Is Bush a War Criminal?

Agree pretty much although I'd point out that saying NATO led is, at least in this case, really US/UK led. It was Blair and Clinton that used NATO as an alternate vehicle for action to circumvent the UN.

Also, while there is a debate over whether authorization was actually given by the UN earlier that would have allowed the intervention vis-a-vis earlier resolutions, the UN also recognized the legitimacy of interventions against dictators like Milosevic/Saddam as a result of the NATO led intervention in the Balkans. It certainly created a grey area which further, IMO, creates problems for those declaring the intervention in Iraq "illegal."

 

That is absolutely incorrect. The left wing movements in Central America did not even come close to killing the # of civilians as the right wing regimes and affiliated groups. This is total bs. And in the one case where they took power (Nicaragua), the Sandanistas relinquished power after they were defeated in an election. Even though they had suffered years of terrorist attacks by the U.S. sponsored Contras. What totalitarians!

 

True, and there was a ton of US money flooding in to defeat the Sandanistas in that election too.

The Sandanistas also allowed an opposition newspaper the freedom to print which is something the right wing dictatorship which preceded them never did.

 

Nope...You're just wrong here. I think gifford1967's post sums it up best.

I guess it depends on how one views the UNSC resolutions related to Iraq. I could be wrong, but I don't think there was an explicit authorization for the use of force to conduct regime change, which is why I believe the invasion and occupation of Iraq to be illegal.

The question about negative consequences outweighing supposed benefits was just a general statement to those that seem to support US intervention.

It's also important to note that Saddam did most of his killing while he was supported by the West in general and the US in particular. There's no need for me to post the pic of him shaking hands with Rumsfeld to further solidfy my point.

Again, just a general comment regarding the US overthrowing democratic regimes in favor of dictators that brutally oppress their own people. There are plenty of examples we can cite here. I hope we can all agree that the US should be condemned for it's history of oppossing democracy.

 

No, you seemingly have your cliche'd slanting of history. That's fine but it's not objectively correct. Groups like the FMLN & FARC practiced indiscriminate killing in the same manner as right wing death squads.

Sure, once Soviet support started crumbling the Sandinistas lost their grip on power. I'll give the devil his due and say I was suprised even then (unlike in other places like Cuba) but one can't ignore the end of the Cold War in these developments. Nor can one ignore outrages commited by the Sandinistas.

Similarly, your warped perspective ignores that the US supported transitions from military regimes to democractic regimes all through latin america once the Cold War started winding down (support for the National Accords in Chile for example).

It did authorize force, though I don't recall it specifically calling for regime change. Regardless, under precedent from the Bosnia interventions, the Iraq intervention still isn't illegal.

I think when one adds the benefits of the intervention there is still plenty to debate, unlike those who seemingly have a corner on the 'truth.'

Not really true. He was supported by most of the major powers across the globe - ever notice how Iraq's weaponry was ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY Soviet (with a little French mixed in)? Not sure how you explain that if his support was the 'West and the US in particular.' Most of the support he received from the US was intelligence, not material. As for 'most of his killing,' it is true that his use of CBWs happened mostly in the 80s against Iran and the Kurds, but that doesn't mean he wasn't killing in the 90s (again I'll point to the 300,000 shiites he killed post Gulf War I).

Iraq is not an example of this (which you acknowledge). It is actually the most recent example of US intervention in which the opposite happened and a dictator has been overthrown and replaced with a democratic regime. Isn't it crazy though how some people are oh so offended at dictatorships (sponsered by the US but hey if it's a Soviet dicatorship then the US is still the bad guy) and yet DON'T support the removal of Saddam?

There are a few examples of the US overthrowing democratic regimes in favor of dictatorships (Chile and Guatemala are the two I think are legitimate claims), but again ignoring the Cold War in these moves skews perspective. While I can understand condemnation is those two cases, it should also be praised for the many examples we can site where it supported democratic transitions (Taiwan, South Korea, ALL of Eastern Europe, Chile, Argentina, Serbia, Iraq).

