Who is "MORE" Guilty?, W. Bush or the Troops Options

[Guest_CANNONBALL_*]

just a theoretical debate on guilt...

So you have a couple incidents where troops are being held in confinment for war atrocities.

And you have W...who sent the country to war based on shotty intel (if you wish to believe that). I don't...I think he's been gunning for Saddam since his daddy was in office and suspected him of having a smoking gun to justify his invasion, but whatever.

Who is more guilty? Bush may not have pulled a trigger, but he did something far worse IMO...he is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people....both foreign and our own.

Whether or not the troops did what the media has convicted them of is not for me to say. what the situation was, motivation was...etc is all speculative to date, because really, unless you're there...how can you tell what they did was wrong (or perceived to be wrong)? the fog of war is a bitch.

[Billy]

I think a protest is in order.

[Guest_CANNONBALL_*]

I know "the man" will never be brought down...

it's nauseating.

[Testm0nkey]

I think if scandal, corruption and palpable guilt go up the ladder than the consequences for those actions should as well. The guys weilding the pens have more power and say then all the men that enlisted in the military for whatever their reasons. I am not excusing the acts of certain troops or entire outfits, they are still responsible for what they have done. But months, years, and commands in a war zone can change a person and a whole group of people. In the worst case scenario the US military were used as a malleable force for dirty politics on entirely false pretenses for which they were mostly unaware. And I know it is some far off ideal to think that is a sole occurance.
All in all each level in the hierarchy has their own responsibilty and when those responsibilities get fuzzy and corrupted they all have to face it crumbling around them. It is just a sad fact.

[Hartmann]

It's all based on "if's"...

If 9/11 would have never happened, would we have invaded Iraq?
If poor intelligence would have never happened, would we have handled Iraq the way we did?
If we would have had more UN support in Iraq would be facing the same insurgency problems?
If there was no real insurgency would we being seeing all of this on the news?

There are just too many variables. I think that yes, each man is responsible for his actions, meaning that those Marines, if guilty deserve to be punished. But, I also think that the circumstances that got them there may be responsible for the fact that they had to pull the trigger.

[impala454]

Who is more guilty? Bush may not have pulled a trigger, but he did something far worse IMO...he is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people....both foreign and our own.

As long as we're being uber theoretical you have to look at from all viewpoints. You say he's responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people. I don't know the exact numbers, but obviously we'll assume the vast majority of those are iraqis, and probably the majority of those were iraqi military. Death, damage (collateral or otherwise) are part of war, and imho usually worth the outcome depending on the circumstances.

Even so, lets just take it at lives lost, 10,000 even. Who's to say that's a bad number? All we can do is speculate as to what could have happened over there had we not intervened. Two thoughts come to mind:

1. Saddam might have been developing chemical/bio/nuclear weapons, and ended up killing millions, and starting more wars with more people which result in even more death. In that case 10,000 lives lost to prevent millions, I think pretty much anyone would agree that's an awesome trade.

or

2. Saddam could have just lived out his life as a wise & wonderful leader to his people and died of natural causes 30 years from now.

That's just two possibilities, but given his track record I'd give #1 a much higher possibility. You have to think of it as a choice the president would have to make, and there is no other choice. 10,000 will die, or millions could die. There is no magic 0 fix all be all solution like some of you think.

[Guest_CANNONBALL_*]

But, I also think that the circumstances that got them there may be responsible for the fact that they had to pull the trigger.

so if the marines are being held accountable for their actions....who is going to hold bush accountable?

that's kinda what I'm getting at.

no one will. he'll get off scot-free and enjoy the rest of his life being rich.

whereas the troops that were sent there by him will live in prison (most likely).

[Dogmeat]

I think that regardless of the justification for the war, which I honestly think still remains a matter of opinion as I don't think there's any real way anyone can "truly" know if it was worth it or not until about 50 years from now..... That if what the media is reporting is true, then the marines knew damned good and well what they were doing and had done was wrong and immoral.

I cannot comment on battlefield stress, etc as I've never even come close to experiencing anything like that in my life, and I also take things I read from national news outlets with a grain of salt...

But let's for instance say that there is a military tribunal for the marines and that tribunal determines they knowingly killed innocent people, then yeah, I think they otta have the book thrown at them.

[Guest_CANNONBALL_*]

should W go on trial after the term of presidency is up?

milosevic did.

(I am being way extreme here trying to illustrate a point).

[Spectatrix]

should W go on trial after the term of presidency is up?

milosevic did.

(I am being way extreme here trying to illustrate a point).

Well that depends on why Bush sent us to war. If, as you think (and I'm not inclined to disagree), it was a deliberate ploy to go after Saddam, then yes. If it was obviously bad intel, then it was through negligence that we got into war, and still yes. If the intel was bad, but it was hard for us to have known so at the time, then no.

[pebkac]

should W go on trial after the term of presidency is up?

milosevic did.

(I am being way extreme here trying to illustrate a point).

Meh. We're getting into theoreticals here. It ain't gonna happen.

Besides that, there's not really a law against starting wars that we could try him under.

[woody]

if bush went to war on bad intel, then where did the bad intel come from? are those who provided faulty intel going to be held accountable? bush is the president (not excluded from the law) but if someone, in any profession, gives you false advice (intel) and you make a decision on that advice, how accountable are you for the negative outcome of your decision? there a difference between directly lying and basing your decision on bad intel which you thought at the time was true.

will bush ever be held accountable? i don't know. i figured this. if there was that much solid evidence against bush that he intentionally went to war on lies which he knew were false at the time, all politics aside...left or right..., i would hope that he would be charged. just as any person would in this country.

[The Fanatic]

Dubya

[celebritygooner]

if bush went to war on bad intel, then where did the bad intel come from?

There's gotta be a line between that and what Milosovic did. Sometimes, these things are cut and dry. Example: missiles in Cuba. Usually, these things are not. There's a body of evidence, there are understood gaps in information, the information is presented to decision makers, and then the decision makers -- with the information, in real-time, without the benefit of retrospective, in the context of world events -- have to make a decision. It's a good system, but it ain't perfect.

Who is more guilty? Bush may not have pulled a trigger, but he did something far worse IMO...he is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people....both foreign and our own.

The fact that any of our guys are in legal trouble for what happens in the suck is infuriating -- everybody should give the benefit of the doubt and then some ... but I'm not sure how one can justify the bridge to national-level leadership on this. Unless there is some sort of official sanction, I don't know how this charge sticks ... if you're not careful, this argument is prone to slipping down the slope of blame-Wilson-and-Clemenceau-for-WW2 or blame-steel-manufacturers-for-gun-deaths.

Simple fact, war crimes is a redundency ... all wars are crimes. But where is the condemnation of Zarqawi and bin Laden and the states that are actively supporting them and their brethren? Regardless of what you think President Bush's motivation, certainly Zarqawi's is far more sinister.

[Guest_CANNONBALL_*]

well of course. and I honest don't believe that our president being tried is a good idea.

I'm more illustrating a point on how I think hanging the troops out to dry is utter bullshit.