Should Putin be Considered a War Criminal?

[code1211]

Not in retrospect

It was an illegal invasion from the get go. Bush used American anger and idiocy over 9/11 to get them on board with invading Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush lied and used purposely manipulated data to justify it. Americans for years after defended it.

Millions across the world protested and it went nowhere, Bush and Blair are free men and Putin will be as well.

Note I supported the US invasion of Afghanistan as it was used as a base for the group that attacked the US. I was opposed to the Iraq invasion from the start of the talk about it

The Anti-Bush propagandists promoted the idea that Bush was wrong in this.

HOWEVER, the real culprits are the clown show idiots in our intelligence community that are clowns, morons, idiots, ideologues and would be tyrants.

This is true in all of them. All of the alphabet agencies that solemnly pronounce their deep concern about anything are lying and wrong at every turn.

The evidence is produced every day. Parents are domestic terrorists if they question a school board member. Roger Stone's front door is kicked down with a CNN camera crew on site to film it.

Putin is invading Ukraine today. This did not happen due to an overnight capricious turn of thought on Thursday last week. OUR SPIES SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT, SHOULD HAVE PREVENTED IT AND THEY DID NOT.

Our spies are obviously a Secret Police organization that works for no other reason than to promote an agenda that has nothing to do with anything good.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The Anti-Bush propagandists promoted the idea that Bush was wrong in this.

HOWEVER, the real culprits are the clown show idiots in our intelligence community that are clowns, morons, idiots, ideologues and would be tyrants.

This is true in all of them. All of the alphabet agencies that solemnly pronounce their deep concern about anything are lying and wrong at every turn.

The evidence is produced every day. Parents are domestic terrorists if they question a school board member. Roger Stone's front door is kicked down with a CNN camera crew on site to film it.

Putin is invading Ukraine today. This did not happen due to an overnight capricious turn of thought on Thursday last week. OUR SPIES SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT, SHOULD HAVE PREVENTED IT AND THEY DID NOT.

Our spies are obviously a Secret Police organization that works for no other reason than to promote an agenda that has nothing to do with anything good.

Bolton manipulated the intelligence to promote the war. Bush and Blair were coming up with ideas to justify the war, including flying a spy plane over Iraq in UN colours hoping Iraq would shoot it down.

The intelligence community was co-opted to meet the political demands to justify the war

 

[oneworld2]

I like your general line of thought on this, but the highlighted portion seems to define a distinction that I don't think exists.

Okay, I will put some flesh on the bones of that for you.

Let's first acknowledge that the similarities between Russias illegal attack on Ukraine and the US /Wests illegal attack on Iraq are significant insomuch that they are both illegal and have at the heart of them a aim of regime change within the targeted country. I think that's a fair enough assessment and would only add that to invade a nation to illicit regime change is a stone wall illegality under international law.

So the Wests case to seek justification for their crime against Iraq? That the leadership was a threat to the world, themselves and its neighbours. Recall the numerous attempts to actually create those alleged threats. The lies about WMDs, the lies about Iraqi cooperation with Al Qeada, the lies about him attempting to get nuclear material from Niger in the now forgotten forged documentations hogwash, the lies about Iraqi anthrax in circulation within the US postal service the threat of a dirty bomb in US cities etc

The above shows the desperation to create a threat, any threat, to provide the pretext for what would always have been an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign state and all of the crimes that stemmed from it. The truth was that after Gulf War 1 Iraq posed little or no threat to anyone, having been so battered and bombed during that conflict and the years that followed with fly zones etc etc as to be virtually defenceless.

In other words the threat had to be ramped up or invented to such ridiculous levels and the actual reality hidden before it could even take place.

Posit that against Putins position.

Russias early attempts to sound out NATO membership for themselves were, for all intents and purposes , laughed at and dismissed.

During his reign and just prior to it 14 former Warsaw Pact countries have full NATO membership and hold regular military exercises with the organisation ( as do Ukraine and Georgia )

He has 4 NATO member states with shared borders with his own country and two waiting in the wings having been promised full membership in the future. NATO being a vast and extremely powerful organisation that was set up with Russia in the cross hairs.

He decided to draw a line in the sand with Georgia and Ukraine having witnessed a pro Russian government in Ukraine be replaced by a pro West, wannabe in the EU and NATO government.

