Nope. But he did order various bombings on Iraki soil which he justified by things like Iraki radars locking US planes flying over a part of Irak the US unilateraly decided they had the right to fly over. That would consitute a good motive for a trial*
Uh… you do remember the Gulf War (Part 1), you know the one where Iraq lost? Part of their surrender agreement with the UN was to allow US (and British) planes to fly over Iraq in no-fly zones and that they (Iraq) could not lock on with Anti-Aircraft radar or do anything else hostile. Which they haven’t honoured which is why planes attack the radar stations. Yeah that’s a great basis for a trial…
or instance , Syria could just claim that Israel is occupying its territory (the Golan heights) and launch a war. And if these countries don’t have the will/means to attack Israel, they won’t do so just because the Israelis kidnapped someone. They would issue a strong diplomatic protest and would point fingers to Israel, that’s all.
Syria has been waging a low scale war with Israel for years through their funding of Hezbollah. If you ever go to the Israel/Lebannon (although in reality Lebanon is run by Syria) border you won’t find the Lebanon’s flag flying, you’ll see Hezbollah’s. Their troops stand on the other side of the border busy launching Katushya rockets over every now and then.
Yeah, in the fantasy land where Iraq won the war. Sorry to sound so condescending, but you do realize that as part of Iraq’s peace resolution with the UN, they aren’t allowed to lock onto US planes, right? And that by doing so, they are breaking the resolution? And they have broken the resolution over a hundred times, so we’re giving them some leniency. And not all of it is just locking on. Every now and then they fire those missiles off, although Iraq officially allows coalition planes to patrol.
Actually, they don’t “lock on”, because every time they use thier radar, an anti-radar rocket homes in on it, ba-boom. So they missiles they fire off have about as much chance of scoring a hit as you do of knocking down a duck at 500 feet with a .22 pistol. Blindfolded.
Why do you think they fired over 700 times and haven’t scored a hit yet? Divine intervention?
…Which is irrelevant. The fact is they’re in violation. Therefore there’s no legal precedent to indicting someone for following the terms of an international peace resolution.
Whether the Iraqi’s could make a legitimate case, in our eyes, is neither here nor there. What I don’t get is since when have these methods become acceptable tools.
It seems to be ok as long as we’re dealing with our opponents.
What I meant, with the Bush kidnapping example, was to show that we wouldn’t be too happy if the shoe were on the other foot. What if our leaders were brought to trial in another country, what if our generals were assassinated.
Political assassination, kidnapping, regime change, inciting rebellion, bribery etc are all dirty tricks. I just don’t like how they somehow have become totaly acceptable tools for the west.
I think they’re wrong. Not only from a moral standpoint but also because it makes it more easy for our opponents to use those tools against us.
The other night on Jay Leno, Dennis Leary explained the prevalence of suicide bombings in Israel as the terrorists’ recognition of the fact that if they don’t blow themselves into at least 1,000 pieces, the Mossad will take the trouble to reassemble them just so they can kick their asses all over again.
That’s an easy question to answer. The majority of Americans (say, 80-90%) would favor making Baghdad a glass highway, with the public promise to do it again if the act is ever repeated by anyone else.
But they do “lock on”…at least until the “ba-boom” occurs on the ground. If there were no US/UK initiated “ba-boom” on the ground, there might be an Iraqi initiated “ba-boom” of US/UK property in the air since the “lock on” would remain.
If we can’t kill them, or arrest them, or make war on the people who protect them, what can we do? Can you suggest some alternatives? I’m willing to listen.
They haven’t successfully tried political assassination yet in the United States. Do you think that if we do nothing, they won’t try it ever?
Remember that the Iraqis’ did reportedly have a plan in the works to assassinate George Bush–the elder, that is. And not even while he was President; the Iraqi head of state was willing to put those plans in motion just for the sake of revenge, not pursuing any policy goals.