 

on Right wing party members, police, Cia, and divisions of the military regime not CIVILIANS and PRIESTS!
Didn't clinton release the truth commission documents for access to all U.S americans? go over them.
And everything the party had in mind for Iraq, they got it from their experiments in latin america.

Folks this is real! =)

 

Are we talking misdemeanor or felony war crime?

 

Sure, the FMLN and FARC only kill bad people! They killed people suspected of supporting their opposition, just like the right wing death squads.


As an aside, the US also doesn't seem to get credit for banning aid to the Contras nor for supporting peace negotiations after the six jesuits were killed in El Salvador in '89. But those facts don't actually exist in some people's revisionist history.

What could this possibly mean? They removed a dictator in Iraq that indisputably killed hundreds of thousands (directly) if not millions (indirectly) of his own people. How is that in any way comparably to what happened in Latin America where in most cases there were two active sides acting as proxy in the greater Cold War?

 

I agree that once the spotlight was too bright on what was going on in Central America, the U.S. did help in cleaning it up. That doesn't change their support for the groups that were responsible for the death squads beforehand.

When the Sandinistas started their revolution there wasn't that much help from outside of the nation. They took aid from whoever would give it, and this was a chance for the U.S. to take their side, and impose some order which could have prevented some of their reckless killing. We should have been against Samoza from the beginning. Instead the reactionary path of irrational fear of communism caused us to make some sever screw ups.

 

I never said we shouldn't intervene in Africa (in fact, we have).

 

If I recall the specific language correctly it called for "Severe consequences" but never spelled what those were. Those could've meant tightened sanctions or that Kofi Annan would spit on a picture of Saddam. The precedent of the Bosnia and Kosovo interventions wasn't a precedent as in those cases also the UN didn't authorize force what happened in all three situations was that the UN didn't pass a resolution condemning the use of force either. In terms of the UN these interventions where neither legal or illegal.

 

That's still as skewed statement. Remember that the Carter administration was in power when Somoza was overthrown, and when the FMLN was in open conflict with Duarte, and when so-called death squads were active. Further, again I'll repeat that there was plenty of casualties on both sides of all these conflicts, and engaging in rhetoric that ignores the blood from groups like the FMLN and FARC is unrealistic.

Not true. The Sandinistas got a LOT of help from Castro, among others, in the beginning and the billions from the Soviet Union as their successes progressed.

I have a real problem with this kind of view. You criticize one side and not the other. In fact, Carter was very critical of Somoza. Congress banned aid to the Contras. Again, history is fluid. However, I strongly disagree with your assessment of an 'irrational fear of communism.' You're acting like the Cold War was a figment of someone's imaginiation. Like Castro and the Soviets weren't actively arming and training insurgents. Make no mistake about judging things in hindsight - the spectre of the Soviet Union was large back then, and Castro's regime was not a democracy.

Ironically, the only example you have of one of these regimes actually giving up power (Nicaragua), as opposed to the multiple latin american dictatorships that gave up power, was caused by another US intervention:

"[The United States] invaded Panama, which had a great influence on the elections in our country -- because this happened two months before the 1990 elections, and it broke up the support we had and the votes we had accumulated during the campaign. In December we had 47 percent support, with two months' campaigning still to do; [then] the invasion of Panama took place on December 23rd. And when we did a poll the following January, we had come down 10 points to 37 percent --- by which time we were one month away from the elections. ... "

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/18/interviews/ortega/

AND, ironically, without Teddy Roosevelt, Nicaragua wouldn't have been a country.

Yep, I believe that is the case.

Two different issues. One is whether or not the UN authorized force. Which it did but it did not specifically set out regime change (neither ruled it in or out). The Bosnia issue is relevant to the legality or illegality argument because post the Bosnia interventions, the UN recognized the legitimacy of intervention for regime change.

 

Scope is irrelevant. You queried about how I could support one without the other. I pointed out we have intervened in both. I would have supported intervention in Rwanda. Another classic case of multilaterialism not working where unilateral action would have been preferrable to no action (although I will strongly say that I prefer multilateral action).

