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 hash007)
    That was the reason they killed Saddam Hussein, Bush and Blair have done the same or even worse atrocities than him, so why haven't they been accused or executed?
    Or do western leaders not count.

    This documentary is great btw, http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=198443
    Saw a thread about it yesterday.
    lol good question OP. the sad truth is you're right, it seems western leaders don't count.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Because they haven't been convicted of anything. Also, don't know if you know, but Iraq executed Saddam. I somehow doubt it'd go down too well if they tried to execute former leaders of two of some of the most powerful countries in the world, especially since the governmet currently in power was brought into power by these very people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    I don't doubt that countries go to war over economic interests. However, in this case I am not convinced that war was necessary. The US didn't really need Iraq's oil and even if it had changed the currency it wouldn't have effected them that much. They could have stopped the other Gulf States from going the same way through enough pressure. You say that it would cost them billions, even trillions yet the war itself has cost billions and potentially trillions in the future. Moreover, they have not only suffered this economic cost but also the human cost that comes with the death of thousands of their soldiers.
    Although it is true that it has cost them trillions to finance the war, that money has not just gone into some big black hole or to one of their international competitors, so all is not lost. The fact that no country can really buy oil without dollars essentially means that every country needs a huge surplus of dollars, which keeps their currency nice and high. It also keeps other countries on their side diplomatically. The value of keeping oil in US dollars is unfathomable. Being able to choke a country of money to finance the buying of oil gives America the power to manipulate countries the world over without firing a bullet.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Scott Ritter also claimed that he wasn't a paedophile, despite being busted twice. Furthermore, Hans Blix and Rolf Ekeus, who are both well-known nuclear inspectors, claim that Saddam lied about his biological and chemical weapons.

    Again, I am not the British government, you ignorant little oaf. And how do you plan on invading a country, such as North Korea, which already has a nuclear weapon; or at least, claims to have one? You realise that there would be disastrous consequences, right? Namely the fact that Seoul and it's entire population would be wiped off the face of the earth; China would retaliate against the West by crippling our economies; and World War Three would almost certainly take place.

    Not the brightest of chaps, are you?
    And these nuclear weapons have been found and President Bush did not admit that there were no WMDs in Iraq right?

    How do you plan on invading Iraq which is alleged to have WMDs? You realise that there would be disastrous consequences, right? Namely the fact that Israel and its entire population would be wiped off the face of the earth.

    You see what I did there? The only difference being that this didn't seem to deter the US when they invaded Iraq.

    Resorting to insults again, not the best debater are you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkytea)
    There's no probably about it, they have nukes. Nukes that have the capability to wipe out a high fraction of the South Korean population. Invasion is simply impossible.

    So what other examples of a country worth considering intervening in do you have?
    Well it is a 'probably' because we know very little about North Korea or what the capabilities of its weapons actually are. Iraq had the capabilities to bomb Israel, an ally of the US like South Korea, and it actually did fire Scud missiles into Israeli towns yet this did not deter the US.

    Well if you are going to do it on humanitarian grounds then there are countless places where you could intervene e.g. much of Africa.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Although it is true that it has cost them trillions to finance the war, that money has not just gone into some big black hole or to one of their international competitors, so all is not lost. The fact that no country can really buy oil without dollars essentially means that every country needs a huge surplus of dollars, which keeps their currency nice and high. It also keeps other countries on their side diplomatically. The value of keeping oil in US dollars is unfathomable. Being able to choke a country of money to finance the buying of oil gives America the power to manipulate countries the world over without firing a bullet.
    So where do you think the money to finance the wars comes from? Is China not an international competitor and at the same time one of the largest holders of US debt?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Bush and Blair did not attempt to commit genocide.

    Bush and Blair did not illegally invade two countries - Iran and Kuwait (and no, the Iraq war was perfectly legal).

    Bush and Blair did not suppress the Iraqi people, killing everyone who opposed their views.

    Bush and Blair did not kill an estimated 2 - 3 million people.

    Bush and Blair are not war criminals; they have not committed anything that even resembles a war crime, let alone a crime against humanity.

    Now, begone.
    If Hussein was so bad, why did America supply him with money and weapons for the war against Kuwait?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    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?
    America still have the death penalty?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    So where do you think the money to finance the wars comes from? Is China not an international competitor and at the same time one of the largest holders of US debt?
    China is a pretty massive buyer of US currency and debt, and I believe there will huge turmoil over this issue in the future. China is already out manoeuvring the US with ease, and things will only get worse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Much like many of you I value the lives of dictators, especially the ones that gas innocent people. Hitler gassed jews and gypsies and Saddam Hussein gassed Kurds.

