we can't prove he did so, it raises some questions.

EDIT: changed some words so as not to offend any cool hicks, of which there are plenty.

[Superdeer]

If some of the Iraqi people don't like the government we installed then it's their right to try and change it. They're not terrorists, or insurgents, their freedom fighters.

What is the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists other than your own opinion on the matter?

I've been called inpersuadable, my view is all that matters

My promised list of Bush's war crimes
Bush is fighting, in his own words, a War, which has no formal declaration.

Thats War Crime 1.

Proper treatment of POW's has been infirnged upon.

Thats War Crime 2.

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).[2]

IMHO, he was wrong, and the shock and awe and other bombings created excessive civillian damage, injury, and destruction of the environment.

That's War Crime 3.

Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction; in other words we should have left after determining there were no WMD's and ousting Saddam. Any action thereafter violates this.

That's War Crime 4

Ok, this next one pushes it

Although the 'insurgents' aren't protected or governed by, and are technically war criminals for not fighting in a uniform (although to my understanding this only applies if they fight a foreign force), they are also techinically civillians because they do not display a a uniform or badge. This means fighting them is illegal.

War Crime 5? (not really, but MAYBE)



1, 2, and 4 are the big ones. The provable ones. The one's for which Bush can be legally hanged.

Mr Happy you just made me happy, I agree with all points.

[SlappyBag]

This is a silly thread, of course he isn't the only war criminal. What about Hitler? Or that dood, that, started that war, for no good reason, and killed people...

[Superdeer]

Thats why I said in the modern world.

[mastersmith98]

For years and years, exiled Iraqis have been asking for help to over throw Saddam, any excuse was a good excuse for them.

ROFL. you made that up