Do any of you think that our President is about as guilty for war crimes as Hussein, or Hitler.? Now I didn't say what I actually believe, but, wanted a intelligent unbiased to the way I think answer. We can argue constructivly is that fair?
2006-12-31 14:50:47 · 13 answers · asked by wrichard1 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Senate released a bi-partisan report that the intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq was falsified intentionally as to WMDs and Iraq's connection to 9/11 and Al Qeada. The making of aggressive wars is a crime according to the Nuremburg Trials. Bush is also guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
2006-12-31 15:03:57 · answer #1 · answered by jy9900 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure it's fair. It's not fair tho to Bush to be lumped in with the other two. The liberals and the liberal media have taken the liberty to do this. They point their fingers at him saying he's the cause of such and such numbers of lives lost in Iraq. What they fail to mention is they are all for abortion which takes up to 1500 babies a day and about 30 million since the 1970's. So they are taking more lives than all the lives lost in all our wars combined! How is that for constructive arguments?!
2006-12-31 15:01:25 · answer #2 · answered by Brianne 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You can compare Hitler with the following ones:
1.Bush
2. Bush family
Bush is guilty for killing thousands of people, he took the U.S. to war, he cheated to the people in the U.S.
He played with the lives of North Americans.
He is a terrorist.
That is your new Hitler, but he doesn´t have a mustache.
2006-12-31 14:56:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
according to the Geneva Convention:
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
it goes on and on....so yes
2006-12-31 14:54:28 · answer #4 · answered by bigbruth 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
well, I don't think that our president (my commander in chief) would order our military to intentionally kill innocent, there's a difference if someone tells you kill innocent, and those that tell you to protect yourself (and country) and the innocent end up a casualty of war
.....edit........ to javier c- bush did not kill those troops, the enemy did. I'm pretty sure if the president killed our military (you know, went up and shot them, or set of explosives-what the enemy is doing) we'd know about it. Our military have not died by the hand of the president
2006-12-31 14:58:42 · answer #5 · answered by ur a Dee Dee Dee 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Because he said the reason for invading Iraq was WMD.
Thats was lie
If he said to capture Saddam none would support his crazy idea
2006-12-31 14:57:33 · answer #6 · answered by Black_girly 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes I do because he is the head of the military so when one of his branches committs crimes against the people or POW he should be responsible for not taking action before the media outed it.
2006-12-31 14:53:02 · answer #7 · answered by Pantherempress 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, I don't. Bush can't be compared to Hussein or Hitler. All you have to do is study history.
2006-12-31 15:00:36 · answer #8 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The extremists and the paid shills on this board will sling mud at you for even suggesting that their Golden Boy is anything but angelic. Just gotta ignore them and move on.
2006-12-31 14:53:20 · answer #9 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I respect your question, you are just simply stating your opinion on the subject but i agree. some of the choicess bush has made aren't all that smart but that's all i'm going to say just in case, don't want to start a fight.
2006-12-31 14:54:07 · answer #10 · answered by Emma 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