2007-04-11 04:38:16 · 16 answers · asked by lavidasigue40 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bush's grandfather funded the Nazi's and as they say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree
2007-04-11 06:01:48 · answer #1 · answered by Chery 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Very interesting that the Bush haters blame the civilian deaths on Bush, personally. I don't think Bush went over there with a plan to kill civilians. The Military now, has killed some civilians. They try their best not to. The insurgents on the other hand intentionally set out to kill civilians. It draws the news people. The death of a US soldier gets page 11, the bombing by a suicide bomber gets front page and all night TV!! The insurgents actually gather bodies of children who were killed in the civilian bombings and transport them to sites of military engagements. They place them on the ground and then call the reporters. When the reporters leave, they load the dead kids up and haul them to the next site. The liberal tree huggers here buy this Bull**** and it causes more military to die there!! The answer to your question is--Bush killed no one, Hitler quite a few but Stalin has them all 10 fold!!
2007-04-11 12:15:26 · answer #2 · answered by grizzlytrack 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What a massively ignorant question!
I'm not a fan of George or the Bush League. Nor did I support the War in Iraq at the time. But to compare him with Hitler is patently dimwitted.
Hitler not only presided over the mass murder of millions of citizens of Jewish heritage, and other dissidents, but he brought on a war which killed both soldiers and civilians in the millions. It is estimated that 300,000 U.S. soldiers alone died in WWII, and that was small in comparison with other nations. Some estimates suggest that over 9 million Russian troops were killed. It had such a devastating effect on the nation that a whole generation of women went without husbands and children without fathers.
Even if we lay total blame for the Iraq war on Mr. Bush (which, at best, he doesn't deserve total credit for, as Saddam clearly earns a great deal of blame), we see about 3000 U.S. troops killed, and the worst estimates of civilian casualties, which may be overly pessimistic, and include far more deaths from terrorist bombings than U.S. involvement, still only totals 67,000.
Compare 70,000 in Iraq against the 55,000,000 estimates for WWII, and see if you can figure out which is bigger.
2007-04-11 12:11:46 · answer #3 · answered by skip742 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You absolute moron. Read up on history and see how many died in WW2. This is a classic, CLASSIC example of how the media is exaggerating the casualties of the Iraq war in order to sell itself.
Ridiculous. Absolutely makes you lose faith in humanity!! Capitalism runs the world, let it be known.
WWII casualties (from wikipedia):
Allied
Military dead:
20,000,000
Civilian dead:
36,000,000
Total dead:
56,000,000
Axis
Military dead:
11,000,000
Civilian dead:
4,000,000
Total dead
15,000,000
Clearly these totals are beyond your comprehension.
And lets not forget that these statistics include the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews by the Nazis.
You CANNOT compare Bush and Hitler.
2007-04-11 12:27:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you can cite an example of how Bush ordered the killing of innocent people, then there might be a comparison.
And the answer is Stalin.
2007-04-11 11:49:30 · answer #5 · answered by dvari 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Planned Parenthood
and all the libs supporting the abortions....
Hitler combined with Bush has nothing on Planned Parenthood
2007-04-11 11:56:18 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Number one and still champion: Stalin
Number two: Mao
Three: Hitler
Four: Pol Pot
In the operations in the War on Terror, US forces have caused minimal civilian casualties. It is the insurgents who are causing the vast majority of civilian deaths, not Bush or the US.
2007-04-11 11:49:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Only the degenerate vermin would even contemplate such a question. You must be product of our great public school education system followed by the liberal university of your choosing. Pull your head out of your *** and get a grip on reality.
2007-04-11 11:52:34 · answer #8 · answered by Dennis S 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
um that would definately be hilter as of yet. but you can't compare bush to hitler because the circumstances are completely different. bush isn't trying to wipe out an entire race. he's trying to save a country. sure it's not going very well at all, but his motives aren't backed by hatred and greed.
2007-04-11 11:48:32 · answer #9 · answered by thunderwear 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
If you are really asking this, then I would be upset with either your public school or the revisionist History Professor at your college
2007-04-11 11:47:07 · answer #10 · answered by garyb1616 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