He has admitted his decisions has resulted in the deaths. Saddam is on trial for killing innocent people, Bush ordered this war isn't he just as responsible as Saddam is?
2006-12-21 10:52:02 · 20 answers · asked by Kdude 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
He went to war against a country which had not WMS's yes he did tell us they had them. He is wiretapping American phones he is so whack!! Saddam killed innocent people using his forces. Bush is using his people and killing innocent people too.
Why would I post this someone asked. To start a discussion.
2006-12-21 12:12:31 · update #1
He went to war against a country which had not WMD's yes he did tell us they had them. He is wiretapping American phones he is so whack!! Saddam killed innocent people using his forces. Bush is using his people and killing innocent people too. Why did we stop looking for Osama? He ordered the attacks, we can not even find his sick tired assh. Bus is an embarassment to the great U.S.A.
Why would I post this someone asked. To start a discussion as this fuels thought.
2006-12-21 12:15:39 · update #2
According to the III Nuremberg Principle, Bush is a war criminal
Nuremberg Principles:
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private
2006-12-21 10:55:31 · answer #1 · answered by me 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
find a Congressman with enough courage to look at the EVIDENCE of the government's Official Theory on 9/11. He would find that their conclusions are based on MYTHS not facts. It is appalling to see government officials put so little value on the lives of the people who were murdered by all the CONSPIRATORS.
once he looks at the true facts, he will have no choice but to impeach the President for complicity in destroying the evidence found at the crime scene.
GW Bush promised he would go after every so-called Terrorist no matter where they were hiding... well he hasn't search the White House yet... why not... most evidence leads to government complicity in the murder of 2,800 plus precious souls.
No one should rest until the true enemies are found... not just the guys being framed.
There are a lot of disturbing questions about the Bush administration and 9/11 that are being ignored. Why?
Why is it that people believe it is so wrong to question your government or the President's true motives and actions?
EVERYONE IS ACCOUNTABLE... EVEN THE PRESIDENT!!!
2006-12-21 11:39:10 · answer #2 · answered by lovefights 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do you really believe you will get the answer you seek? Sounds like your mind is already made up. For what it is worth, here is my 2 cents worth. Bush went before Congress before invading Iraq. Fact. The intelligence used to get the approval of Congress was flawed. Fact. To impeach Bush and hold him accountable could only happen if there is proof that he knew the intelligence was flawed, and that by presenting it before Congress, he lied before Congress. That would be impeachable. How you could ever know what Bush either knew and ignored before asking Congress for approval is a tough one. Without the "smoking gun", impeachment could never happen, hence, Bush will never stand trial. Do I personally believe he lied to Congress? Yes. Am I 100% positive? No. It took the mid-term elections to get Bush to even admit mistakes may have been made. If there is proof out there somewhere, it will take a true Patriot to bring it to light. I watched Colin Powell take the same "evidence" of WMD's in front of the UN that Bush brought before Congress. You could see how uncomfortable Powell was, you could see how comfortable Bush was. One was a soldier following his Commander in Chief's orders, the other was a politician. I believe the soldier. Who still has a job?
2006-12-21 11:31:50 · answer #3 · answered by Bob D 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sure Kev. And then lets put Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower, and JFK on trial posthumously as well for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and others.
Logic is a beautiful thing. Use it sometime. I cannot get over the ridiculous comparisons of Bush to Hussein, Hitler, etc. Have you f'ing people lost your frigging minds??
Saddam Hussein was a treacherous dictator who killed, imprisoned, assassinated, gassed his own people. He attacked his neighbors. He was in violation of dozen or so U.N. resolutions. He was in violation of the treaty he signed after the first Gulf War. Where do these comparisons come from? If the mind set of Kevin here is the mind set of the majority of Americans, we might as well throw in the towel now. This fight is over. We are doomed. You people have no concept of history, or of threat posed to your dear freedoms by radical extremist muslims. You know, the freedoms that were guaranteed via WAR!! That's right, a revolutionary war to found tis country. A civil war to right its course. A couple World Wars to defeat past threats to those freedoms!
Wake up and smell your dhimmitude. It's almost ready!
2006-12-21 11:24:39 · answer #4 · answered by thealligator414 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Bush wouldn't go on trial as he is on the winning side of the war. Only the losers are tried for war crimes. Stalin was never tried and it could be argued that some of the atrocities he perpetrated were comparable with those of the nazis.
2006-12-21 14:01:53 · answer #5 · answered by Gerry R 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Kevin for someone looking as old as you surely you can't be that stupid if we use your logic we would have to try every ex president because every one has ended up killing innocent people on different endeavors.
Instead of pretending to ask thought provoking questions just say I hate Bush and be done with it.
2006-12-22 01:43:18 · answer #6 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
President Bush could only be tried for the alleged casualties in Iraq if a Congressman initiates an impeachment case based on solid evidence.
2006-12-21 10:56:54 · answer #7 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Saddam is on trial for killing his own people. Many US presidents have led through a war, and none were tried for the deaths of personnel. The war didn't just happen on a whim because Bush was bored; this was brought on by terrorists who threatened life in the US. By responding to a threat, the president did not purposely kill thousands of people, as Saddam did.
2006-12-21 10:55:50 · answer #8 · answered by Adriana 4 · 3⤊ 5⤋
Attacking another country because you suspect they might attack you is against International law. Today, 8 Marines are being charged, 4 for murder, fighting a battle that is non-conventional and mind altering. They snapped after being attacked by an enemy that wears no uniform. In my opinion, Bush needs to prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Oh, I forgot, he's just representing and doing what God wanted this nation of ours to do! Silly me......Texan by the way.
2006-12-21 11:01:40 · answer #9 · answered by Turnhog 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Should Carter be tried for the taking of the American hostages in Iran? Should LBJ and Nixon have been tried for the nearly 3 million Vietnamese killed? Should Clinton be tried for the deaths in the aspirin factory he bombed?
2006-12-21 11:54:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I think the US has been way too nice. My belief is the opposite of yours. The US should take its que from the great Khans. Restart the draft, double the military size and strength. No rebuilding of nations after a war, lay waste your enemies completely.
2006-12-21 11:00:12 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