Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why hasn't Geroge Bush or Tony Blair been executed for crimes against humanity? Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I doubt they would ever be charged or tried for war crimes let alone be sentenced.
    Not only do they have the ability to talk themselves out of it, they have enough money and enough friends in high places to prevent that happerning.

    Plus what Western Country would allow that in these modern times?
    Irrelevant.

    Please, enlighten us all. What were the war crimes Bush and Blair committed?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain92)
    There isn't a court that it can be done by, from my understanding.
    He was questioned about it, but there are no punishments other than shame that can be dished out.
    The International Criminal Court at The Hague.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No, they should be applauded for services to humanity.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain92)
    What punishments are they capable of giving though? I presumed that an "international" type law wouldn't be able to implement proper sentencing as prisons are associated with a countries legal system rather than an international one?
    Because Bush and Blair were questioned weren't they? A couple of years back? Can't for the life of me remember what happened about it though...
    Imprisonment; and no, there is an international system, it's called international law.

    Nothing happened because they have not committed war crimes, let alone crimes against humanity.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    No, they should be applauded for services to humanity.
    Blair, aye, he did, after all, intervene in Sierra Leone; but Bush couldn't have cared less about the Iraqi people, and couldn't care less about anyone other than himself (see Guitmo).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Irrelevant.

    Please, enlighten us all. What were the war crimes Bush and Blair committed?
    I never agreed that Tony Blair and/or George Bush had committed war crimes or were guilty of them. I just was explaining why I thought it was unlikely either of them would go to trial.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I never agreed that Tony Blair and/or George Bush had committed war crimes or were guilty of them. I just was explaining why I thought it was unlikely either of them would go to trial.
    If Blair committed war crimes the majority of the British public and the media - who remain in the anti-Iraq war camp - would've certainly pointed it out. However, because no war crimes were committed, George Galloway and the rest of the imbecilic left have no case against one of our greatest Prime Ministers; instead, they continue to spout their groundless rhetoric which goes something like this: 'there were no wmds, so iraq war illegal, thus blair criminal - hang him!'

    I'm getting just a wee bit tired of the fascist-adoring, genocide-supporting fools who'd love to see Saddam Hussein, a tyrant few have managed to rival, back in power.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    If Blair committed war crimes the majority of the British public and the media - who remain in the anti-Iraq war camp - would've certainly pointed it out. However, because no war crimes were committed, George Galloway and the rest of the imbecilic left have no case against one of our greatest Prime Ministers; instead, they continue to spout their groundless rhetoric which goes something like this: 'there were no wmds, so iraq war illegal, thus blair criminal - hang him!'

    I'm getting just a wee bit tired of the fascist-adoring, genocide-supporting fools who'd love to see Saddam Hussein, a tyrant few have managed to rival, back in power.
    Don't classify the left as idiots. I'm leftist, but I agree with the war for reasons you've alluded to, it's just deontologically blinded people who don't.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    If Blair committed war crimes the majority of the British public and the media - who remain in the anti-Iraq war camp - would've certainly pointed it out. However, because no war crimes were committed, George Galloway and the rest of the imbecilic left have no case against one of our greatest Prime Ministers; instead, they continue to spout their groundless rhetoric which goes something like this: 'there were no wmds, so iraq war illegal, thus blair criminal - hang him!'

    I'm getting just a wee bit tired of the fascist-adoring, genocide-supporting fools who'd love to see Saddam Hussein, a tyrant few have managed to rival, back in power.
    To repeat, I never said I agreed with the idea that Tony Blair is a war criminal. I don't really agree with the reasons for going to war.
    As for calling him one of our greatest Prime Ministers, what makes you give him that title just out of interest?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    Don't classify the left as idiots. I'm leftist, but I agree with the war for reasons you've alluded to, it's just deontologically blinded people who don't.
    Perhaps if you learned to read you'd have noticed that my point was aimed at the 'imbecilic left'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    To repeat, I never said I agreed with the idea that Tony Blair is a war criminal. I don't really agree with the reasons for going to war.
    As for calling him one of our greatest Prime Ministers, what makes you give him that title just out of interest?
    He put an end to the crisis in Northern Ireland; intervened in Sierra Leone (without any other Western country), Afghanistan and Iraq; introduced civil partnerships; introduced a minimum wage; and furthered Britain's integration within the EU to name just a few of his policies.

