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

[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.

[@realAzhyaAryola]

GHWB 41

Codename: Timberwolf

[Anonymous]

GHWB 41

Codename: Timberwolf

That's interesting Azhya, I didn't know that.

[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.

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.

The UN can rule on the moon being a sovereign state with a seat on the Council...but that does not make anything legal.



As I have already cited, if UN declarations were a matter of law, when will Israel be prosecuted for contravention of a number of UN declarations??



The UN has NO statutory authority. None. Therefore, it can "rule" on whatever it chooses...that rule is not binding on any nation or individual.



The International Criminal Court acts independently of the UN. Therefore, matters concerning war crimes can be referred to it by individual States, circumventing the UN. The UN may also refer matters to the Court.



However, what is clear is that the Court only pursues the less powerful and weaker State leaders, rather than heads of State of the larger nations. It is perfectly feasible for the government of Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan to refer the American President to the ICC, and if they are satisfied a crime has been committed, a warrant can be issued without any UN involvement.



Equally, Putin should be charged for attacking Georgia and the Ukraine. Kim should be charged for shelling South Korea.



But there is no doubt that America's attack on Iraq was unprovoked, illegal and criminal in nature.

[Wazzzup]

Just my two cents on the war crimes stuff



When the first Iraq Gulf war was over in '91 a ceasefire agreement was agreed to by Saddam Hussein.  Among other things he would allow inspections.

Towards the end he was refusing inspections.  So he basically broke the cease fire agreement.  You break the ceasefire, and the war is back on.



---



Was it immoral?  Saddam was a bad guy.  Among other mass murders committed, he gassed the Kurds by the thousands   There was nothing wrong with taking him out EXCEPT...



It was strategically a bad move.  Bush could have just bombed the sites Hussein was refusing to allow inspection of.  BUT he didn't want to, because he thought that if a democracy was created in the ME that other people there would want democracy too and it would catch on all over the ME.  Of course this was ignorant of Muslim culture and it failed, creating a vacuum of power filled by even worse people vying for control of the country.



BTW  I have to wonder-- were Obama's attacks in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Syria legal? For a guy who won a nobel peace prize he sure liked war a lot.

[Bricktop]

"During the renewed inspections beginning in November 2002, Blix found no stockpiles of WMD and noted the "proactive" but not always "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441".



Saddam complied with the inspections, which uncovered NO evidence of weapons of mass destruction. None.



There was no basis for war. All evidence provided by the US was false, and worse, it was clear that due diligence as to the source of the information was either never applied, or was ignored.



A country of 20 million people, with no longreach military force, was NOT a threat to the US or ANY of it's allies.



Nobody can deny, based on evidence, that America's war on Iraq was a response to the 9/11 terror strike which had NO connection to Iraq. Bush and his cronies needed to make an example of someone, and Hussein was it. That is an illegal war.



Even the British government acknowledges that there was no lawful, moral or reasonable justification to attack Iraq.



If America relies on the argument that "Saddam was a bad man", then why has it not invaded a dozen other countries...in particular North Korea...that are ruled by bad men WITH WMD's? The answer is clear; there would be too many killed. Bush was relying on a rapid collapse and capitulation of the Iraqi army which eventuated. He failed to grasp, as so many before him have failed to grasp that overcoming a military force is one thing...occupying a country is quite another.



The war was illegal. Bush should be prosecuted.

[JOE]

Overall I'd give HWBush about B- grade as President which was above average.



His critics described him as a mediocre President & his economic performance as dismal.



I know he was assailed and vilified by many in his party for breaking his no new taxes pledge.



HW Bush was also dealt a poor hand because he came in at the end of the cold war & when the stimulus of tax cuts during the Reagan years had run their course. So he suddenly inherited a huge pile of debt as the national debt tripled under his predecessor Reagan. I know he was at odds with Reagan over the debt & tax cut policies which he called Voodoo economics.



He deserves credit for winning the Gulf War & doing so with a minimal loss of American lives & making other nations pay for it. So from a diplomatic standpoint it was a stroke of genius.