    It is time we stand up to the atrocity of deposing dictators! Hitler and Hussein should have been allowed to continue to reign!


    Joke. You all are pacifist pussies who would whinge and moan if WW2 started now instead of 1939. Why the **** does a dictator have to live next door for people to do something about it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    oh the documentary mob, again.

    Make a documentary about something, and there's a spike in interest till the next one comes out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hash007)
    If Hussein was so bad, why did America supply him with money and weapons for the war against Kuwait?
    Saddam being so bad is a validation to the people, not the politicians. When he was an ally and worth keeping onside, it made diplomatic sense to sell him our old used up weapons. He did after all have as much right as any other country in the world to protect his interests, but we weren't to know he was going to try and commit genocide.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Read the riot act)
    Much like many of you I value the lives of dictators, especially the ones that gas innocent people. Hitler gassed jews and gypsies and Saddam Hussein gassed Kurds.

    It is time we stand up to the atrocity of deposing dictators! Hitler and Hussein should have been allowed to continue to reign!


    Joke. You all are pacifist pussies who would whinge and moan if WW2 started now instead of 1939. Why the **** does a dictator have to live next door for people to do something about it?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na_Zac23b5E
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    The US' own weapons inspector Scott Ritter said that they had absolutely zero nuclear capabilities. North Korea on the other hand probably does, yet we have not been so quick to invade them.

    If you go by the factors you have just laid out then we should be invading plenty more countries and overthrowing their dictators.

    It seems quite arbitrary to invade Iraq in 2003 unless you have motives other than that of humanitarian intervention.
    Of course oil came into it. Whats wrong with that?

    Saddam killed 200,000 of his own citizens in just three years alone. When genocide occurs we should intervene, its the only moral thing to do. Although of course there are other dictators who oppress their own people, none match up to the atrocities of Saddam. The decision to invade Iraq was taken for humanitarian and economic (silly with hindsight) reasons. It was the right decision.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hash007)
    America still have the death penalty?
    America still have Mexicans
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The main problem over the Iraq war was the reason for going. I didn't support the war and were glad when the British troops left Basra again (First time was in 1940s), because Blair had lied and there was no prepparation for Post-War Iraq. If Blair and Bush had said they were going to get rid of Saddam Hussien Then i would have supported them.

    Afghanistan is another matter. That place isn't a warzone, it's the graveyard of the British Army, has been since the retreat from Kabul in 1842
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    *Online Muslim Putsch
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Read the riot act)
    Much like many of you I value the lives of dictators, especially the ones that gas innocent people. Hitler gassed jews and gypsies and Saddam Hussein gassed Kurds.

    It is time we stand up to the atrocity of deposing dictators! Hitler and Hussein should have been allowed to continue to reign!


    Joke. You all are pacifist pussies who would whinge and moan if WW2 started now instead of 1939. Why the **** does a dictator have to live next door for people to do something about it?
    You're under the impression that I support Saddam Hussein, which isn't true. Yes he did bad things but but so have Bush and Blair, but they don't get questioned for it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by win5ton)
    Of course oil came into it. Whats wrong with that?

    Saddam killed 200,000 of his own citizens in just three years alone. When genocide occurs we should intervene, its the only moral thing to do. Although of course there are other dictators who oppress their own people, none match up to the atrocities of Saddam. The decision to invade Iraq was taken for humanitarian and economic (silly with hindsight) reasons. It was the right decision.
    Well actually I didn't suggest that oil came into it, that is not only the alternative motive. Moreover, saying it is about oil is a bit of a simplification I think it goes much further than that.

    Indeed he did but you fail to mention that this was in the 1980s when he was receiving military aid from the United States to help fight the Iranians. I would argue that the genocide in Sudan is pretty atrocious, do you think we should intervene there?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    Well actually I didn't suggest that oil came into it, that is not only the alternative motive. Moreover, saying it is about oil is a bit of a simplification I think it goes much further than that.

    Indeed he did but you fail to mention that this was in the 1980s when he was receiving military aid from the United States to help fight the Iranians. I would argue that the genocide in Sudan is pretty atrocious, do you think we should intervene there?
    Yes.
 
 
 
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.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.