What are considered war crimes?

Any act committed in war time that constitutes a breach of International Law.

Some examples are killing or deliberate harm to civilians, using hostages, deliberate damage to property (except as a direct result of combat); refusing quarter to a surrendering enemy, or killing prisoners after a surrender.

War is a fairly criminal activity in itself, but nations have tried to establish standards of behavior, and have agreed to various treaties defining war crimes. Before WWII, people agreed that non combatants should be spared executions, imprisonment, slave labor, genocide or ethnic cleansing. Civilian targets like hospitals, churches, museums, schools, etc. were off limits, though not military bases, forts, power plants, police stations, etc. Some weapons were also banned after WWI, such as chemical weapons. WWII was a total war, and all sides openly waged total war. This was a backwards step, but most people still consider non combatants off limits. Genocide is still considered a war crime.

Lot of rants on this one. In general, it is gross acts of killing or destruction that go above and beyond what is part of a war. It's kind of a judgment call, because maybe bombing a factory which kills a bunch of people is militarily sensible if they are manufacturing necessary parts like transmissions or something - and even "regular" war is full of horrible acts, killing, and destruction, so - a big part of war crimes is who is doing the accusing. But then, some things are so obviously wrong and unnecessary - like the Holocaust - that no one would dispute them.

the USA is not signed up to international law it frequently abuses it because it can it has a huge bomb and will kill you if you complain it has killed Millions of humans since WW2 interfering in other peoples civil wars no one interfered in theirs it is a monster war crimes mean nothing Hiroshima was NECESSARY and so will we all be if it finds it necessary its the human race gone bad like the Nazis

a rather stupid post "oracle of omigid" - saddam hussein didnt HAVE nuclear weapons

"why do people think Bush was a war criminal for invading Iraq"

Here's why

there are only 3 legal reasons for attacking a nation under international law

1) you are under actual attack from that nation

2) you are under imminent threat of being attacked by it ("imminent" = within a few days)

3) there is a UN resolution authorising you to attack it (the UN do not use the actual words "attack it" They authorise the use of "whatever means necessary" to endure the nation complies with a previous UN resolution"

(AND the only thing they authorise you to do is ensure the country complies with UN resolution authorising "whatever means necessary" to make the country comply with it

THATS why Bush (snr) stopped when Iraq was forced out of Kuwait - cos THAT was the ONLY thing the UN resolution authorised

It did NOT authorise him to invade Iraq)

At NO time did Bush (jnr) have any of these reasons - THAT made it a war crime and him a war criminal

A country can "threaten" as much as it likes - If YOU want to attack it 1st YOU have to have substantial evidence ITS gonna actually attack YOU in a couple of days (and remember - its gonna be going to attack YOU - not some other country)

(And ALL UN resolutions have the phrase "The UN will remain seized of the matter" at the end of them

THIS means the UN decides if the nation has complied with the resolution

NO nation has the authority to make that decision for it

Both Bush(jnr) and Bliar(UK) attacked Iraq on the basis that it had flouted previous UN resolutions

NEITHER the US nor the UK had the authority to make that decision ONLY the UN security council had (and there are 15 countries members of the security council)

NOWHERE did the UN authorise the use of "whatever means necessary" to ensure Iraq complied with those resolutions

Hans Blix was the head of the UN team searching Iraq for WMD just before the US/UK attacked it

HE reported to the UN security council that he had not found ANY evidence of WMD weapons (including nuclear) and Iraq was cooperating fully with his team - So THAT made both Bush and Bliar liars cos they stated he DID have weapons AND was hindering the searches

Both him and his team were forced to leave Iraq cos the US/UK attacked it

Nothing seemingly. If Gina Haspel can be a free woman after all she has done, no crime is too extreme for a politician to commit.

I can tell you one thing that is not considered war crimes except for people with an agenda. That is misjudging the capabilities of a foreign nation who is threatening war. For instance, Saddam Hussein threatened to use battlefield nukes if the United States invaded Iraq, and his own generals were petrified that he would use them on a battlefield and kill everybody on both sides. If he had his own generals convinced he had him, why do people think Bush was a war criminal for invading Iraq?

Just search "U.N definition of war crimes", that will give your a comprehensive answer