So we have to ask are the threats he cites more realistic than those cited by the West before the illegal attack on Iraq ? I think an honest answer to that would be a definite yes but you don't have to subscribe to it yourself, I am just stating why I made the call.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I know that in the past, while war is war and war is Hell, it is apparently generally considered to be only a very violent form of diplomacy. Simply starting a war is not usually considered to be a war crime.

However, in this case, Putin has started, and is waging, a war against a country that has not done anything to provoke warfare. As such, the war itself seems to be criminal in the same way that trespass or murder would be in civilian terms.

Isn't it time that we considered Putin and others who capriciously and unilaterally initiate war to be War Criminals? There are real life people dying as the direct result of Putin's aggressor actions. These deaths are obviously Putins fault and Putin's fault alone.

In civil society, crime bosses who send thugs to kill, destroy and create mayhem are considered to be civil criminals. In the international community, it seems appropriate to extend the same condemnation.

This Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to be war and also seems to be criminal as it violates international law. Why should Putin, the prime mover in this, NOT be cited as a war criminal?

So, he has invaded a sovereign nation. Yeah, I think that's criminal. How have we reacted to others in the past 70 years? Will we declare Xi a war criminal if they take Taiwan?
What does that actually mean we will do?

 

[Integrityrespec]

Okay, I will put some flesh on the bones of that for you.

Let's first acknowledge that the similarities between Russias illegal attack on Ukraine and the US /Wests illegal attack on Iraq are significant insomuch that they are both illegal and have at the heart of them a aim of regime change within the targeted country. I think that's a fair enough assessment and would only add that to invade a nation to illicit regime change is a stone wall illegality under international law.

So the Wests case to seek justification for their crime against Iraq? That the leadership was a threat to the world, themselves and its neighbours. Recall the numerous attempts to actually create those alleged threats. The lies about WMDs, the lies about Iraqi cooperation with Al Qeada, the lies about him attempting to get nuclear material from Niger in the now forgotten forged documentations hogwash, the lies about Iraqi anthrax in circulation within the US postal service the threat of a dirty bomb in US cities etc

The above shows the desperation to create a threat, any threat, to provide the pretext for what would always have been an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign state and all of the crimes that stemmed from it. The truth was that after Gulf War 1 Iraq posed little or no threat to anyone, having been so battered and bombed during that conflict and the years that followed with fly zones etc etc as to be virtually defenceless.

In other words the threat had to be ramped up or invented to such ridiculous levels and the actual reality hidden before it could even take place.

Posit that against Putins position.

Russias early attempts to sound out NATO membership for themselves were, for all intents and purposes , laughed at and dismissed.

During his reign and just prior to it 14 former Warsaw Pact countries have full NATO membership and hold regular military exercises with the organisation ( as do Ukraine and Georgia )

He has 4 NATO member states with shared borders with his own country and two waiting in the wings having been promised full membership in the future. NATO being a vast and extremely powerful organisation that was set up with Russia in the cross hairs.

He decided to draw a line in the sand with Georgia and Ukraine having witnessed a pro Russian government in Ukraine be replaced by a pro West, wannabe in the EU and NATO government.

So we have to ask are the threats he cites more realistic than those cited by the West before the illegal attack on Iraq ? I think an honest answer to that would be a definite yes but you don't have to subscribe to it yourself, I am just stating why I made the call.

Bottom line, Putin ordered an invasion of a sovereign nation and is killing not just soldiers but civilians and causing billions in destruction.

 

[oneworld2]

So, he has invaded a sovereign nation. Yeah, I think that's criminal. How have we reacted to others in the past 70 years? Will we declare Xi a war criminal if they take Taiwan?
What does that actually mean we will do?

The Hague has almost entirely been used to indict brown people.

A start for a better world is for the people to actual stop being hypocritical about the indictment of war criminals full stop imo

Recall Chomskys assertion that if the laws applied to the Nazis at Nuremberg had been applied to every US president afterwards they would all have been hung

 

[code1211]

There were standards to fighting wars in many cultures throughout the ages. Many times they were ignored. In medieval Europe the leaders would be captured and ransomed back.

The Mongols would spare cities that surrendered, and those that fought back were often destroyed entirely. The Timurids pretty much the same.

