Shouldn't George Bush be tried by the international tribunal for war crimes?

India
February 10, 2007 9:10am CST
Seriously, here's a guy who might have cheated his way into the White House, started a war (probably two) on fradulent grounds, is responsible for the tragic states of Iraq and Afganistan, is probably guided by special (oil) interests and is now taking tough on Iran. What is it going to take to stop this guy?
2 responses
@dickkell (403)
• United States
10 Feb 07
W may not be the greatest president, but he is an American President, who rose to power in the American political system, and is answerable ONLY the the American people. The International Criminal Court has no jusrisdiction in the United States, it cannot and Should not. American politics and affairs will be decided by Americans, not some foreign political body.
1 person likes this
• India
10 Feb 07
What about waging war against other countries, should only Americans have a say in that?
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
10 Feb 07
As has been stated, Bush is only answerable to the American people. As far as any wars, our Congress holds just as much responsibility as just Bush as Congress is who has the power to declare war. As for oil, if the oil was the reason that we are there, have no doubt that we would already be in conrol of it. As to what is going to stop Bush, why that is easy, his term of office ends in a couple of years. That however, does not necessarily mean the end of our involvement in Iraq or anywhere else. You see, polititions can say one thing to get elected, and do just the opposite when they are in office. That is true no matter what political party they are associated with. Just exactly what war crimes are you referring to anyway? You surely have some in mind to start a post with the title you used. The US is accountable to it's citizens and only to it's citizens. To think any differently is to indulge in fantasy. If the UN had any courage it would have dealt with Saddam itself, instead of constantly renewing the sanctions against Iraq and leaving it to the US and our Allies to handle the situation for them. Instead the UN has become pretty much useless in world affairs, they sit around and discuss the issues, hold a vote and then consider the job done without taking any action. I wonder if you tune would change if some terrorists were to slip into you country and begin to party down. What would your attitude be then. Would you do nothing, or would you try to prevent it from happening again?
• India
11 Feb 07
Terrorists have been attacking in my country, we track them down, extradite them and bring them to trial, where possible. Say a lunatic American citizen bombed one of our buildings, would you suggest that we invade America? Or that our Prime Minister should only be answerable to us? Surely you can see that bombing innocent civilians only increases the chance that one of them might be tempted to return the favour.
• United States
11 Feb 07
America is not in the habit of bombing innocent civilials. If we were, the whole thing in Iraq would have ended long ago
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Feb 07
America is not in the habit of bombing innocent civilians. If we were the thing thing Iraq would have ended long ago. As far as your country invading America roflmao go ahead and give it a go.
1 person likes this