You have no basis for this statement. Please point out how toppling a genocidal dictator is a 'war crime.'

I challenge you to make the case that the Saudi regime is worse for it's own population than Saddam was for his. I have serious doubts you can do it.

Always a tricky question, no doubt. I nominate myself. Generally, I defer to a standard of what works. If you can achieve regime change through other means then you should pursue that first. If not, force is an alternative. For example:

Cuba - probably best to engage.
China - best to engage.
Serbia - best to remove.
Saudi Arabia - best to engage.
Central Asia - best to engage.
Iran - best to engage.
Iraq - best to remove.

Remember that in Iraq we'd (as in the greater world community) already fought one war, implemented sanctions, basically partioned the country, sponsored internal uprisings, made overtures for an internal coup and assasination. None of that dislodged Saddam.

I would call uprisings from the Shiites and Kurds, who represent by far the largest portion of the populations in Iraq, as attempts to stand up for themselves - wouldn't you? Saddam was an artificial impediment to change. We removed that impediment.

 

I don't believe in the Resolutions regarding Iraq or Serbia did it specifically authorize force or regime change. In the Iraq resolution 1441 it stated "severe consequences" which again could mean anything. It was up to the UNSC to define what that meant.

I don't believe the UN recognized the legitimacy of intervention for regime change post Bosnia as overthrow of Milosevic was directly due to intervention but was caused by an internal revolution in Serbia.

 

We sponsored internal uprisings but never supported. After Gulf War I we pretty much let the Shiites and Kurds hang until the no fly zones were implemented and even then we didn't provide material support to the Shiites or Kurds.

 

I don't think it authorized force. If it was so clear cut as you claim then the US would have went to the UNSC to get another resolution authorizing the use of force, but they refused to so do because they knew they would have no basis to receive that type of mandate. Factors like these make it illegal in my view. Also, I'm not sure what ethnic cleansing in Bosnia has to do with supposed WMDs in Iraq.

This gets back to one of my original comments, which I never got an answer to: At what point do the negative consequences in terms of human life outweigh these so-called benefits when we talk about violating the sovereignty of a state (which by itself sets a bad precdent)? 100,000 dead, 200,000, 300,000, or is the magic number 1 million?

He did have global support from the West, East, and Middle East, but he would not have been able to do what he did, like using WMDs, without the political or economic support from the West in general and American support in particular. Again, I don't need to talk about US congressmen visiting high ranking members of Saddam's govt in the al-Rasheed hotel in Baghdad or pull out the picture of Hussein shaking hands with Rumsfeld to further illustrate this point.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea of people here supporting Soviet sponsored dictatorships. I don't think anybody has said anything like that. I would have supported the removal of Saddam Hussein if there was explicit UN authorization to do so. I'm glad that you are condemning the US for overthrowing democratic regimes in the developing world though.

Cold War politics are not a justification for the overthrow of democracy by the US or any other country.

Also, there are more than a couple examples of the United States violating the sovereignty of a state with a legitimate democratic government by overthrowing it and subsequently installing a dictatorship. Iran - 1953, Congo - 1960-61, and Ghana - 1966 are more examples of this phenomena. Moreover, the most recent example of US intervention is not Iraq, but the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Aristide in Haiti in 2004 by the US, France, and their local collaborators. There's a book written relatively recently on the subject that basically proves this beyond a doubt:

http://www.amazon.com/Damming-Flood-Aristide-Politics-Containment/dp/1844671062

 

Hayes you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. In El Salvador the right wing government and deathsquads committed the vast majority of violence against civilians.

From the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador-

Hmmm, 95% of complaints against government forces and right wing death squads, 5% against the FMLN. Only in Wingnuttia does that equal "Groups like the FMLN & FARC practiced indiscriminate killing in the same manner as right wing death squads."

 

that is because the fmln and farc killed anyone who might complain. duh.