Should Bush and co be investigated?

Discussion in 'US' started by KevinB, Jan 18, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. yes

    0 vote(s)
  2. no

    0 vote(s)
  3. don't know

    0 vote(s)
  1. Obama has signaled that most likely George W. Bush and his administration won't be investigated for possible crimes they have committed, because it is necessary to 'look forward.'

    Is this the correct position to take - or should they be investigated? Paul Krugman details why he thinks they should be here:
  2. From general reading of this in my bid to get a war crime thing started against TCB and Co, I reckon that they have bigger fish to fry at the moment in sorting the economy and they realise that. By the time the banking etc. is back on track, interest in a trial will have evaporated.
  3. I suppose KevinB would be cheering on the investigation of his IRA / SF mates currently infesting Stormount for their crimes as well?

    So the arch hypocrite once again going to think that somehow his terrorism mates are not terrorists even though they championed and actively took part in terrorism?
  4. You should be investigated for your part in the murders of hundreds of innocent civilians. Hypocrite
  5. Exactly my feeling on the matter, much as I think Bush and his admin should be investigated. But in US, not only would such a thing take energy and attention away from the solving the economic crisis but would also exacerbate the deep divisions here.
  6. Not in comparison to the illegal war that Bush and his administration led us all into.

    Let him stand trial
  7. Are you happy that men have good men have died and are still dying s a result of blatant lies?

    Simple answer please, not arguing the law, just a simple answer
  8. Well, because you editted your post before I began to respond for starters.

    I don't need to demostrate here why our entry into Iraq, against the wishes of NATO and many of our own nations voting public do I?
  9. Dogbreat has had it demonstrated to him on another thread that the war was unlawful. He has attempted to argue its legality on the basis of UN resolution 1441 which offers UN members the right to defend themselves in certain circumstances or to take steps to enforce UN resolutions-it does not specifically authorise force (enforcement through sanctions etc)

    Dog, read the following article:
  10. And in a wider perspective; against the whishes of the U.N.
  11. I'll step away, I always fall for the 'trying to reason with Dogface' method but soon realise I'm on ahiding to nothing.

    There is no debating with the brainwashed and terminally stupid, and should have remembered why he carries an O2 tag
  12. I'm locked in battle with him elsewhere and keep getting the "what law" question. I have demonstrated to him how international law works and the obligations being a member of the UN brings but he can't acknowledge it.
  13. There should be an investigation. It's imo unfair and dangerous to morale to send our/their/your/the troops into a country/conflict on false pretences.
  14. You probably refer to this part of the resolution:

    My bold. I miss the "all necessary means" in this resolution.
  15. Thats right, its everybody elses fault.

    I'd be able to scratch an ounce of respect for him if he stood up and said 'Yep, i over egged it and its a clusterfcuk' but instead he opts to give Blair an award instead of taking his head off with a sithe.

    Utter throbbers the pair of them and I only hope they are called to account.