Why shouldn't the President of the US also be tried?

[cdnguy]

@MrFantsyPants

Sounds good to me. Perhaps we can throw in Ashcroft as well. Encase them in a large cube of lucite and send them hurtling into space. The cost would be astronomical, but I’d be willing to bet that other countries would help foot the bill.

I’d give 20 US$ to help.

[wisernow]

@The Garden Gate

Because there is no way that you can compare Bush to Saddam. Saddam was a dictator. His people were powerless against him. He used to order thosands of unlawful killings.
What ever Bushes reasons for going to war , whether it be purley for oil or because he saw Saddam as a threat, the war was the reason of saddam’s downfall.

You are digressing from the OP. My question was that if Saddam is being charged with the invasion of Kuwait, what makes GWB immune to the same logic for his invasion of Iraq.

@The Garden Gate

Yes lots of innocent people were killed in the process but the majority of his people now fill free.

That’s what you think because that’s what has been shown to you by your media that is partial to America’s cause.

@The Garden Gate

You must have seen that dancing doll of saddam that is being sold over there, and how his people tore his statues down cheering.

I have seen similar actions all over the world, including your own country with GWB at the receiving end. Thats does not prove anything.

@The Garden Gate

He could not have been beaten without our intervention.

What makes you believe that? Who gives you the right to go and “beat” anyone you think deserves to be “beaten”?

@The Garden Gate

Alot of people protested but Bush felt strongly enough to put his reputation and job on the line for what he believed in.

Right! With what “he believed in”, regardless of whether it was immoral, unethical and bad for the nation and its citizens that had elected him their president.

@The Garden Gate

The man is only human and does not deserve to be treated as a criminal

He is the worst criminal that the world has at the time. A criminal who has caused death and destruction of several thousand people, for absolutely no reason at all.

[Tristan]

sigh

Saddam was in violation of the UN edicts, and showed no sign at all of ever following the rules.

When a person commits a crime, and is arrested, they are punished. Saddam broke the law (invaded Kuwait) and was punished (bombed to heck) and then was put on Parole (UN edicts and guidelines that he was supposed to abide by).

When our parolee turns around and violates a law again, or violates his parole by hanging out with criminals, or aquiring a firearm, or what-have-you, they are punished again.

Sadly (or not, depending) the UN makes laws, but does not have the ability to enforce them. So it comes to their member states to do so. The US and the UK did this, despite an outcry from around the world. Whether it was right or wrong is pretty much a subjective thing. The FACTS are that the US did nothing illegal, and still hasn’t. It is also a FACT that a sizeable percentage of the US population disagrees with that idea, and vocalize it. These are the only people that the US government needs to listen to… while it’s nice to stay on good terms with, say, Latvia, we are in no way (nor should we be) bound to do whatever they feel we should do.

I don’t see demonstrations around Europe decrying the similar situations occuring in Chechnya, Lebanon, Southern Mexico, etc… funny that.

Sometime in the future, there may be reckoning for what has occured, but it will be based on the will and political clout of those that disagree with Bush here in the US. His punishement may be in just a few months, as he may loose his job over it.

<lurk>

[Tristan]

@wisernow

That’s what you think because that’s what has been shown to you by your media that is partial to America’s cause.

He is the worst criminal that the world has at the time. A criminal who has caused death and destruction of several thousand people, for absolutely no reason at all.

Also, it’s quotes like this that make it seem like you’re not interested in a DEBATE, but in an arguement. In a debate, one is trying to convince the other. Something tells me that no matter what is said, you are going to beat the “Bush is evil and bad” drum.

[Latro]

@Tristan

Also, it’s quotes like this that make it seem like you’re not interested in a DEBATE, but in an arguement. In a debate, one is trying to convince the other. Something tells me that no matter what is said, you are going to beat the “Bush is evil and bad” drum.

So can you deny that he has caused death and destruction for no reason, without beating the “Saddam was eevil and bad” drum?

[blowero]

@Tristan

sigh

Have I ever mentioned how annoying it is when people write “sigh” like that? Especially when they are the ones causing the frustration.

Saddam was in violation of the UN edicts, and showed no sign at all of ever following the rules.

The UN resolutions outlined very specific responses, which DID NOT INCLUDE a military invasion. IN FACT, Bush tried to get the UN to authorize his war, and was unsuccessful. I am sick and tired of this “Saddam violated a UN resolution 15 years ago, therefore the invasion was justified” garbage. That’s like saying a policeman can shoot you for spitting on the sidewalk.

When a person commits a crime, and is arrested, they are punished. Saddam broke the law (invaded Kuwait) and was punished (bombed to heck) and then was put on Parole (UN edicts and guidelines that he was supposed to abide by).

That’s just an utterly wrong characterization of what happened.

Sadly (or not, depending) the UN makes laws, but does not have the ability to enforce them. So it comes to their member states to do so.

We were NOT enforcing a UN mandate. There was no such mandate. In case you’ve forgotten, Bush declared the UN “irrelevant”. To say that he was enforcing a UN mandate demonstrates a total disregard of the facts.

The US and the UK did this, despite an outcry from around the world. Whether it was right or wrong is pretty much a subjective thing.

No it’s not. It’s VERY CLEARLY written in the UN Charter. Nice document - you ought to read it sometime. We are not allowed to invade other sovereign nations by the UN Charter, which we are signatory to. There is nothing subjective about it.

The FACTS are that the US did nothing illegal, and still hasn’t.

No, that’s a bald-faced lie.

It is also a FACT that a sizeable percentage of the US population disagrees with that idea, and vocalize it. These are the only people that the US government needs to listen to… while it’s nice to stay on good terms with, say, Latvia, we are in no way (nor should we be) bound to do whatever they feel we should do.

I’d be more worried about France, Italy, Germany, and Russia.

I don’t see demonstrations around Europe decrying the similar situations occuring in Chechnya, Lebanon, Southern Mexico, etc… funny that.

Gee, must be a worldwide conspiracy to defame the benevolent Bush, eh? :rolleyes:

[pravnik]

@wisernow

No, seriously! What have the Bush supporters have to say to this duplicity? GWB may not be a dictator, but he is the person ultimately responsible for calling the invasion. It is his government that did it. It is Bush who lobbied and it is Bush who rooted for the invasion. It was he who is eventually responsible for the decision because it was in his hands to go ahead with the invasion or call it off. He didn’t. Why shouldn’t he be prosecuted? Why is the American population quiet? Why can’t they see through his deceit and deception that is so abunadly clear? Does that imply that the general American person is stupid?

Who do you believe should prosecute him?

[wisernow]

@Tristan

Saddam was in violation of the UN edicts, and showed no sign at all of ever following the rules.

No he was not. Cite.

@Tristan

Saddam broke the law (invaded Kuwait)…snip

So did GWB by invading Iraq.

@Tristan

When a person commits a crime, and is arrested, they are punished.

Right! So now arrest GWB and punish him.

@Tristan

Sadly (or not, depending) the UN makes laws, but does not have the ability to enforce them. So it comes to their member states to do so.

Only when there exists a UN mandate and a resolution authorizing force.

@Tristan

The US and the UK did this, despite an outcry from around the world.

That is indeed what makes it an action that is deplorable.

@Tristan

The FACTS are that the US did nothing illegal, and still hasn’t.

If Iraq invading Kuwait was illegal then by the same logic so is the US invading Iraq without a UN mandate.

@Tristan

It is also a FACT that a sizeable percentage of the US population disagrees with that idea, and vocalize it. These are the only people that the US government needs to listen to… while it’s nice to stay on good terms with, say, Latvia, we are in no way (nor should we be) bound to do whatever they feel we should do.