Also his brand of compassionate conservativism  tho well intentioned was sorely out of step with the times as the baby boom post world war II generation gravitated away from him & chose Bill Clinton instead. Probably HW Bush's greatest fault was that he became seen as yesterday's man & his values were more in keeping with an Ozzie & Harriet  generation.



At the same time this did not lower his achievements as President.  He was out of step with the times even tho some of the medicine & values he promoted are what his nation may have needed.



Above all he should be remembered as part of America's last great generation who weathered and endured the Grest Depression & World War II. Their sacrifice as well as his enabled the USA to prosper following the 2nd World War. HW Bush was no less a war hero, a warrior who selflessly served his country & put his life in harm's way and on the line in perhaps history's greatest military conflict and the USA's most spectacular  triumph.

[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.

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.

The UN can rule on the moon being a sovereign state with a seat on the Council...but that does not make anything legal.



As I have already cited, if UN declarations were a matter of law, when will Israel be prosecuted for contravention of a number of UN declarations??



The UN has NO statutory authority. None. Therefore, it can "rule" on whatever it chooses...that rule is not binding on any nation or individual.



The International Criminal Court acts independently of the UN. Therefore, matters concerning war crimes can be referred to it by individual States, circumventing the UN. The UN may also refer matters to the Court.



However, what is clear is that the Court only pursues the less powerful and weaker State leaders, rather than heads of State of the larger nations. It is perfectly feasible for the government of Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan to refer the American President to the ICC, and if they are satisfied a crime has been committed, a warrant can be issued without any UN involvement.



Equally, Putin should be charged for attacking Georgia and the Ukraine. Kim should be charged for shelling South Korea.



But there is no doubt that America's attack on Iraq was unprovoked, illegal and criminal in nature.

It seems it does though..



The UN Security Council makes the rules.

[Bricktop]

The UN cannot make rules!!!



How does it enforce them??

[Anonymous]

The UN cannot make rules!!!



How does it enforce them??

Do you really think the two of the five permanent members of the Security Council who carried out the Iraq invasion would not use their veto if legal actions were enacted.

[Bricktop]

Hence, their actions have NO authority...legal or otherwise.

[Anonymous]

The UN is set up so that the US, the UK, Russia, China and France can never be prosecuted for war crimes.

[Bricktop]

As it stands, I agree.



But the UN's validity is melting...and who knows where this will lead.

[Anonymous]

As it stands, I agree.



But the UN's validity is melting...and who knows where this will lead.

And just like old Gaon, I was one hundred per cent opposed to removing Saddam. The UN has only gotten worse since the Iraq invasion too. Screw the UN.

[Wazzzup]

"During the renewed inspections beginning in November 2002, Blix found no stockpiles of WMD and noted the "proactive" but not always "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441".



Saddam complied with the inspections, which uncovered NO evidence of weapons of mass destruction. None.



There was no basis for war. All evidence provided by the US was false, and worse, it was clear that due diligence as to the source of the information was either never applied, or was ignored.



A country of 20 million people, with no longreach military force, was NOT a threat to the US or ANY of it's allies.



Nobody can deny, based on evidence, that America's war on Iraq was a response to the 9/11 terror strike which had NO connection to Iraq. Bush and his cronies needed to make an example of someone, and Hussein was it. That is an illegal war.



Even the British government acknowledges that there was no lawful, moral or reasonable justification to attack Iraq.



If America relies on the argument that "Saddam was a bad man", then why has it not invaded a dozen other countries...in particular North Korea...that are ruled by bad men WITH WMD's? The answer is clear; there would be too many killed. Bush was relying on a rapid collapse and capitulation of the Iraqi army which eventuated. He failed to grasp, as so many before him have failed to grasp that overcoming a military force is one thing...occupying a country is quite another.



The war was illegal. Bush should be prosecuted.

As I recall Saddam was not letting UN inspectors in some places.  And many of the western intelligence agencies believed saddam had WMDs.  



Again I was not for the war, Bush could have bombed the places Saddam wouldn't allow inspection of and left it at that (that's what Clinton did).



Nonetheless if this is a "war crime" then why isn't George H Bush's first Gulf war a war crime? why isn't Clinton's bombing Serbia a war crime? Why aren't

 Obama's actions in Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Libya war crimes?