Stratovarius Community

AxisofLogic/ World News
http://axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/vie ... &num=24112

There are also other sources which are discussing the serious possibility of such charges being pressed within the next couple years, if all things come together.

First of all, it's an article from a 1.5 years ago.

It's a typical left-wing european bullshit. They have also considered prosecuting half of the Israeli military, until the Belgian law was changed so that it became impossible.

They should try to prosecute people who actually did the killings in Iraq and other parts of the world. I can give them a few names, if they are dumb enough not to know the names of terrorist organizations' heads.

If it is lawful to do an investigation and if the crimes can be proven then I don't see a problem. If there are objective rules that have been broken, anyone who breaks those rules should be prosecuted. A serious investigation would be bipartisan because a crime is a crime. A serious organization should go after all people they have evidence for and not pick and choose.

icecab21 wrote:If it is lawful to do an investigation and if the crimes can be proven then I don't see a problem. If there are objective rules that have been broken, anyone who breaks those rules should be prosecuted. A serious investigation would be bipartisan because a crime is a crime. A serious organization should go after all people they have evidence for and not pick and choose.

But can they actually prove that Blair&Bush planned the killing of a million Iraqis? Are they responsible for the hatred between the Shia and Sunni Muslims?

If both Bush and Blair should be prosecuted for something, it should be for a clinical stupidity, but sadly stupidity is not a crime. All the problems in Iraq are result of one thing - there was absolutely no planning for the day after Saddam is gone. Bush probably thought that Iraqis will thank the Americans for overthrowing Saddam and live happily ever after in peace, harmony and western democracy. The reality didn't go according to that plan, probably because no one in Bush's administration, CIA etc. had any idea about the Iraq itself, its population, religion, history and so on.

we must do an OPVL research first!

I don’t know what they can prove. I’m just saying that if there are facts that point to anyone breaking international law an investigation is ok. The concern of an investigation would be that it is done with accuracy and reliability. hell, if all papers and methods of gathering data were correct, John McCain signed a paper saying he was a war criminal after all the torture he went through. This stuff causes concern of if people are going by reality or doing witch hunts.

We pretty much know there was ignorance in planning and that this war will go down in history by many historians as what not to do in military and political strategy. I do think it needs to be sorted out what happened because of the mismanagement and who is responsible for what and what actions were taken by USA citizens in the name of the USA.

I've seen a little documentary about him and it showed how tyrannic he was... I think Bush only thought about war and bring Saddam down (and finally to death), but what will be afterwards, he didn't care too much so there's a big mess in the country, still fighting troops of different religions against each and who will be able to stop it?

There should be someone who could unite the country rather than divide (that is what the war finally supported). Additionally, can a western culture be "transfered" to an arrabic country? I think this takes decades, if....

There should be someone who could unite the country rather than divide (that is what the war finally supported). Additionally, can a western culture be "transfered" to an arrabic country? I think this takes decades, if....

The way it looks now, Saddam was the only thing that held Iraq together ... And that does say much about the cultural differences ...

Shurik wrote:The way it looks now, Saddam was the only thing that held Iraq together ... And that does say much about the cultural differences ...

Civil wars and sectarian violence are common in all parts of the world.

First of all, USA are not signatary state of the Statute of the ICC, so if any of the ICC prosecutors wanted to prosecute George Bush, he/she could do that of course (personal jurisdiction is not limited there), but that would be completely useless, because if Bush didn't come to Hague voluntarily or didn't provide his testimony by other means...what do you want to prosecute?...your alleged criminal is out of your reach, you don't have means how to get him under control, you don't have means how to make him say a word even if it was "innocent" (he doesn't have to do anything, just not travel to signatary states), even if you prove (how?) his guilt, you can't get him to prison, because he's still out of your reach...the only thing you can do as a prosecutor is to request the USA to extradict him after you convict him. And do you think the USA will extradict their citizens (president or not)? They usually don't do it.
The situation with Blair is different, but still, the second thing comes...

Second and most important thing: war crimes are explicitly named in the Statute of the ICC - most of them must be commited INTENTIONALLY, so the prosecutor will need to prove intent e.g. to kill civilians, or intent to attack civilian objects. Regardless how difficult is to prove it, DO YOU THINK THE INTENT OF BUSH OR BLAIR WAS FOR EXAMPLE TO KILL THE CIVILIANS?

The only war crime which would be usable is:
"Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial" ...in relation to Guantanamo bay. But again, look at the beginning of my post!

It was not the intent of Bush nor Blair to kill civilians- (that's Uncle Vladi's and Slobo's job in places like, um, Georgia and Croatia;) but if it were, we'd have seen bombings on the scale of WWII- with 1,000 or more planes at a time dropping ordnance day and night for three or four years- and reducing the entire country (Iraq) to rubble.

