HE BE ON TRIAL AT THE HAGUE RIGHT NOW FOR WAR CRIMES?
2006-07-24 12:56:45 · 11 answers · asked by Logical Democrat 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
more than likely or the president of this counrty would have taken him out by now... At least he cant be reelected and Jeb has a few years before he can make a run for persident so i think we are finally almost out of the BUSH&T era.
2006-07-24 13:01:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. You wanna know why? Because in order for the Hague to prosicute they have to go and get the prisoner. They are such cowards and chickenshits they will never risk war by going after someone. That is why people like Kim Jung il (North Korea) are not at the Hague right now. It takes guts to get them, and usually it is the USA that does the dirty work of getting the bad guys for the Hague.
Did Pol Pot go before the Hague? Did Stalin? Did Mao? Did Hitler? No.
Another reason Bush would never be charged with war crimes is because he has committed none. The USA is a soveriegn nation and does NOT need the permission from the UN to declare war.
2006-07-24 20:03:23 · answer #2 · answered by jack f 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes i am ashamed of the war crimes being committed to innocent humans and no one is saying anything they hung a few low ranking people who are trained to carry out orders for a few of these crimes when the whole truth comes out as darkness always comes to light Americans will be over incensed by what has,and is going on.
2006-07-24 20:02:29 · answer #3 · answered by pycosal 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ah yes, a question coming from the party of tolerance. You guys are only tolerant if we go with your same belief. If anyone doesn't, we are seen as unsympathetic, homo phobic, a hate monger, etc..
I think your screen name shows how ignorant and one sided you are. Not all republicans are douche bags.
stop your whining and party bashing and go out and make a difference.
Don't forget that your beloved Clinton actually lied under oath and was disbarred for unethical actions, and was in the process to be impeached. That says alot for the democratic party.
2006-07-24 20:08:52 · answer #4 · answered by Swift Ninja 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can picture a scene with people throwing rocks at tanks and burning pictures of his likeness before the coupe. Lets all pray to God (or whoever, its a free country) that this time around we can get some good people to vote for!!!!
2006-07-24 20:03:46 · answer #5 · answered by Porterhouse 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No because if he was the president of a small country he couldn't do what he has done
2006-07-24 20:02:07 · answer #6 · answered by brinlarrr 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depending on the country, he may well have been executed for treason. Only America is so stupid as to let him continue!
2006-07-24 20:00:51 · answer #7 · answered by Debra H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
then he would not be able to do all these that he is doing as a US president. US won't allow him to do that.
2006-07-24 20:03:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
and what would these war crimes be? name one please.....so, my answer is no...he would not be.....when you free 50,000,000 and give them dignity...you don't get charged with war crimes....also, the winning side never is charged, on;y the losing side does.....
2006-07-24 20:03:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
HMMMMM- I WONDER THE SAME ABOUT CLINTON FOR HIS CRAP HE PULLED IN OFFICE. HE SHOULD BE ON TRIAL FOR NEGLIGENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY WALKING AWAY FROM CAPTURING BIN LADEN.
2006-07-24 20:06:06 · answer #10 · answered by Work-N-Hrd-2-Mk-It 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