I recall a story in which Julius Caesar won a battle and showed generous mercy in allowing the survivors to live, but cut off their sword hands. The blood in the streets was reported to be running ankle deep.

I mean, WOW! Can you imagine the condemnation if such a thing were done today? Then? Merciful. Today? War crime!

With the improved communication today, we are observing in real time our first Tik Tok war.

The sensibilities of the general public are jarred today in ways similar to the after math photos from the battlefield at Gettysburg.

Even today, seeing dismembered civil war battlefield bodies with a severed arm and hand lying several feet away from the rest of the corpse is jarring.

The same drama from the birth or out nation to the fledgling survival of Ukraine is once again being played out.

Today, the Russian Imperialists are the British Imperialists, the Ukrainians are the desperate colonialists and the modern US is the French. Do we blockade Yorktown or watch as the flame of Liberty is extinguished?

History will judge us. Will our actions line up with our words, promises, commitments and convictions or will we turn our backs on justice?

 

[oneworld2]

Bottom line, Putin ordered an invasion of a sovereign nation and is killing not just soldiers but civilians and causing billions in destruction.

No, the bottom line is you only appear to want to see the leaders of enemy states convicted for their crimes and not your own. That actually undermines the laws themselves and makes major league hypocrites out of those baying for Putins indictment. You either support universal application or selective application of the law. The latter is BS imo

 

[oneworld2]

I recall a story in which Julius Caesar won a battle and showed generous mercy in allowing the survivors to live, but cut off their sword hands. The blood in the streets was reported to be running ankle deep.

I mean, WOW! Can you imagine the condemnation if such a thing were done today? Then? Merciful. Today? War crime!

With the improved communication today, we are observing in real time our first Tik Tok war.

The sensibilities of the general public are jarred today in ways similar to the after math photos from the battlefield at Gettysburg.

Even today, seeing dismembered civil war battlefield bodies with a severed arm and hand lying several feet away from the rest of the corpse is jarring.

The same drama from the birth or out nation to the fledgling survival of Ukraine is once again being played out.

Today, the Russian Imperialists are the British Imperialists, the Ukrainians are the desperate colonialists and the modern US is the French. Do we blockade Yorktown or watch as the flame of Liberty is extinguished?

History will judge us. Will our actions line up with our words, promises, commitments and convictions or will we turn our backs on justice?

People should be exposed to the horror of wars ( " jarred") and yes that includes the showing of dismembered bodies then they might not so readily shout for them, like RV has been shouting for it for years but now has no problems dancing on the bodies of those people for propaganda purposes.

Unfortunately history doesn;t really judge us , it just gets rewrapped and justified or forgotten. Recall those inspired by Bush to rise up against SH only to find out that he was allowed the very weapons needed to snuff them out if they responded to the call. They were dug up years later and used again for an illegal attack on their country. Who remembers them today?

 

[Chagos]

The bottom line here is that OW2 will practically derail any thread with returning to the crimes of US officials, irrespective of the fact that the Iraq war has been covered here at length at the time.

With excuses (also at the time) far failing to outweigh the condemnations rendered upon shrub and his minions and their disgusting lies.

But when the thread topic (question) is whether Putn is a criminal or not, instead of starting a thread on the prevarications that led to the invasion of Iraq, he has to revert to his perpetual behaviour of contaminating the actual topic with the usual and obsessive whataboutisms.

There is no doubt that past US administrations have a lot of sweeping to do on their own doorstep but it has nothing to do with the topic here.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The bottom line here is that OW2 will practically derail any thread with returning to the crimes of US officials, irrespective of the fact that the Iraq war has been covered here at length at the time.

With excuses (also at the time) far failing to outweigh the condemnations rendered upon shrub and his minions and their disgusting lies.

But when the thread topic (question) is whether Putn is a criminal or not, instead of starting a thread on the prevarications that led to the invasion of Iraq, he has to revert to his perpetual behaviour of contaminating the actual topic with the usual and obsessive whataboutisms.

There is no doubt that past US administrations have a lot of sweeping to do on their own doorstep but it has nothing to do with the topic here.

What matters is what is a war crime and that it is a definition used universally against all who commit them rather than a selective use. When it is selectively applied it loses all meaning

 

[Chagos]

What matters is what is a war crime and that it is a definition used universally against all who commit them rather than a selective use. When it is selectively applied it loses all meaning

Agreed.

