An Outline Whereby ICTY Judges Should Judge Radovan Karadzic By Jill Starr At the end of the day, some three years from now in the final judgment of Radovan Karadzic%u2019s case being tried at the ICTY, and, in morally judging his guilt or innocence insofar as whether he is directly responsible for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and isolated incidents of rape and summary executions during Srebrenica, first and foremost, the ICTY judges have a duty, a %u201DNoblesse oblige%u201D if you will (used to imply that with wealth, power and prestige come responsibilities of morality-even in judging Radovan Karadzic and the other Bosnian Serbs awaiting trials/appeals at the Hague%u2019s highest court), The ICTY judges have an international duty to compare, contrast and analyze the annals of human history of war, torture and war crimes before rendering their judgement in the case. Why? When analyzing rapes, executions, pilgrimages and torture of former wars,even dating back as far as Medieval Times, cases in point: American soldiers in Vietnam, the Roman Catholic Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition in which women were sexually tortured and burnt alive at the stake, as well as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal recently in Iraq, we discover that the soldiers guilty of these monstrous acts, are themselves guilty and should be tried and sentenced, HOWEVER, one can not rationally say that for instance President Bush was directly responsible for the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq merely owing to the matter of fact he was the United States President at that time. By the same token we can not reasonably conclude Radovan Karadzic is directly responsible and guilty for the crimes against humanity lower level Serb soldiers committed against Muslims in Srebrenica. For the American and international news media to at this premature point in time to try swaying everyone watching it daily insofar as the Karadzic case, and for this media to daily pronounce Karadzic%u2019s so-called %u201Dguilt%u201D saying %u201Dhe is responsible for the crimes that in actuality, may or may have not occurred at Srebrenica,%u201D even before the evidence and trial has even taken place and been presented; is morally wrong and illegal in and of itself. This entire judgement remains murky and leaves a tremendous %u201Dreasonable doubt%u201D hanging over whether Radovan Karadzic is directly responsible for ordering executions in Srebrenica.  View

Maybe if Bush had taken a little more time making a decision about Iraq, we wouldn't have invaded on false pretenses. Props to Obama for taking his time even in the midst of scrutiny.  View

Of course Tony Blair is the right man for the job. For ALL sorts of reasons, not the least of which is that with him in that position Britain will AT LAST take its rightful place as a full-hearted member of the EU. After more than half a century of prevaricating it is about time! I don't accept the anti-war/anti-Blair argument that Iraq is Blair's weakness. I believe the opposite. It is and was his strength. Difficult to prove, of course, but since Saddam HAD used WMDs on his own people and on Iran, and since he DID have plans to continue that development, the outlook if he had been left in place would not have been good. Israel was in his sights. And with any ongoing Iran/Iraq/Israel confrontations and the present "government" in Iran who knows where it would all have led? As it is Iraq is a far, far better place than it was before the invasion. If you are only concerned about body counts, and I realise some are, even though most of the bodies were produced by insurgents, I realise this will never satisfy you. But Blair made the right decision with the wider political picture clear in his mind, imho. The EU presidency will NOT be decided by the leaders of the 27 on Iraq. They KNOW that Blair and Bush were probably right, and most of them, over 20 of the 24 then EU members went into Iraq with Blair & Bush. The decision for President may well be made for other political reasons, many and varied. But Merkel needs to remember that if she fancies the job herself when she leaves office, it might only be worth having if Blair shapes it into the powerful role in the world it needs to be. We do not need a mousy unknown character as EU, while a superstar waits in the wings. Thanks for the video, btw. I have linked to this page at my blog: http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/eu-president-meet-the-candidates-tony-blair/  View

I wish I knew what the job description of this new role looked like. Does Iraq even matter?  View

Francisco got it right in one - Iraq. Blair is untrusted - ney despised, by 50% of the UK populace and is seen by many of those and others in Europe as having ignored public and UN opinion in going to war. Crucially, he went to war on the flimsiest of justifications: Weapons of Mass Destruction which have never been found in Iraq. The pother key issues as far as the EU is concerned are that Blair did not bring the UK into the Euro and its populace is probably at least 50% Eurosceptic. None of the above look good on Blairs EU CV.  View

If this were a popular election I would think Blair's involvement in Iraq would be an issue, but it's not and it's not.  View

Actually, the Brokaw comment about this being a NATO issue and the fact that it's not just a lawmaker reality is very true. I truly appreciate President Obama and his commitment to the American people, but I do think this decision needs to be made. We don't want to get into another Iraq slump where the war just slugs on and on.  View

We should never forget the Afgan and Iraq wars, we should never forget Guantanamo Prison atrocities. We should never forget that America has its own interest to care of all the time, thus meddling in the world affairs is the only way to take care of its interests.  View

If only Bush invaded Iran instead of Iraq, he could have exploited them economically, disrupted their way of life, AND have actually found the makings for WMDs.  View

When you go to war, to win: you must destroy the enemies economy, structure, kill their people, make them all feel the hurt untill they surrender. Going in an playing it nice like we have been is not war, it is a giant FAIL Therefore, since both the current and former administrations have made it clear they are taking the later, softer, approach, we cannot win. Without detailed goals and a defined enemy, there is no "mission accomplished", so we should just get out and save the money. In 2003 my unit was given the order to shoot anyone wearing sneakers (since the ones attacking usually wore sneakers instead of sandals so they could flee), and we took down Iraq's army at the speed of light. Since then, we have blocked our ability to win with extensive rules of engagement that basicly say you can't shoot unless already shot at. There was one point, during my units last deployment, where we were told if they shoot at you but then drop their weapon and flee into a crowd you could not persue them. Politicians tie the hands of our soldiers. Time to come home.  View