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....

[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 ?

[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...

[hugh]

Who is saying Saddam was not a monster?

You've taken my comment out of context.

[Michel]

Originally Posted by 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...

Different strokes for different folks.....If a muslim ayotollah or mollah makes a speach referring to Allah, it's wrong... If Bush refers to God as he often does, it's OK....Preemptive wars, yes that is a new recently introduced concept...You can't stop progress and innovation .....

Gee, Saddam couldn't even get his skuds aimed right when throwing them in a nearby country called Israel....How could he possible have been a threat to us much farther away....As I said previously, yes, Saddam, killed and tortured his own citizen but again, who supplied the tools to do that ??? That is why US knew about AMDs, they kept all the bills of their sales....and figured he had remaining stock I suppose.....but when Rumsfeld sold those to his former friend Saddam, he said that he thought that those chemicals and helicopters were for agriculture purposes.... I never knew that military helicopters could be used to spray tomato fields.....

[hugh]

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

Good lord man, India is a democracy that is led by duly elected representatives and is not engaging in genocide and mass murder.

[Michel]

No need, India is one of the best outsourcing country. Engineers (excellent ones) work for 10 times less than in the US to mention only that. They would be fools to invade them as they'd probably ask for salary parity. lololol
Have you called customer support services lately ??? Many answer with that sweet indian accent now directly from Bombay.... :-D

[os]

Originally Posted by hugh

Good lord man, India is a democracy that is led by duly elected representatives and is not engaging in genocide and mass murder.

I think the question here was about India and/or Pakistan attacking Iraq not US/UK attacking India/Pakistan. Or more generally, since when it's ok for any country to preemptively attack another one without a UN mandate?

[hugh]

Fair enough, had me worried there.

Or more generally, since when it's ok for any country to preemptively attack another one without a UN mandate?

And I think Blair argued very convincingly on that issue. You yourself said that no one argues that Saddam was NOT a monster (and no a monster is not defined by the numbers he kills)

[os]

Originally Posted by Michel

No need, India is one of the best outsourcing country. Engineers (excellent ones) work for 10 times less than in the US to mention only that.

Yeah, who needs to bring here slaves, when you can have them work for you almost for free right from their own country. Eat that abolitionists !

[brown]

Only the people of Iraq can say what Bush and Blair have done is better for them or not.