• dsmk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I wouldn’t put Afghanistan and Iraq in the same level.

    Bin Laden (and Al-Qaeda) was in Afghanistan and they refused to hand him over. That invasion had the support of NATO and even Russia and China. Why? Because Al-Qaeda existing doesn’t benefit anyone and they were behind the attacks.

    Iraq was different. It was mostly a US and British invasion, under false pretences. Iraq used to have chemical weapons and even used them against civilians back in the 80s, started a war with Iran and invaded Kuwait, but those were not the reasons given for the invasion…

    Now, why wasn’t Bush charged with any crimes? For the same reason nothing will happen to Putin in Russia. What are you going to do, invade the country to arrest the president?

    Is it fair? No. But it’s how the world works.

    • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fun fact! In 2002 the US passed a law allowing themselves to invade the Hague in case any high-ranking US officials ended up on trial there.

      Which I’m sure they passed in the year between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq just by coincidence, and they weren’t at all expecting any shady shit to go down at all.

      • gowan@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The USA has NEVER supported the ICCJ and this was not a new policy the Bush 43 administration devised on their own.

        • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          But still, quite convenient timing to pass a “Guys we’re SUPER SERIOUS about not being on the hook for war crimes” bill.

          • gowan@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah but it’s like the PATRIOT Act (it’s an anagram Im just lazy). The PATRIOT Act had been kicking around DC for decades before we had an excuse to pass it. The ICCJ bill was no different.

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How would that work? Wouldn’t that be an act of war unprovoked aggression per the UN charter?

        • thantik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No no, don’t you know that we don’t do “war” any more? We do “operations” now. War is totally different. Then we have to obey Geneva conventions and all sorts of other hairy stuff. Our politicians have decided as long as we don’t call it “war” then we’re fine.

        • mind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure it would, but the US has veto power on the UN security council so they would not be passing any resolutions against the US if this happened.

        • Arbiter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, it would be.

          It’s geopolitical dick wagging, not a law that was actually needed or does anything.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Iraq was different. It was mostly a US and British invasion, under false pretences

      Lil Bush didn’t even really know…

      He was just a puppet, and Cheney was part of his dad’s “old guard”. Lil Bush knew the game, so Cheney set it up so every intel agency reported to Dick Cheney, and Dick Cheney decided if that info went anywhere else, including Lil Bush.

      Cheney wanted the war, so he only passed on info that would cause the war, and it’s entirely likely he was the only member of the American government who could have seen 9/11 coming. The reason no one else could, was everything has to go thru Cheney, and he saw everything.

      I’m not saying Lil Bush is innocent, I’m saying he was a useful idiot that knew he was just a puppet and went along with

      But it pisses me off everyone acts like the puppet fall guy is who we should be upset with, not the people who were actually doing stuff and still work with the American Republican political party.

      • gowan@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You need to look into the Project for a New American Century. It’s a PAC that most of GWB’s initial team was on and were asking fir war with Iraq in 1997. Wanna guess who in the GWB administration was not part of it?

      • dsmk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        So, tl;dr: After being hammered by strikes they made an offer to hand him over to a 3rd party?

        • grte@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s correct. It wasn’t their first attempt, either. Instead Bush opted for the 20 years of occupation for whatever reason.

          • dsmk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not defending the occupation and whole “nation building” (which I doubt they though would take 20 years). Just pointing out that there was a difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, and that difference was reflected by the support (or lack of) from other countries.

    • malloc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Both countries also do not recognize the authority of International Court. High ranking officials definitely should have been hauled off to jail for authorizing, developing, and employing “enhanced interrogation” (aka torture) techniques

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Officially that was the reason. The violation of the ceasefire. Iraq did not abide by the terms of the ceasefire.

      In hindsight, we shouldn’t have invaded. I supported the invasion at the time because of the violations of the ceasefire. I didn’t completely buy the wmd argument.

      Looking back, Iraq distracted us from Afghanistan.

    • Gigan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Now, why wasn’t Bush charged with any crimes? For the same reason nothing will happen to Putin in Russia.

      Trump is being charged with crimes

      • JBar2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Trump is being charged by the US and state governments with violation of US and state laws

        That’s a far different scenario than an international court attempting to charge and arrest a US president (current or former

        • Gigan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bush lied to congress and the American people. I don’t believe there were no crimes committed by doing that.

          • meco03211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            But did Bush knowingly lie to a degree provable in court?

            He would have had to have known it was a lie and for that to be proven in court. With trump, his crimes were so egregious there were devout party line adherents backing out and explicitly stating just how illegal what they were doing is. Trump had been told multiple times, in multiple ways that what he was doing was illegal and he went for it anyways.

            • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Another point to add. It is not illegal for anyone to lie, so unless he was testifying under oath, Bush could lie as much as he wanted without legal repercussions.

          • Archpawn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s not illegal to lie to the American people. And it’s practically a requirement for office.

      • dsmk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Trump is being charged with crimes

        Not for dropping bombs or ordering drone strikes in a different country.