    He may be a filthy Zionist but we're not all perfect.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Beats me!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    He put an end to the crisis in Northern Ireland; intervened in Sierra Leone (without any other Western country), Afghanistan and Iraq; introduced civil partnerships; introduced a minimum wage; and furthered Britain's integration within the EU to name just a few of his policies.

    He may be a filthy Zionist but we're not all perfect.
    Well like I said Iraq I am not sure about. I am just not sure about the motives. If they had said from the start that they were worried about his tyrannical past and his (then) current activities people might not have been so against it, but because they said there were WMD's of which no evidence has been found even now some 6 and a half years on, and then as soon as it was clear none existed they changed the goal posts and tried to claim it was about freeing a country from a dictator all along.
    It just looks really bad.

    As for Afghanistan, well that was a terrible country under the rule of the Taliban, but I think invading it was still somewhat of a kneejerk reaction by the Americans in response to 9/11.

    Nevertheless, getting rid of the Taliban there was probably a good thing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Perhaps if you learned to read you'd have noticed that my point was aimed at the 'imbecilic left'.
    You do realise that could also be construed as saying "all leftists are imbecilic?"

    Hey, what do I know? I'm just the guy in the $6300 suit.


    COME ON.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    You do realise that could also be construed as saying "all leftists are imbecilic?"

    Hey, what do I know? I'm just the guy in the $6300 suit.


    COME ON.
    I try to make my views known, which is probably why I picked 'Stalin' as a username. Again, learn to read.

    Congrats on the suit, you pretentious prick.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Well like I said Iraq I am not sure about. I am just not sure about the motives. If they had said from the start that they were worried about his tyrannical past and his (then) current activities people might not have been so against it, but because they said there were WMD's of which no evidence has been found even now some 6 and a half years on, and then as soon as it was clear none existed they changed the goal posts and tried to claim it was about freeing a country from a dictator all along.
    It just looks really bad.

    As for Afghanistan, well that was a terrible country under the rule of the Taliban, but I think invading it was still somewhat of a kneejerk reaction by the Americans in response to 9/11.

    Nevertheless, getting rid of the Taliban there was probably a good thing.
    Whether Bush and Blair invaded Iraq due to Saddam's maltreatment of the Iraqi people; his war against Iran; his invasion of Kuwait; his attempt to commit genocide against the Kurds; or the nuclear threat he posed is irrelevant due to the outcome, which remains exactly the same.

    I accept that leaders should not lie but at the end of the day, Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated and that's all that matters.

    Afghanistan is a ****hole and nuking it wouldn't make much of a difference, but I agree, removing the Taliban and ensuring that it was no longer a breeding ground for terrorism - at least not to the same extent is was prior to 9/11 - is an achievement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    to quote somebody from the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thread, the victors write history. Bush won, so he's innocent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    War is politics by other means. If one dictator was going to over turn the economic supremacy, and therefore bring down their quality of life (and by extension cause conflicts and deaths), of the world super power and its citizens then the US is well within its right to go to war. It is there to protect their interests. Economically crippling the US is an open invitation to being crushed.
    Please enlighten me on how Saddam could have accomplished this?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    Please enlighten me on how Saddam could have accomplished this?
    By waging war in the Middle East and in turn, harming the U.S.' interests, namely Israel and oil.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Whether Bush and Blair invaded Iraq due to Saddam's maltreatment of the Iraqi people; his war against Iran; his invasion of Kuwait; his attempt to commit genocide against the Kurds; or the nuclear threat he posed is irrelevant due to the outcome, which remains exactly the same.

    I accept that leaders should not lie but at the end of the day, Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated and that's all that matters.

    Afghanistan is a ****hole and nuking it wouldn't make much of a difference, but I agree, removing the Taliban and ensuring that it was no longer a breeding ground for terrorism - at least not to the same extent is was prior to 9/11 - is an achievement.
    I find it hard to take any of your arguments seriously when you post such stupid things. You praise the liberation of Afghanistan, yet go on to call it a ****hole and say that it wouldn't matter if the country and consequently the people living there were nuked.

    And I thought you were all for logic :rolleyes:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 21, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.