Hitler invaded all of Europe, slaughtered 6 MILLION people based on religion, and this was ON PURPOSE.
Bush invaded two COUNTRIES rather than an entire CONTINENT, and has killed only about.....100,000 civilians, and this was NOT on purpose. As with any war you expect at least some civilian casualties. This has all happened in about the same amount of time (take a couple years).
2006-10-27 12:20:13 · 21 answers · asked by The Crow 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Okay, elaboration time: the purpose of war is not to kill civilians, and in NO way should it be thought so. Bush did give reasons: First of all, Iraq was led by a dictator, although that was not one reason, that's just something bad that was fixed; anyway, second of all, Iraq was a known harborer of Osama. Third of all: Afghanistan is known to be one of his hiding places and is run by terrorists (yet again, the second thing was just a problem that is being fixed).
2006-10-27 12:30:43 · update #1
Okay, another thing that is dis-information: The war was for oil. Let me tell you: IT WAS NOT!!!! This war cost us more than the oil would replace, so even if at first it was for oil, it is definitely not now, okay? And second of all: if you even dare to say that the new government is gonna give us all the profits: bull!!! You got something wrong with your head
2006-10-27 12:34:27 · update #2
"Bush only killed....""NOT on purpose" Apparently you missed the second part Carol. I'm not going to say that Bush is a bad person for accidentally killing civilians, because he doesn't TRY to kill civilians. As with any war, civilians get caught in the crossfire, they get hit with bombs, Bush is not the only one to blame if this happens, because there are many advisors to him that he takes advice from. If he's to blame, then they are too.
2006-10-27 12:54:30 · update #3
Because they can't debate rationally so they must stick to insults. They don't understand his policies, so I wouldn't put much thought into what 3 year olds have to say about politics
2006-10-27 12:23:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
First of all, I never heard that people were equating Bush with Hitler, So if they are, they are very ignorant people. Hitler DELIBERATELY killed millions of people; Bush didn't invade to purposely kill anybody. In the first place; it's the insurgents doing all the killing. So we're blaming Bush because we're there? I think people should go back a few years, study how all this came about, and TRY to understand why we are there. We're not there to TAKE OVER THEIR COUNTRY!!!!! Why do people continually keep saying we are???
2006-10-27 19:30:04 · answer #2 · answered by Nancy D 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think Bush is an idiot but I wouldnt equate him with Hitler!
PLUS, people have to realize that yes, he is the leader of our country, but he has SO many advisors and things that its not all on him when something goes wrong.
2006-10-27 19:28:52 · answer #3 · answered by fooluvver 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i got problems with what ur sayin here, ill list them:
1. Bush invaded two countries? Well Hitler did too before Europe came in.
2. Bush did kill all of those civilians on purpose, its called "War" (look it up)
3. Hitler invaded countries for a reason (retarded as it was). Bush gives no reasons, so youre right he's not Hitler, he's worse!
2006-10-27 19:24:34 · answer #4 · answered by sur2124 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I really dont know why some people equate Bush to Hitler. Hitler, after all, was liked among his people, and when he used military force he knew how to win. And Hitler never made stupid comments on camera. And while Hitler was in power Germany had a stable economy and an empowered middle class.
2006-10-27 19:55:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I agree with u they can not be compared at all, Bush is just too much worse because he kills innocent civilians out of oil and argues God told him to do so! He shouldn't name God unless he asks for forgiveness
2006-10-27 19:28:36 · answer #6 · answered by me 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think its wrong to equate Bush with Hitler.
I must admit, I'm not a "fan", but it's still wrong.
And we're doing this war so we get our oil, instead of letting some terrorists getting to it.
And, yes, war kills people. But were those people drafted? Most weren't.
2006-10-27 19:28:54 · answer #7 · answered by → bridget ♫ 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
only about.....100,000 civilians? So your saying it's only a matter of degree? How do you invade a country NOT on purpose?
2006-10-27 19:24:57 · answer #8 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I support Bush. That website previeously posted is b.s.
I want to cry when I see how Americans are so divided and would do anything to get the next big story and to get thier 15 minutes of fame.
Also, WTF is this about 100,000 civilians??? Do we just sit back and let nations like Iran march thier streets on a regular basis chanting, "Death to America", burn our flags, burn other symbols of America, and call Americans devils.
What would happen if WE marched on Washington D.C. burning Iranian flags, chanting we hate Iran, and threatening them publicly?
2006-10-27 19:50:23 · answer #9 · answered by Tim 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
has he only killed about.....100,000 civilians?? only that much?
He is such a nice and loving person that he should be compared to Mother Theresa instead of Hitler, don't u think?
I mean come on! Hitler killed more people...
PS: r u being sarcastic or did u really mean to ask such a nonsense, if that is the case, please GET A LIFE!
2006-10-27 19:42:55 · answer #10 · answered by Carol 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Look, I'm not too fond of Pres. bush but I don't run around equating him to Hitler. These people that do are just ignorant.
2006-10-27 19:30:26 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