dmgdnooc
Active Member
GWB a war criminal?
(And don't forget his lackeys and toadies, and handlers and minders)
　
If the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal, then yes.
HRW: Legal Issues Arising from the War in Afghanistan and Related Anti-Terrorism Efforts
　
If the invasion of Iraq was illegal, then yes.
Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
　
If the military campaign was directed at the Iraqi society, then yes.
http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Ullman_Shock.pdf
　
'Shutting the country down would entail both the physical
destruction of appropriate infrastructure and the shutdown and
control of the flow of all vital information and associated commerce
so rapidly as to achieve a level of national shock akin to
the effect that dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki had on the Japanese.'
'The intent here is to impose a regime of Shock and Awe
through delivery of instant, nearly incomprehensible levels of
massive destruction directed at influencing society writ large,
meaning its leadership and public, rather than targeting
directly against military or strategic objectives even with relatively
few numbers or systems. The employment of this capability
against society and its values, called "counter-value" in the
nuclear deterrent jargon, is massively destructive, strikes
directly at the public will of the adversary to resist, and ideally
or theoretically, would instantly or quickly incapacitate that will
over the space of a few hours or days.'
　
If the use of torture was authorised, then yes.
American Torture - An Overview of American Torture in the War on Terror
　
If GWB is responsible for his actions. then yes.
　
But he's not responsible, he's a victim of bad advice.
The Leader was mis-led, don't cha know?
　
(And don't forget his lackeys and toadies, and handlers and minders)
　
If the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal, then yes.
HRW: Legal Issues Arising from the War in Afghanistan and Related Anti-Terrorism Efforts
　
If the invasion of Iraq was illegal, then yes.
Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
　
If the military campaign was directed at the Iraqi society, then yes.
http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Ullman_Shock.pdf
　
'Shutting the country down would entail both the physical
destruction of appropriate infrastructure and the shutdown and
control of the flow of all vital information and associated commerce
so rapidly as to achieve a level of national shock akin to
the effect that dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki had on the Japanese.'
'The intent here is to impose a regime of Shock and Awe
through delivery of instant, nearly incomprehensible levels of
massive destruction directed at influencing society writ large,
meaning its leadership and public, rather than targeting
directly against military or strategic objectives even with relatively
few numbers or systems. The employment of this capability
against society and its values, called "counter-value" in the
nuclear deterrent jargon, is massively destructive, strikes
directly at the public will of the adversary to resist, and ideally
or theoretically, would instantly or quickly incapacitate that will
over the space of a few hours or days.'
　
If the use of torture was authorised, then yes.
American Torture - An Overview of American Torture in the War on Terror
　
If GWB is responsible for his actions. then yes.
　
But he's not responsible, he's a victim of bad advice.
The Leader was mis-led, don't cha know?
　
