If this is not serious enough to think of war crimes, and indictment, I don't know what is.
The concept of legally trying war criminals started after WW II. I think that was more serious than Iraq.
Current war crimes trials are underway wrt Kosovo. That, too, was more serious than Iraq.
I didn't hear you calling for a war crimes indictiment against Saddam for his murder of tens of thousands of Sunni Muslims and of the Kurds. Can you point to the message where you called for this?
If your definition of war crimes is accepted, Bush has to get in line behind lots of others -- much (or most) of US history would qualify, the Minutemen and most of the founder were war criminals this, Lincoln was, certainly Sherman, the Spanish-American war, etc., in more modern time the invasions of Grenada and Panama, among others, Clinton's missile attacks on Afghanistan and the aspirin factory, all of Nato for the war in Kosovo, and on and on and on.
Personally, I reserve the charge of war crimes for clearer instances than this. But you're entitled to your view. But your view may also be tained by your admitted hatred for Bush, which may make you less than clear headed about evaluating the situation objectively. And, of course, if Bush is indicted, so must Blair be, plus the heads of state of Spain, Australia, and the other allied forces--I forget now just who all sent in troops, but they woud all be equally guilty as co-conspirators and accessories. And, perhaps, Queen Elizabeth II -- don't want to leave her out. |
