Why shouldn't we hold Bushitler responsible for the 655,000 Iraqis who have died in his war of aggression?

Question

If Saddam was in power, they would be alive right now.

vegaswoman, he IS likened to Hitler because he DID launch an aggressive war against a non-threatening country. Congress did not act - the President did.

articchick, failing to compare Bush to Hitler is a rude slap in the face to anyone who lost a loved one in the Iraq war. They are just as dead, for just as evil a reason.

arcticchick, Iraq NEVER had any treaty with us, setting up the no-fly zone was an illegal act by US, and the UN didn't approve Bush's war. Iraq was trying to defend itself within the confines of international law - unfortunately it failed.

Answer 1

Hitler was a socialist , Democrat...

Answer 2

LHFP, I think you know that I respect you, even though we disagree on EVERYTHING, but I really have to call BS on comparing Bush to Hitler. What a rude slap in the face to anyone who lost a loved one in the Holocaust.

Is Bush perfect? Good God, NO! But Hitler? Come on.

The mercenaries at Gitmo have their religious dietary needs meet. Hitler wasn't so kind - he starved people to death.

The mercs have full access to their religious texts. Do you think Hitler was nearly as accommodating?

The mercs have GAINED WEIGHT at Gitmo. Again, Hitler liked to starve people. Pretty big difference, wouldn't you say?

The mercs are at Gitmo because they are mercs. Mercenaries are not covered by the Geneva Convention. They were not Afghani military, they were fanatics from all over the Middle East who were in Afghanistan to kill Americans. That does not make them the Afghani army.

Hitler singled out the Jews, the handicapped, the homosexuals.....anyone who didn't fit the Aryan ideal. Bush has not singled out anyone for genocide. If you have a credible source that states otherwise, I would really like to see it.

A non-aggressive country?!? Were they being non-aggressive when they broke their treaties with us? The cease-fire? No-fly zone?

Or was Saddam being non-aggressive when he basically told the useless UN to piss off through 17 failed resolutions in12 years??

Answer 3

Oh how glorious a day that would be! I despise living in these times of blatant hypocrisy. For the sake of justice on a global scale, every participant that has slaughtered (latest data brings number closer to one million) these innocents, lied for profit of war, the grand designers ( Huston Oil Cartel) co ordinated by Dick Cheney's energy task force, to the lying cheerleaders for corporate media, whom with out their preaching and rallying to pentagon propaganda fed to them, with out doing a single fact check (so they say. I never owned nor used a computer until 2004, yet was well informed and Knew all the major networks were not only lying but suppressing vital truth. All I had in my arsenal was my library card.
Justice! Living in a world where the ruling elite operate with impunity is destroying the fabric of our lives. America has sacrificed blood, Yreasure, Reputation, Trust, Good Will, Guilt of lost lives, minds futures and the hope of generations to come. We will never be able to begin to heal on a national level until Accountability and Justice are served. All creditabilty is lost. How can these same people run our domestic Justice system? By what authority now can they pass judgement, convict, and sentence a petty theif to a mass murderer, their crimes are too much grander. How can a Nation have liberty or any form of Democracy with out Justice. NOT Vengance. Justice and clear enforcable laws, where justice is meted out fairly. The wronged are righted weather they Paupers or Kings.....Mary

Answer 4

Lancet Iraq Study Flawed: Death Toll Too High
Friday, 20 October 2006, 10:36 am
Press Release:
Lancet Study Fundamentally Flawed: Death Toll Too High
October 19, 2006 – 1 page –
For immediate release:

Researchers at Oxford University and Royal Holloway, University of London have found serious flaws in the survey of Iraqi deaths published last week in the Lancet.

Sean Gourley and Professor Neil Johnson of the physics department at Oxford University and Professor Michael Spagat of the economics department of Royal Holloway, University of London contend that the study’s methodology is fundamentally flawed and will result in an over-estimation of the death toll in Iraq.

->The study suffers from "main street bias" by only surveying houses that are located on cross streets next to main roads or on the main road itself. However many Iraqi households do not satisfy this strict criterion and had no chance of being surveyed.

->Main street bias inflates casualty estimates since conflict events such as car bombs, drive-by shootings artillery strikes on insurgent positions, and market place explosions gravitate toward the same neighborhood types that the researchers surveyed.

->This obvious selection bias would not matter if you were conducting a simple survey on immunisation rates for which the methodology was designed.

->In short, the closer you are to a main road, the more likely you are to die in violent activity. So if researchers only count people living close to a main road then it comes as no surprise they will over count the dead.

During email discussions between the Oxford-Royal Holloway team and the Johns Hopkins team conducted through a reporter for Science, for an article to be published October 20, it became clear that the authors of the study had not implemented a clear, well-defined and justifiable methodology. The Oxford-Royal Holloway team therefore believes that the scientific community should now re-analyze this study in depth.

Answer 5

He is not likened to Hitler, this was not a war of agression and I want to see your proof that all those Iraqis would still be alive. I want facts not outrageous statements. There is no need to hold him repsonsible. He acted on the same info that Congress acted upon.

Answer 6

So are you making up numbers now .. where did you get 655k Iraqi's? The only source I find is a washinton post article anad that one is saying everyone who has died for any reason.
Every other source I see shows at the most 1/10 that number.

Answer 7

Do NOT compare Bush to Hitler,you moron.It's not a 'slap in the face' to fail to make that comparison.When did Bush order the killings of 6 million?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/11Myths.htm#1

Answer 8

Mainly because that figure grossly overestimates the approximately 50,000 Iraqis who have actually died.

Further, even if you trust that figure, the same debunked report said that 69% of those deaths were not caused by Coalition Forces.

Bu don't let facts bog you down.

Answer 9

Oh Saddam was a saint. He didn't hurt or gas or torture his people. How many thousands died under his rule? You really think that Bush killed them, not the nuts that believe if they blow themselves up God would hook them up with virgins?
I love freedom of speech.

Answer 10

Fine.

then Clinton should be sent to prison for the killings in Somalia and Bosnia.

Answer 11

Where did you get that figure from? I understand that millions have been displaced, but your death toll seems extremely high.
By the way, you aren't suggesting that those people were all killed by American troops are you?

You know people who confront lies with lies really concern me. What's the difference between them and the liars that they profess to despise?