And here it is about whether the Russian leader is committing it or not.

The tiring concept of "well, look at dem others" cannot serve to excuse either, let alone to apply the principle of "two wrongs=...................

And I'm not at all implying that that's what you're attempting.

 

[oneworld2]

What matters is what is a war crime and that it is a definition used universally against all who commit them rather than a selective use. When it is selectively applied it loses all meaning

Correct. The thread is as much about whether war criminals should face indictment for their crimes as it is about whether Putin , alone, should face charges for his actions. The whataboutisn is a legitimate part of this discussion as it shows, imo, whether those who support the selective application of the laws. IE yes but only for official enemies of the state ( their state) as opposed to those who advocate a universal application, their own included.

Why the distinction ?

Because, imo, those who are for a selective applications only aren't really for supporting the laws themselves AT ALL , laws that were/are designed to try to prevent war crimes and wars and it doesn't get more serious than that imho

They are, in actuality, just USING them in a way that actually undermines their legitimacy and that is a disgusting position to have and one that should be shown to be so.

Putin himself has cited the illegal western sponsored attack on Iraq as a way to justify his own crimes. He sees that the powerful don't face charges for their crimes and I think that emboldens many others to adopt the same attitude

 

[oneworld2]

Agreed.

Then your entrance and ignorance of the history in this thread are even more bewildering.

And here it is about whether the Russian leader is committing it or not.

Not entirely but you don't know that because you haven't followed the thread and thus are ignorant of its history

The tiring concept of "well, look at dem others" cannot serve to excuse either, let alone to apply the principle of "two wrongs=...................

And I'm not at all implying that that's what you're attempting.

Supporting a selective application of a law or laws, as has been , or appears to be, somewhat problematic for many people here, is the most damaging thing that can happen to those laws as they lose any legitimacy. If you don't understand the gravity of that argument or why it is relevant to the debate on Putins actions you might want to think about reevaluating everything you have said so far. My guess is you won't because your entrance here is for different reasons that are not even related to it.

 

[oneworld2]

The bottom line here is that OW2 will practically derail any thread with returning to the crimes of US officials, irrespective of the fact that the Iraq war has been covered here at length at the time.

Now for that lesson in the history of this thread that you badly need to understand, a history that exposes just how inaccurate your accusation is.

I never mentioned Bush or Blair UNTIL someone else had mentioned Slobodan Milosevic in a post that has 8 " likes" against it. That's 8 people who have no issue with the thread including the names of other enemies of the state that also have no relation worthy of the name to the title of this thread. One of them would go on to try to remind me what the title of this thread was in an inference that we should all stick to it. The irony isn't lost on me nor the hypocrisy on display.

The fact is that whataboutisms, if related to the OP content, are not derailment but legitimate lines of enquiry about the core theme of the thread which in this case is whether war criminals should face trial for their crimes.

The first whataboutism was made by Felis leo in the post below and, as I say, was thanked by many who included a person who would later see themselves as some sort of self appointed anti derailment officer. You don't know any of this because you have decided to jump in only to make a baseless accusation based on nothing more than an ongoing personal grudge. ( it's the second time now in quickish succession that you have employed the same tactic and that's why your real agenda is obvious )

Yes. Right up there with Slobodan Milosevic.

followed by another poster endorsing the inclusion of Milosevic

Just like that guy! Great example.

The above post was also liked by our wouldbe derailment prevention officer

So you are once more behind the times as to what tangents have been made and who made them, along also with who appreciated them by using the like facility

 

[JMR]

Nobody has accused you of making any statement of that sort. You won't be able to provide any evidence that they did either because it is just yet another example of the lengths you will go to so as not to give a direct response

You have consistantly avoided calling them criminals for their criminal attack and occupation of Iraq. That's what I have stated.

So, a direct question for you and we won't have to keep on dancing

Are Bush and Blair war criminals off the back of their regime change war in Iraq?

They invaded a sovereign state with the view to install a different government ,which is what Putin is doing and is the reason why he is also a war criminal



You don't have to attack to be a threat,

The ongoing bs surrounding NATOs bid, or rather the US bid, to have Ukraine ( and Georgia) as a member states of NATO is a threat to Russian national security.

