If There Are No Weapons of Mass Destruction?

No. You aren't qua definitione a 'war criminal' when you start a war.

No, he cannot. (Unless he commits war crimes, of course.)

Only the loser ever gets tried for war crimes.

Starting a war is not per se a war crime, therefore Mr. Bush cannot be tried.

steissd




Starting a war is not per se a war crime, Losing a war is

Well, I guess, there is no chance that the USA loses this war. Therefore, if someone is to be tried for the war crimes, these will be Saddam and his government officials.

For what war crimes, steissd? Has the war already -officially- started?

When it starts and when Saddam loses it, he will be tried. For example, for the war crimes committed in course of Irano-Iraqi war. Or for Iraqi Army behavior in Kuwait. Or for treatment the Kurds got. Or for something else, I still am unaware about. He surely will not be hanged without a trial.

If no weapons are found it doesn't mean that there are no weapons. This is a point that will be made forcefully if it comes to it. Weapons don't have to be tangible to serve their purpose these days.

you

I think the question was if there are no weapons not if there are no weapons found.

.
Explain please.

Agree with "You". The preparations to war took so much time that Saddam was able to hide WMD somewhere outside Iraq. In Syria, for example.

I don't think, this was the question, but certainly we can go on guessing.

"Mr. Blix took issue with what he said were Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.

Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to Syria, Jordan or any other country to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/middleeast/31BLIX.html

Walter Hinteler
If you are looking for truth among the present occupant of the White House and his gallery of rogues you will not find it. Truth and the aforementioned are strangers.

I've never intended to do so, au1929.

Do you think that Saddam and Co. are saints and truthlovers, Au1929?

U.S. official: Powell not bringing 'smoking gun' to U.N.UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Secretary of State Colin Powell is not bringing "a smoking gun" against Iraq to the United Nations next week but will have circumstantial evidence to make a convincing case that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, a U.S. official said Thursday.

After all the advance publicity about Powell's visit to the UN and the supposed proof regarding Saddam and WMD's all he has is circumstancial evidence.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-01-30-powell-iraq_x.htm

steissd


Of course not. Not only that I believe he has WMD's squirreled away. However, I also believe the Bush administration are not paragons of truth.

Milosevic was not tried for war crimes for losing the war with the US, but for the tactics he employed in winning his war against his domestic opponents.

aw come on now au1929 we all know that anyone that suspects the Bush & company might be hedging the truth believes Saddam is a saint. its soooo logical.