It is a war crime to aggressively start a war according to both the UN charter and Nuremberg principles that stated that "the supreme war crime is an aggressive war".

We didn't start the war and those that did are not part of the UN nor do theylive by Nuremburg principles.  You are either ignorant, naive, or blinded by your own BDS.

First of all, Little Professor, the No Fly Zone was actually started and enforced by not just the US, but also by France and Britain. France suddenly quit in 1998, because they were at the time climbing back into bed with Saddam.

As for the UN, who as we all know now was also in bed with Saddam (see "oil for food scandal" and "Kofi Annan's son" for starters), a mere year after the UN passed its first resolution, it ordered Saddam to comply with the allies' demand that Saddam move his forces north of the 32nd parallel--tacit approval of the no-fly zones if ever there was one.

Now, as to your "war crimes" nonsense, what about Clinton's non-UN-sanctioned war of choice in Kosovo? As I recall, he started that war in the late 1990s, at the exact same time his Justice Department indicted bin Laden for among other things being in bed with Iraq. And not just Clinton, but all of his Democrat followers, including the 2000 and 2004 Presidential nominees, all said Iraq had WMDs in 1998. 

Do you support Clinton being charged with war crimes?

Oh, and by the way, what planet did you get your "15 thousand dead US soldiers" from? That's hallucinatory stuff you're ingesting there...

 War Criminal Bill Clinton? Belgrade sentences Nato leaders ..." "The presiding judge said an arrest warrant had been issued for the convicted leaders, who include US President Bill Clinton..."

 Jimmy Carter – On Kosovo, New York Times, May 27, 1999

"[Our attack] has been counterproductive, and our destruction of civilian life has now become senseless and excessively brutal... The American-led force has expanded targets to inhabited areas and resorted to the use of anti-personnel cluster bombs. The result has been damage to hospitals, offices and residences of a half-dozen ambassadors, and the killing of innocent civilians... [Our] insistence on the use of cluster bombs, designed to kill or maim humans, is condemned almost universally and brings discredit to our nation."

Prof? It's all about media bias. Mandela said the same thing, Annan was outraged, Michael Moore was beside himself, as was Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon. Same for Clinton and Iraq during the 90s'. But the media did not drag this same outspoken people into the newsroom, in print and into our homes each and every day trying to discredit a president - that remains the larger picture here. The MSM kept Jimmy Carters remarks out of the conversation - simply put - they censored it. 

Sunday, February 9, 2003 Posted: 3:43 AM EST (0843 GMT)
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton said he hopes President Bush gets the support of the United Nations before undertaking any military action against Iraq, but he said international law doesn't require that he do so.
In an exclusive interview Thursday on CNN's "Larry King Live," the former president said he sees a good possibility that the international community will unite to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm.
"I still hope the United Nations can act together on this, and I still think there's a chance we can, and there's still a chance that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and disarm," Clinton said.
He said Bush is "doing the right thing now" by gathering international support, but said he doesn't believe another U.N. resolution is needed to go to war with Iraq.
"As a matter of international law, I don't think it's required," Clinton said.

Hardball Nov. 7, 2005 (notice that date -- still believing it - ya think the media would ever ever repeat this again?) 

MATTHEWS:  What came first do you believe, Senator?  Their desire to go to war or the way they looked at the evidence? 
LEVIN [Senate Democrat Chair of the Senate Inteligence Committee):  I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after Saddam.  They began to—look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way.  That is not in dispute.  There is plenty of evidence of that.

15,000 dead US soldiers? You're tossing out arbitrary dead soldier numbers, why did you stop at 15,000? Reach for the stars and at least use six figures to make it interesting.

Proff: "....Every reasonable person knows that Iraq posed no grave and gathering threat...."

Why did the whole world said he had stockpiles of WMD? It wasn't just the Bush administration saying it. I know though the "war criminal" statements, and most others, can't be used in every conversation otherwise.

Proff: "...the supreme war crime is an aggressive war..."

What's the supreme crime against the United States, when one is the president of the United States? Would it be to sit back and watch and enemy build up an arsenal and let the enemy kill several thousand or more Americans first? I'm more interested and in favor of an American president stepping up to protect his own country, than to satisfy the Socialists,Communists, etc that are the UN and that want nothing more than for the USA to be brought down to the level of their third world societies.

Or Thomas

"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

PT, I have caught tons of flack for saying invading Iraq was not worth the price that we paid. At the same time I do not see what good it does to point fingers on who's wrong. We need to support our troops. I was skeptical of the surge at the beginning, but even the msm are saying the surge is working

You lecture us on critical thinking, but you have shown us quite clearly you cannot draw breath without realclimate.org, Michael Moore, or Thomas Ricks.  Contradictions collapse.

Additionally, you vomit propaganda on the screen at a frantic rate.  (As for "war pig profiteers", you just have a passionate, extreme hatred for anyone who dares make ANY profit for any reason.  As I have pointed out, the B-29s and B-17s that won over REAL tyranny were not built gratis.  So, all of that being said, if you could fill the boardroom of Lockheed-Martin with nerve agent during a meeting and safely watch the results, or could stand on the throat of Boeing's CEO for 10 minutes...how intense, how powerful, will your orgasm be?) 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Botg...deal. You will not find me referring to Bush et al. as evil. I disagree with the majority of his policy decisions and find his personal demeanor intensely irritating. But no, not evil.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte