Dear Daviy,

You only need to google 'global atrocities,' to learn that there were
perpetrators who never saw the inside of a jail cell or faced
criminal prosecution for their crimes against humanity.
As with all war crimes tribunals in history, there is a
selectiveness about what is considered a war crime
and who ends up on the dock.

Unless there is a massive alteration in the balance of forces in the
world between the powerful and the dispossessed, nothing is going
to change.

Dear Foxy

The selection of blame is always the prerogative of those who exercise the greatest power. For example, no-one was ever prosecuted for the unnecessary bombing of Dresden in WW2, because Germany were "the vanquished" (for which I am eternally grateful BTW). However, war crimes are decided by the winners, hence many wrongs go unpublicised and unpunished.

There is also the issue that many people react with kneejerk irrationality when criticism is issued; if people criticise Palestinians they are seen to be pandering to Israel, when it is pointed out that Israel has commited its own share of attacking civilians - we hear shrieks of "anti-Semitism".

Clearly there is much wrong on both sides. Who will be the vanquished this time?

PS Foxy
Loved the George W quotes - the man made a better comic than president.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/S/H/bush_turkey.jpg

Fractelle,
I agree with you but I have reservations on the word "prerogative". It sounds like they have the right rather than what it really is, a distortion of the truth to justify/cover their misdeeds. The whole unnecessary bombing campaign of civilian targets cathedrals and museums etc. including Dresden near the collapse of Nazi Germany was one such of obscenity.

The Allied reasoning was at best arrogant and at worst simply vindictive reprisal. Give the same strategy failed in the battle of Brittan what made them think it would achieve a different result in Germany.

I agree that Hamas has indeed committed war crimes and the persons responsible should stand trial.
But that doesn’t justify Israel’s disproportionate shock and awe policy version of the failed Nazi Germany’s (US in Iraq, Dresden, reprisals against the resistances etc) total war tactics of attacking civilians in order to break their will/morale.
Regardless of the sides of the combatants brutality has never won over an ideal.

The rhetoric may differ but both sides are simply feeding the insatiable monster of vengence.
BTW I too am glad the Allies beat the Nazis too.

My personal favourites were "man and fish can coexist peacefully."

(I wasn't aware we had a fish-conflict policy, but it's good to know we've got all the bases covered).

Though the grandest foot-in-mouth moment was either: "the hardest part of my job is connecting Iraq to the war on terror."

(Freudian slip?)

Or "I'm honored to shake the hand of the brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."

(Might be an idea to clarify which hand, Mr President).

I'm really not sure how his gaffes managed to result in comedic value so frequently. (Except in the cases regarding his comments about literacy. Those were never going to end well for him).

-

Daviy, in relation to your comments on Bush, despite some differences, I've got to agree with the thrust of Col Rouge's previous statement.
Even though I regard GW as an incompetent president with a noxious extreme ideology who presided overa bloated government and reckless spending, it isn't up to the world to dictate who chooses the American President. That's for the Americans to decide.

However, as with all things, the pendulum has swung the other way now.
I agree we need to review many of the decisions GW made and the processes by which he made them.
Hopefully the US will rectify issues such as sanctioning torture and so on, but a witchhunt will achieve nothing, save for stirring up further divisions at a time when unity is needed.

Don't focus on the man, focus on the system in which he operated.

You can talk about rectifying these things all you like, but the fact is, putting any strict measures in place would ultimately be a denial of democracy. Sure, you can lay down rules, but if those rules can't be bent or broken, then effectively you're watering down the democratic decisions of future generations.

They may be an attempt to prevent stupid or malicious decisions, but those aren't our decisions to make.

I can't help but feel your comments represent the good intentions upon which the road to hell is paved.

Examinator:
"The rhetoric may differ but both sides are simply feeding the insatiable monster of vengeance."

In total agreement with you on that.

However (pedantically) on the use of "prerogative" - victors tend to believe that they do (have the right), religious victors believe they have god on their side as well - divine right.

Wars have never ended with a friendly handshake...

'but do we need it to understand what happened and ask if we want a re-run some time in the future? Has Bush served to point out changes that need to be made?' That is from my original post. It has been completely ignored. Notice I am asking questions, not laying down dogma.
'Bomber Harris' was condemned by all levels of British society when details of the Dresden (and other) raids became known, and he became a shunned man. I hope the same fate awaits Bush.
My favourite is 'I like water, especialy when I am fishing.'