Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

ElBaradei suggests war crimes probe of Bush team

World Apr. 23, 2011 - 06:00AM JST ( 11 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

11 Comments

0

lesgrandeApr. 23, 2011 - 11:20AM JST

Brave idea that belies the fact that we are not a 'community of nations'
0

Lieberman2012Apr. 23, 2011 - 12:15PM JST

Smart move by El Baradai, gives him cred with the fledgling anti-government movements (can't really call them pro-democracy yet) sweeping the region. I'm sure Bush, kickin back on the ranch, just smirks at this though.
0

VirtuosoApr. 23, 2011 - 12:36PM JST

I for one would at least like to know why Bush really decided to attack Iraq. Some reports say he had a tizzy fit because the Iraqi consul in New York refused to lower its flag to half staff on the day after 9/11. That makes as much sense to me as those bizarre WMD fabrications.
0

smithinjapanApr. 23, 2011 - 12:44PM JST

Definitely agree that they should, but in all likelihood they will not (at least not while they're alive).
0

warnerbroApr. 23, 2011 - 01:15PM JST

There certainly was an "intelligence failure" but not in the sense of strategically useful information. The States gave its government over to a gullible idiot who was easily deceived by a right wing cabal.
0

TorafusuTorasanApr. 23, 2011 - 07:54PM JST

Cue RomeoRamen barging in to complain about personal insults like "gullible idiot".

Cue me reminding him that Article 21 of Japan's constition forbids censorship.

Cue Bush critics outnumbering defenders 10 to 1.

Please, someone leave an unpredictable comment!
0

LagunaApr. 23, 2011 - 10:14PM JST

It was worse than a crime. It was a mistake.
0

MolenirApr. 24, 2011 - 04:10AM JST

I for one would at least like to know why Bush really decided to attack Iraq. Some reports say he had a tizzy fit because the Iraqi consul in New York refused to lower its flag to half staff on the day after 9/11. That makes as much sense to me as those bizarre WMD fabrications.

Yes, yes, yes. Bush was the worst President ever, no one has ever been worse in the history of the universe... The sad thing about this is, that the current President makes Bush look great. Sure as hell he was a lot more competent then our current resident 'genius'. Even if he did make some decisions that in retrospect were huge blunders.

It was worse than a crime. It was a mistake.

A mistake is worse then a crime?
0

LagunaApr. 24, 2011 - 08:39PM JST

A mistake is worse then a crime?

No moral spin on this, Molenir - not to say that ElBaradi doesn't have a case - I'm just mentioning what will be history's judgement. Crimes are forgotten over generations; mistakes shape the future in undesirable ways.
0

SuperLibApr. 25, 2011 - 01:31AM JST

“All parties must come to the negotiating table,” writes ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the IAEA in 2005.

The nogotiating table with both North Korea and Iran has resulted in increased nuclear capabilities for both countries. The negotiations with Iran have been lead by Europe, not the US. The negotiations with North Korea did involve the US and produced an agreement lead by the US to halt production that North Korea ultimately backed out on because of....wait for it...their refusal to allow verification.

The use of force in Iraq has resulted in zero chance that they will start a nuclear program despite Iran's attempts to do so, something that surely would have been a catalyst for Iraq to restart their program, and even more likley given what would have been Saddam's successful refusal to verifty the destruction of his WMD stockpile as required in the terms of his surrender. ElBaradei's take on the situation? More negotations and the removal of the threat of force.

In the end, inspections, something ElBaradei seems to focus on, were irrelevant. Saddam had known stockpiles of WMDs after the first invasion and he was required to verify their destruction. He refused to do so. That put the UN in the positon of having to inspect every square inch of Iraq in order to verifty. Without the invsaion the world would be in the position today of not really knowing what Saddam has or doesn't have given his refusal to provide proof of their destruction. Why did Saddam do this? Because he intentionally wanted people to never verify their destruction because he wanted to use the confusion as a way to keep Iran in check. Even Iraq's closest advisors have come out and said that this was a calculated move on Saddam's part to create confusion. Any non-verification would force Iran to err on the side of caution and assume he still had some capabitilies. The problem is that the rest of the world was put in that position as well.

If anyone should be on trial, it should be this man for gross incompetence. And it's interesting that he's referencing conversations with the US government 10 years after the fact rather than exposing the details of the conversations as they were actually happening. Seems that that releasing information about those conversations and his beliefs that the US was heading down the path of trails and war crimes would have been more relevant before the actual invasion. He has come out with his own comments that he believes Iran is putting themselves in the position for a nuclean option. Yet that fact seems to be totally lost on the man when he calls for more negotiations which have directly contradicted his intended result. Negotiations always sound like the best option because people want to believe they will be successful. The problem with this position is when men refuse to accept the fact that the other side simply isn't going to respond despite years and years of evidence that they have not.

The good news is that the majority of the world has moved past this debate. The thread has been on JT for 2 days and has produced a net result of 9 comments. Perhaps there is a bit of skepciticsm about his real motivattion, which most likely involves increasing his net worth. He'll get his money from the few reminaing diehards who simply want to continue to talk about this. He reminds me of a Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, men who make positions based on knowing what other people don't know and using the information vacuum to manipulate them.
0

manfromamericaApr. 25, 2011 - 03:53PM JST

Elbaradei, mouthpiece of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was a political tool at the UN, and he's a puppet now.