Bush/Blair should be prosecuted for the invasion of Iraq

[os]

Nobel literature laureate Harold Pinter has slammed U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a harsh award lecture, saying they should be prosecuted for the invasion of Iraq.

"The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law," said Pinter

"How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand?" he asked

"We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East,"' Pinter said.

He said both Bush and Blair deserve to be arraigned by the Hague, Netherlands-based International Criminal Court.

[Source: CNN]

[Nanuuk]

Just because this guy has a nobel prize in literature doesn't mean he knows squat about the world's geopolitics. I think Bush and Blair should be given the Nobel Peace Prize for taking Saddam out.

[Michel]

Originally Posted by Nanuuk

Just because this guy has a nobel prize in literature doesn't mean he knows squat about the world's geopolitics. I think Bush and Blair should be given the Nobel Peace Prize for taking Saddam out.

Yes they took Saddam out (still alive) and along with him over 20,000 innocent irakians if not more (already dead)....Not that I supported or approved Saddam in any way shape or form but who are we, the west, to decide who should be taken out of a sovereign country...If Saddam was a real threat to world peace, if he was indeed a menace to our security as they said with his alleged arms of mass destruction, then, yes, we have a right to protect ourselves, but that turned out to be a blaunt lie, an excuse for invading. Now, they say that the reason was to remove Saddam from power because he was oppressing his own people. We do not hear about arms of mass destruction no more, strange.....The reason changed to suit their goals... When talking of those Saddam atrocities, one has to remember as the next post so righfully somewhat mentioned, it was the US that helped putting Saddam in power in the first place, that sold him a lot of the chemicals for accomplishing those atrocities through their salesman at the time, namely Donald Rumsfeld....They wanted a friend next to Iran not too friendly with the US at the time (and even less now).This claim that the US do all the time that they want to help to establish democracies all over the world is pure BS. They are for democracies, yes, provided that that democracy is pro Us and serves their interest...but they are also for dictatorships, for the very same reasons...as long as they are pro-US and serves their interest. They just forgot to mention that. It is a known fact that US wanted to have bases in the middle east, something all arab countries kept refusing, especially their friendly Saudi Arabia (we all know that they are very democratic there). Now, by convincing surrounding countries that Saddam was a treat to them, they had success getting permanent bases in the area to keep an eye on their interest....Bravo, mission accomplished....at the cost of thousands of innocent lives, including more than 2000 US soldiers...Personally, I think that Ben Laden (another name Bush never ever mentions no more even if at first he said he would chase and haunt him down his cave to bring him to justice), I think Ben Laden should send Bush a substantial gift for helping him recruiting new members for Al Quada. After all, the Bush family know and dealt with the rest of the family....

[hugh]

Wow, didn't we do this a year or two ago?

Personally I believe that Sadamm was a monster and I have zero tolerance for anyone who says otherwise.

What I still find incredible in this debate is the ignorance of people like Harold Pinter who lump Blair and Bush together.

Bush went to war to exact revenge against the man who tried to kill his father, Blair went to war to destroy a monster.

Blair made some incredibly passionate and compelling speaches on why the world needs to deal with monsters. His argument had nothing to WMD or geopolitical balance rather it had to do with humanity.

Blair was also the one who stood up and demanded that the UN move to stop attrocities in the Balkans and Africa while the rest of the world including Bill Clinton looked the other way.

Blair was saying that turning our back on monsters who place people into tree shredders for entertainment, pour nerve gas on their own people and exterminate vast swathes of the population because of their religion is not something the world should allow in the name of international law.

Blair's cause was noble, Bush's cause was deceitful.

[Michel]

I couldn't agree with you more on that. As I clearly said, I do not approve of Saddam's actions (how anyone could) and I hope he pays for it. Too bad he is being judged by a Iraq court. To make it truly "legit", it should have been done by the international court in LaHaye , same as Milosevic or others but frankly, who ever judges him and condem that *&&?%?*.....I couldn't care less as long as he gets what he deserves....Anyway, I was talking about the US and Bush's position specifically....with their hidden agenda. That was dishonest and the whole thing, including what was presented at the UN was based on deception. The debate was on AMD and it should have been on the tyranny of Saddam. maybe the outcome of support for that war would have been quite different....

[HammerJoe]

I wonder if the tone of discussion would be the same if say Pakistan/India attacked iraq instead??

Why is it okay for US/Uk to decide to attack a soverign country based on whatever info.
Since when is it okay to preemptly attack a country on the basis that they *might* attack you??
If Iraq or any other nation had attacked US/UK we would be crying terrorism/war criminals etc etc...

It's too bad we are sightsided...

[os]

Originally Posted by hugh

Personally I believe that Sadamm was a monster and I have zero tolerance for anyone who says otherwise.

Who is saying Saddam was not a monster?
And what exactly is the definition of a monster? Would causing the death of 20000 people qualify someone ?

[MarcP]

Originally Posted by hugh

Bush went to war to exact revenge against the man who tried to kill his father, Blair went to war to destroy a monster.

Will Blair make a case to invade North-Korea then?

[Sirius Guy]

Interesting new poll out of Iraq today.
International media sponsored poll of 1700 Iraqi's (CBC was a sponsor)
Caught the results on CBCNW this morning.

22% say their life today is very good

49% say it is quite good

18% say it is quite bad

11% say it is very bad

most surprising

10% say they want US forces out of Iraq now.

[welwyngc]

Originally Posted by Nanuuk

Just because this guy has a nobel prize in literature doesn't mean he knows squat about the world's geopolitics. I think Bush and Blair should be given the Nobel Peace Prize for taking Saddam out.

well said

[JesseJ]

geopolitics. I think Bush and Blair...

George W. Bush didn't have a passport until he became president.
You'd think someone with aspirations of controlling the most powerful country in the world would have stepped outside the US.
It's not like he couldn't afford it...

[JesseJ]

Here's the lie to the American people.
From the 2003 State of the Union.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...30128-19.html#

Impeachment.

Today:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide testified that President Bush authorized the release of parts of a classified report on Iraq to rebut criticism of the case for the 2003 invasion, federal prosecutors disclosed in documents released Thursday.

The information did not name CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose 2003 exposure triggered an investigation that led to the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Libby is charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to FBI agents investigating Plame's exposure. Her outing came just days after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had publicly questioned Bush's assertion that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa for a nuclear weapons program, prosecutors in Libby's case told a federal judge. (Watch what the court document says Libby said about Bush -- 3:05)
Wilson's account of a 2002 trip to Niger to investigate the Iraqi uranium allegations "was viewed in the Office of Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president (and the president) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq," special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote. (Read the court papers -- PDF)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/...cnn_topstories

We watched an excellent documentary today, The World According to Bush. Great documentary. Show's Bush's incompetency, and the goons/yes men/brain trust he's surrounded himself with.

[Tom_Joad]

I'm reading "All the President's Spin" by the founders of Spinsanity.com -- insightful book about how the recruitment of brilliant PR and advertising people by the Bush puppetteers has lulled the media (and the populace) to sleep with insinuations, subtleties, and implied meanings. They are basically selling their foreign and domestic policies like soda and beer with carefully staged media events (remember "Mission Accomplished"?) and carefully-worded appeals to basic human emotions.

He and his ilk should definitely be impeached, and likely charged with treason. It's absolutely insane what they are getting away with down there.