By the same token, would Bill Clinton be a war criminal for sending our military in to take out Milosevic? Answer: no. Same goes for Bush.
100% incorrect, the Milosevic deal was sanctioned by the UN and with a world quorum, the Iraqi war was not. DD
Refman, You seriously have no idea what you are talking about and if you continue you'll just be embarrassed.
I don't know too much about El Salvador, but you do know that Guatemala and Nicaragua were both full fledged democracies until the US came in and overthrew in the case of Guatemala and supported and sponsored terorrists hoping to do the same in Nicaragua right? You do know that hundreds of thousands of people were killed too by US backed right wing authoritarian regimes as well right? You do know that death squads trained in the School of the Americas by the US killed innocent men, women, children, and babies. They even murdered priests and other members of the clergy. I just don't understand some of you. At what point do the negative consequences outweigh the supposed benefits of an illegal invasion and occupation or the deterrence of democracy in favor of a ruthless US-backed dictator? Is at 100,000 deaths, 200,000, or maybe 300,000? How about a million? As far as Bush and his cabal, they should all be sitting in an international court somewhere being tried for the war criminals that they are.
I don't think this refman understands that the religion of these evil commies was catholicism, one that aimed the poor. In fact they later came up with another evil concept....liberation theology. =/ just because we borrowed soviet arms to fight evil, does not mean we were commies of the stalinist kind.... Just Christian socialists =) Refman, if you had been a catholic in el salvador during the 80's, you would have been a target.
He okayed torture tactics. It's a pretty open and shut case. The guy is a war criminal. People were executed after WWII for authorizing some of the same things this guy did. One day, Bush and many of the people who committed these crimes will pay the price. It's sad to me that so many Americans hero-worship torture.
I was listening to an NPR piece regarding Cheney this afternoon and I'm going to modify my opinion somewhat and state that there are a few things that could be considered illegal. I think the biggest issue is the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo and the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. In these cases I think that the Admin. has played fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions.
I think there are very few outside of Israel, UAE and Kurdistan that have a positive view of GW Bush. Consider if there really is such a widespread popular view of Bush in the Mideast why are so many there celebrating a man who threw shoes at him as a hero?
Please point out one person here who said that Saddam was greater than Bush? I haven't seen one single post that said that. Saddam being a greater ass doesn't mean Bush isn't also an ass. I don't like the Lakers and I don't like the Jazz, that doesn't mean that by bad mouthing the Lakers I'm saying the Jazz > Lakers. I'm merely pointing out evil deeds wherever they are.
For those of you who don't know who Vincent Bugliosi is... Among other things... As a Los Angeles County Assistant District Attorney, he successfully prosecuted Charles Manson and several other members of his "family" for the 1969 murders of Sharon Tate and six others. He lost only one of the 106 felony cases he tried as a prosecutor, which included winning 21 out of 21 murder cases.[2] He later wrote, jointly with Curt Gentry, a book about the Manson trial called Helter Skelter. The book went on to become the biggest selling true crime book in publishing history with over 7 million copies sold. -------------- He also believed that George W. Bush should be charged with the murders of over 4,000 American soldiers as well as over 100,000 Iraqis who have died in Iraq since the American-led invasion of that country because of the strong evidence that Bush launched that invasion under false pretenses. In his recently-published book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, he laid out that evidence and outlined what questions he would ask Bush at a potential murder trial. Bugliosi gave testimony at a House Judiciary Committee meeting on July 25, 2008, to consider impeachment proceedings for Bush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Bugliosi It's a very interesting read.
Nice. Torture was used to extract false statements that were then used as propaganda to sell the Iraq War. Read the whole article... http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812
The original intervention into that conflict was bilateral with the US and UK, not the UN (and I mean action, not standing around). Same as in Iraq. It was AFTER that bilateral intervention that the UN changed it's tune. Remember, Russia was blocking UN action because of their historical ties to Serbia. You've got your facts 100% incorrect.
Not true in Nicaragua either. You seem to be looking at US actions in a vaccuum. The Soviets were backing left wing totalitarian movements that were just as ruthless and murderous as the right wing movements. The invasion wasn't illegal. Further, the evaluation of whether or not the intervention has worked out doesn't have much to do with whether or not Bush is a war criminal. Even if you discount Saddam's earlier genocide, even in the 90s he killed 300,000 shiites in one crackdown, and countless others every year. You seem to be forgetting about those. And where you're getting 'deterrence of democracy in favor of a ruthless US-backed dictator' in relation to Iraq is somewhat mystifying. I think you've got your story backwards. Nope.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mriBc6NjUhg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mriBc6NjUhg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I agree. Russia was going to make sure that any UNSC resolution authorizing force against Serbia was going to fail and the PRC was also unwilling to support one. The operation against Serbia was a NATO operation and was largely driven by the fear of NATO countries being swamped with Balkan refugees and also the embarrasment over the Bosnia. There were a few other UN resolutions that were passed against Serbia in the 90's but I don't think any of those authorized force.
A sidenote regarding the UN Resolutions. The situation with Serbia parallels the situation with Iraq under Saddam Hussein. While there were UN resolutions passed against both there weren't ones that authorized force. For those who argue that the US invasion of Iraq was legitimate since they were enforcing previous UN resolutions that isn't correct as the UN has to give specific authorization for the use of force as it did in 1991. So while both Serbia and Iraq hadn't complied fully with the UN there was no UN mandate for military action in either country.