AND- as IF the left (EuroPEONS or Nancy Pelosi milquetoast types here in the US) EVER gave a plug nickel about Iraqi civilians, or for that matter, US troops dying. While we're on the subject, Bill Clinton bombs CHRISTIANS in Serbia, and also fired plenty of Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iraq, and not a word was said from the left- not one, and it is certain that civilians were killed during the NATO bombing campaigns.

And let's not forget Europe's blood-soaked legacy of the unholy triumvirate of Socialism, Fascism, AND Communism (the latter of which was and is still so trendy, that is was actually Europe's most infamous export to places such as Southeast Asia as well as Central and South America), - all of which killed tens of millions, and the fascists were the only ones ever tried for anything.

No- the left certainly has no monopoly on moralism- relative or actual. In fact, they are all full of shit. If they want to redistribute the wealth, let's start with Pelosi's and Obama's millions first. But wait, the wealth that they want to distribute isn't theirs- God forbid that we should do that- let's take it away from other people who have worked for it and then give it to crackheads that haven't. I say pack 'em all up and send them to Iraq. Set up your courtroom, but don't hold your breath waiting on everyone else to show up. Don't you know that there's a war that's still on?

Anyone that wants to call Obama a socialist should look at how socialists criticize Obama for being a “capitalist pig”. Any political map puts Obama to the far right of many of these European liberals. Obama ran on decentralization and cost efficiency so he better work to open up possibilities and not be steered towards textbook failure. Consumers have not shown an interest in moral consumption and producers have in turn been encouraged to have behavior that destroys more than it creates. People are buying energy from hostile governments just because it’s cheaper in one way but this is so costly in others. I think it’s in the best interest of America for incentive to be created to have people buy their energy from the USA and we need to fix some outdated regulations to help this security mess.

Here is one transfer of wealth. Employees lose their retirement and promised pensions while executives get millions of dollars on top of their millions. Employers get fired; the CEO gets a bonus because the stock market rewards this whether or not the move actually made the company more profitable in its actual services. Another example of transfer of wealth is when lobbyist writes the bills in self interest or when bush hands over the war duties to the private sector with a blank check and noncompetitive contracts. All the fiscal conservative free market people that I have heard have spoken poorly of the government practices of the both democrats and republicans.

Yes, and that is why it is a good platform to reduce the role of government rather than expanding its outrageous spending sprees even more. We aren't going to get smaller government with obama...

Here is one transfer of wealth. Employees lose their retirement and promised pensions while executives get millions of dollars on top of their millions.

You forget that those executives are the ones who hired the employees in the first place. Not only are they earning millions for themselves (about half of which is taxed and redistributed to the poor), but the are also providing some job opportunities for others.

Speaking of war criminals, it will be very entertaining to see what comes from Obama's trip to the Kremlin-

The sharks smell a pussy in the water....

I’m not so sure it’s its big government vs. small government as much as it's effected government vs. ineffective government. I think we can use relationships with private and public partnerships to solve problems and give widespread opportunities. I support handups and not handouts and I think there are areas where communities must take long term investments rather than being at the short term whim of a stock market or the prejudice of private business doing things that are not very capitalistic. I think one key is that decentralization and options be given. Obama ran on going through programs and making them cost effective and competitive and filling in holes the private market will not fill. To me the government’s job is to warn against stuff like subprime loans instead of to support it. We can still have a government that is a watchdog for us without it being something without a budget. The government is the people and it’s a community’s job to stay active and keep everything in check.

I’m not sure how many of these ceos that brought down their companies were the ones that made the decisions that brought it up. The example was for the Enron’s of the world. less than 40 percent of anyones pay goes to the federal government and less than 10 percent of the governments budget is towards any redistribution. unless insurrance counts as redistribution and in that case there are many private companys that redistribute wealth.

No they won't.

miditek wrote:Speaking of war criminals, it will be very entertaining to see what comes from Obama's trip to the Kremlin-

The sharks smell a pussy in the water....

I feel kinda sorry for Obama--all the worlds leaders are making all kinds of demands(requests ) of him. I'll get the link to an article about that.

>World leaders spell out demands to Obama
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/200 ... 6top6.html

Isn't there a saying, "Too much love is almost as bad as not enough?"

In the next 4 years Alaska will be taken by Russia and the USA will be taken by socialists and then that will be taken over by 1984 and then that will be taken over by fundamentalist Muslims and then that will be taken over by satin and then aliens will come and take everything. There can be a nice book about Obama and the hot potato USA.

browneyedgirl wrote:

miditek wrote:Speaking of war criminals, it will be very entertaining to see what comes from Obama's trip to the Kremlin-

The sharks smell a pussy in the water....

I feel kinda sorry for Obama--all the worlds leaders are making all kinds of demands(requests ) of him. I'll get the link to an article about that.

>World leaders spell out demands to Obama
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/200 ... 6top6.html

Isn't there a saying, "Too much love is almost as bad as not enough?"

The sad thing about all this love is that the biggest cheers come from America's biggest enemies. Everyone of them kinda thinks that Obama will reverse the usual American policy. Hopefully it won't happen.