How was SH a threat to the national security of the USA? He was not attacking you and it is laughable to think he even had the capacity to do so

The proximity of Ukraine and Georgia to Russia and the threat of them being NATO member states IS waaay more credible than the SH threat to the USA bs

You seem to require a lot of attention. Yes, the Bush administration is guilty of numerous war crimes, in the invasion of Iraq for false reasons, and also for mistreatment of prisoner. I believe all of the tribunals in which they could have been charged decided not to bring action.
That does not change the fact that Saddam Hussein was killing thousands of his own people, and gassing the Kurds, and was himself a war criminal.

The invasion of Ukraine is an act of totally uncalled for aggression against a peaceful neighbor. Your insistence on defending Putin is noted. As is your feeling that fear of NATO is a legitimate consideration for Putin's actions.

 

[oneworld2]

You seem to require a lot of attention.

I stopped reading at this point for obvious reasons. But just for posterity..................

You made a inference that I was accusing you of making a statement that you hadn't made. I advised you that this wasn't the case and that you would find nothing to support your inference.

Let it be logged you haven't provided anything but feel the need to make further inferences/accusations lols

 

[JMR]

I stopped reading at this point for obvious reasons. But just for posterity..................

You made a inference that I was accusing you of making a statement that you hadn't made. I advised you that this wasn't the case and that you would find nothing to support your inference.

Let it be logged you haven't provided anything but feel the need to make further inferences lols

Obviously you did not stop reading, but since my response did not match up with your game, you choose to play this new line of attack.

You received a direct answer to your question. Let it be logged.

 

[Chagos]

That I have not posted in here before does not in any way evidence that I haven't followed the thread. So someone needs to try again and better next time.

Beyond which, reams and reams of verbose gish galloping do nothing to prevent the points I made in my posts # 60 and 62 from standing.

Even further beyond that, and so far having found no mention, is that the accusation in post #59 of RV having "no problems dancing on the bodies of those people for propaganda purposes" of shouting for war, is particularly disgusting and in line with the posts otherwise submitted.

And especially precarious when coming from someone who has possibly never, at close quarters, seen war and dismembered bodies caused by it,

I'd agree that any such experience might "jar" those encountering it into decrying war altogether, but in my experience pictures have nothing on the "real McCoy".

To sum it all up, arm chair warriors tire me as much as does their pretentious posturing and none of us have any idea of what RV has actually seen in real life.

Or not.

It still remains, however, a case of shutting the hell up when not knowing what one is talking about or is going to.

 

[Chagos]

You seem to require a lot of attention. Yes, the Bush administration is guilty of numerous war crimes, in the invasion of Iraq for false reasons, and also for mistreatment of prisoner. I believe all of the tribunals in which they could have been charged decided not to bring action.
That does not change the fact that Saddam Hussein was killing thousands of his own people, and gassing the Kurds, and was himself a war criminal.

The invasion of Ukraine is an act of totally uncalled for aggression against a peaceful neighbor. Your insistence on defending Putin is noted. As is your feeling that fear of NATO is a legitimate consideration for Putin's actions.

Och aye.

 

[Chagos]

Someone engaging in accusations as described above to then accuse others of doing the same is not only pure irony but also aptly describes any such poster.

 

[oneworld2]

Obviously you did not stop reading, but since my response did not match up with your game, you choose to play this new line of attack.

You received a direct answer to your question. Let it be logged.

Yes a really did stop reading and that's why I missed the fact that you have finally, after much evasion and in the previous post, come out and stated the obvious, Blair and Bush are war criminals. Who knew?

 

[Chagos]

Putin is a war criminal, Lawrow is a war criminal, the whole gang of thugs that rallied around both in support of this war ARE war criminals.

And that is the topic of this thread.

That Cheney and gang can justifiably be considered the same changes nothing in any of that.

 

[oneworld2]

Someone engaging in accusations as described above to then accuse others of doing the same is not only pure irony but also aptly describes any such poster.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I stand by what I said about RV and what I showed to be the case with JMR. It is logged here so all of your protestations count for naught in the end imo

 

[Chagos]

Someone engaging in accusations as described above to then accuse others of doing the same is not only pure irony but also aptly describes any such poster.