George H.W. Bush, a graceful gentleman, disliked the dirty work of politics

[Gaon]

By that criteria, would you please explain what a "legal" war is?

Internationally, a war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force. Domestically, without authorization from congress.

[Anonymous]

I just Googled about George W Bush and it seems Gaon is correct.



The meme on social media said that Bush and Cheney are "unable to visit Europe due to outstanding warrants." The claim that there are "outstanding warrants" is flat wrong. And while it's theoretically possible for a national court to issue an arrest warrant against either man, as was done with Pinochet, there is no sign of that happening

[Bricktop]

And I do not dispute what he said; there is no arrest warrant outstanding AT THIS TIME.



It takes about an hour to procure an arrest warrant from a judge when an information is submitted that a person is accused of a serious crime.



They are perfectly able to visit Europe. However, to do so would leave themselves open to the risk of an unfriendly government lodging a formal complaint with the War Crimes Tribunal, who would then obtain a warrant if the information is approved by a judge of the court.



Nations do not issue warrants. Courts do. And there is ample evidence that Bush prosecuted a war without due cause.

[Gaon]

Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld visited Germany. Bush was scheduled to travel to Switzerland, but cancelled when it became clear there would be mass protests.

[Anonymous]

If Ross Perot hadn't ran for president, Bush 41 would have been reelected.

[JOE]

He was in the middle of my best/worst list (excludes Kennedy and Nixon)



8. Barack Obama (worst)

7. Lyndon Johnson

6. George W Bush

5. Jimmy Carter

4. George Bush Sr.

3. Bill clinton (bad man but not bad policies and achievement)

2. Ronald Reagan

1. Donald trump (so far)



Not bad, but nothing remarkable either.  Generally a decent man, but not committed to rolling back progtardism (although at the time that wasn't nearly as important)  



While many in the media are praising him (much of it so they can use his grave as a prop to bash Trump) they hated him at the time, not as much as they now hate Trump, but they did hate him.



Best move--Appointing Clarence Thomas to the supreme court

Worst move--caving on his no new taxes "read my lips" promise.

Officially at least, George HW Bush was never 'Senior'



He was known as George Herbert Walker Bush

His son was known as George Walker Bush.



Hence neither had the designation of Junior nor Senior because their middle names were not entirely the same.

[Thiel]

Bush 41 was no Barry Goldwater. He was not very conservative.

[Anonymous]

Bush 41 was no Barry Goldwater. He was not very conservative.

It's been said that Pat Buchanan doing so well in the Republican primaries was the reason Bush lost in 92.

[Anonymous]

He was in the middle of my best/worst list (excludes Kennedy and Nixon)



8. Barack Obama (worst)

7. Lyndon Johnson

6. George W Bush

5. Jimmy Carter

4. George Bush Sr.

3. Bill clinton (bad man but not bad policies and achievement)

2. Ronald Reagan

1. Donald trump (so far)



Not bad, but nothing remarkable either.  Generally a decent man, but not committed to rolling back progtardism (although at the time that wasn't nearly as important)  



While many in the media are praising him (much of it so they can use his grave as a prop to bash Trump) they hated him at the time, not as much as they now hate Trump, but they did hate him.



Best move--Appointing Clarence Thomas to the supreme court

Worst move--caving on his no new taxes "read my lips" promise.

I couldn't stand either Bush president or any of them on that list except for Donald Trump.

[Bricktop]

By that criteria, would you please explain what a "legal" war is?

Internationally, a war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force. Domestically, without authorization from congress.

Wrong on both counts.



A UN mandate is irrelevant. It may mitigate a war, but a war can still be unjustified despite UN approval...as I have cited in my example...approval based on lies is not lawful approval at both criminal and international law.



Approval by the elected assembly also does not validate war. Hitler had the approval of Germany's parliament. Kim Il Sung has 100% approval of the North Korean assembly. Saddam Hussein had the full support of Iraq's public assembly.

[JOE]

No.



George W Bush.



Why did his father invade Iraq? Because it invaded Kuwait without reason or cause.



Yet George W Bush invades Iraq without reason or cause.



It was a war crime.



Johnson "inherited" Vietnam from Kennedy, about whom people seem to ignore that he put the US into another unjustifiable war.

No. While there was a military buildup in Vietnam under the Kennedy administration, he did not actually authorize military force there. That was Johnson who initiated military action after the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Johnson and his advisers alleged that North Vietnam provoked that incident but these allegations later proved to be false.



So the Vietnam War became Lyndon Johnson's baby. He escalated  it not Kennedy.



If we applied your logic, then Eisenhower is also blameworthy since American involvement in Vietnam began under him. I believe his predecessor Harry Trumsn was a staunch supporter of the Vietnam War.

[Anonymous]

By that criteria, would you please explain what a "legal" war is?

Internationally, a war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force. Domestically, without authorization from congress.

Wrong on both counts.



A UN mandate is irrelevant. It may mitigate a war, but a war can still be unjustified despite UN approval...as I have cited in my example...approval based on lies is not lawful approval at both criminal and international law.



Approval by the elected assembly also does not validate war. Hitler had the approval of Germany's parliament. Kim Il Sung has 100% approval of the North Korean assembly. Saddam Hussein had the full support of Iraq's public assembly.

The Third  Reich and North Korea are rubber stamp parliaments.



I did check and it seems Gaon is correct that the UN Security Council has the ability to rule on the legality of the war.

[Gaon]

By that criteria, would you please explain what a "legal" war is?

Internationally, a war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force. Domestically, without authorization from congress.

Wrong on both counts.



A UN mandate is irrelevant. It may mitigate a war, but a war can still be unjustified despite UN approval...as I have cited in my example...approval based on lies is not lawful approval at both criminal and international law.



Approval by the elected assembly also does not validate war. Hitler had the approval of Germany's parliament. Kim Il Sung has 100% approval of the North Korean assembly. Saddam Hussein had the full support of Iraq's public assembly.

The Third  Reich and North Korea are rubber stamp parliaments.



I did check and it seems Gaon is correct that the UN Security Council has the ability to rule on the legality of the war.

The legality of war internationally as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, lies exclusively with the UN Security Council. America and the UK have veto power. What are the chances they would ever declare the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime illegal.

[@realAzhyaAryola]

Universally, whether or not anyone likes it, the older George was always referred to as George Sr. or simply George H.W. Bush.

[Anonymous]

Universally, whether or not anyone likes it, the older George was always referred to as George Sr. or simply George H.W. Bush.

Or forty one.