Artful Dodger: The war in Afghanistan was part of the war on terror, the hunt for Bin Laden - a war that most of the world agreed with the Bush administration in starting. There are innocent people killed there, but most see that as part of a just war - a war that was not elective, but a war that was started in retaliation for the attack against America.

The war in Iraq was an elective war that the Bush administration started - a war that most of the world did not agree with - so when innocent people get killed there, it is easy to see why some would blame the Bush Administration for this - since this was a war that should have never been started (as some would see it).

If the Obama administration starts a new elective war and innocent people get killed, then yes - I can see people wanted put the war criminal name to Obama.

coan.net: I see. So the fact that the Clinton administration, including Al Gore, and other members of his administration called for military action against Saddam (well before Bush came along) and the fact that they all claimed a connection to terrorism and the fact that they all claimed over and over about WMD, just because Bush acts upon those facts, with the backing of congress, democrats and republicans, the war is somehow "elective?"

And that in and "elective" war, it's not ok to kill innocent women and children but in a correct war, it's ok to kill innocent women and children.

Yeah, that sounds like a liberals way of thinking.

So tell me BBW, was the president lying when he said the following:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

Artful Dodger: Well I'm not sure how the Clinton administration could be blamed when they did not act upon it.

So question - is Hitler a war criminal? I mean he acted with the backing of his countries administration & politicians? (like the Bush administration acted with the backing of Congress.) [POINT: Just because someone's own country "backs" killing does not make it right.]

I know bringing this up will bring up how this organization is broken - but I still believe any elective war against another country should be backed by the UN. (not just a group of friendly countries).

Let me back up a minute:

I see 2 types of wars. First is a war that is started in retaliation for an attack. War on terror & invasion of Afghanistan was in retaliation for 9/11. Attack of Japan was in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. War with Germany was in retaliation for them declaring war against the US after Japan started the war with the US.

Second - Elective war. This is a war which is started as a pre-emptive strike. THE ONLY TIME in my eyes that an elective war should be started again is with the backing of the UN - which not just the views of 1 country is taking into account - but the views of many countries.

=======
You ask about the president lying in the statement. Well I don't see that statement as a lie - I mean the attack was ordered - was joined by British forces - used the reasoning for attacking weapons program - was a pre-emtive to protect the US. So no, I don't think the statement you wrote is a lie. I believe many facts were distorted and the facts that did not agree with the war plan were labeled as not reliable - and the Bush administration led many to believe the war in Iraq was part of the war on Terror, where in reality it was a second war.

coan.net: Comparing Bush to Hitler is just such a cheap comparison. Bush never ordered the murder of millions of people (as a matter of policy, that is exactly what Hitler did). Bush attacked an outlaw government after 18 years of defiance, murder, and invasion of allies. How many more years of actively pursuing weapons programs were we to tolerate?

As for the statement, how it can not be a lie, but yet a distortion? What facts were distorted?

Artful Dodger: Ok Czuch... I did not compare Bush with Hitler.

I was simply pointing out that just because ones own country backs a war DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.

Tuesday & anastasia: Now I remember why I stopped in the fellowship political boards - everyone nit-picks and starts to put words in my mouth. I think I'm done also.

Artful Dodger: Sorry that I started - please just ignore my comments below. I will stay out of the rest of the conversations also.

coan.net: This is the problem with these kinds of discussions. It was said that Bush is a war criminal. Then you support it by asking a question on whether Hitler could be considered a war criminal for his actions (because he had the backing of his government). But his government was very different for one. And Hitler invaded countries that were no threat to anyone. He had treaties with them and yet he attacked them anyway. He bombed cities relentlessly. He didn't go for military targets, he bombed cities and infrastructures. Then he ordered his soldiers to kill everyone. He did this with the backing of the government (because he was a dictator).

If Bush is a war criminal, then so are all the democrats and republicans that gave approval for the war. It's not a stretch to suggest you were comparing Bush with Hitler since that is exactly what you did. Otherwise, why bring him up?

Tuesday: I'm finished posting on this board.
I'm with you on this one...enough already