I don’t think it makes sense for either side in this debate to be arguing whether or not the American invasion of Iraq is “exactly like” the German invasion of Poland. It’s silly for the pro-war side to suggest that any question of the legality of our actions is tantamount to saying “the American invasion of Iraq was exactly the same as the German invasion of Poland”, and it’s silly for the anti-war side to take the bait.
One day John follows Mary home from her workplace (an elementary school); he breaks into her house and sexually assaults and tortures her before finally killing her.
Meanwhile, Jim and Bob are business partners. Jim discovers that Bob has been defrauding him in various ways, and also that Bob is having an affair with Jim’s wife. Jim confronts Bob; they have a big argument, and in a moment of rage and frustration Jim grabs a blunt object and bashes Bob’s head in.
Are the two situations “exactly the same”? No, but both John and Jim should be charged with some degree of “homicide”; first-degree murder in one case, voluntary manslaughter or second-degree murder or whatever the term in that jurisdiction is in the second case. There’s no need to say that the two men are “exactly the same”.
Of course it won’t. GW will retire and become an ex president will all of the trappings and honors attaching to that position. He will even be invited to speak at graduation ceremonies of prestigious universities and will be warmly applauded for his cogent advice. In time he will be gathered to the God he worships and maybe 50 or 75 years downstream his record will be analysed and found to be one that would make Albert Anastasia ashamed.
Me too, but I don’t think Germany agreed in advance that their leaders would be liable to such charges either. Charges were brought and trials followed just the same.
One such punishment might be confinement in a secret prison without recourse to any avenue of appeal. After all, the precedent has been set.
But that’s going into fantasy which doesn’t belong in GD.
If China or Russia had invaded Iraq instead of the US, you would not hear a single voice raised in support. A prosecution for war crimes would face the same obstacles, but there would not be the same voices raised to cloud the issues.
Given exactly the same background, all it would take is a different member of the UN Security Council to invade. Day and night all you would hear is support from freedom-loving USA for those plucky Iraqi partisans resisting the aggressive invasion by a foreign power. There’d be talk of arms supplies and sanctions and the duty of brave Iraqis to resist.
Instead: IOKIUSTDI.
Take away the fact that it is US troops involved and xtisme and co. would rally in support for the resistance, as they should. But tell us; apart from changing the identity of the invader, when do the war’s supporters start rooting for Iraqis to defeat US troops?
Never, because apart from nationality there is nothing lelse in support of the invasion. It is the view that US lives are inherently worth more then those of the nation they invade. Racism in a word. Racial prejudice; without it there’d be no war and its time its supporters acknowledge that this is who they are.
I am not sure if Bush got this law approved, but he even tried to institute a law that would allow the US Army to invade any country that would take a US soldier to court for war-crimes.
And that was years ago, making it pretty clear what his intentions are.