Saddam was hanged for killingTurks in his fight for survivalBush& Blair to be hanged also for killing millions

Question

American forces attacked Iraq along with Britain and Australian armies to find out the weapons of mass destruction as they put it. United nations organisation did not authorise this invasion,in fact Bush vetoed the negation and proceeded with the attack.
As a result of the attack thousands of Iraqis have been killed and many more are dying everyday. The weapons of mass destruction have not been unearthed. The very premise for attacking a foregion country has failed. If Saddam can be hanged for killing his own people for political survival,why Bush and Blair should not be tried and hanged for invading Iraq and killing millions and that too against world opinion.Should they not be tried in an international court of law and given the same punishment.
This is a question which needs answers and actions at the international level to prevent recurrence. For example,tomorrow if Kashmir issue is not resolved to Americas wishes it may foolishly launch a misadventur here and kill thousands.

Answer 1

So Bush wants to keep America safe? Illegal invasions and occupations of other countries do exactly the opposite. Now, thanks to Bush, the USA has a very strict border control and home security apparatus...do they doubt so much the efficiency of this system which was used to reduce dramatically the freedom of US citizens to the point where they also need to illegally invade and occupy other countries ?
All of this started with the attacks of September 11. It’s always necessary to remember clearly what happened on this dramatic day of 2001 to fully understand the problem: a handful of terrorists used cutters to take control of airliners and crash them into the twin towers which then collapsed. That was not a foreign country attack by a hostile army. Just less than 10 people with cutters... And for that, reacting only with pure negative emotions out of vengeance and absolutely no rationality, George Bush decided to use the huge American military power to attack and occupy illegally Afghanistan, which army and government was never involved in the twin towers’ attacks, then Iraq, lying by claiming that this country had "weapons of mass destruction".

All of this to allegedly "make America and the middle east safer"...

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that the Middle East not only isn’t safer than before the US invasions, but a much more dangerous place. Both in Afghanistan and Iraq, security is at an all time low.


Bush wanted to "pacify the whole Middle East and solve forever the Palestinian problem"... the result of his criminal policies is that now not only the two invaded countries, Afghanistan and Iraq are more dangerous than ever, not only Palestine is more dangerous than ever, but new countries which were starting to enjoy peace after long deadly civil wars like Lebanon and Somalia are becoming also more dangerous than ever. And that’s just the beginning...
America had never ever been hated by so many people on earth. More than 80 countries on earth are now considered dangerous for American tourists... while before Bush, Americans were admired and welcomed in almost all the world.
Had George Bush opted for a non-emotional, non-violent reaction to September 11, using diplomacy instead of military power. Reacting to September 11 which was only a crime committed by individuals as if it was a military attack by a foreign country was THE mistake committed knowingly by a criminal. George Bush, who just wanted to become the superhero changing the world forever...
September 11 was an attack committed by less than 10 criminals equipped with cutters...it was not a military problem but a police problem. After a criminal bombed a building a few years before in Oklahoma City, the US government did not invade any country but gave the police and Justice the authority to solve the problem, find the criminal and judge him. It should have been the same after September 11. Even if the handful of criminals involved had connections in foreign countries, if was just a matter of police and justice, using interpol, economic sanctions and other non-violent actions to catch the criminals. But Bush opted for violence, his megalomaniac ego wishing to be remembered as a "super hero fighting for the axis of good versus the axis of evil ", and even claiming that "god was talking to him" and inventing this stupid concept of "war on terror"...as if "terror" was an army...There is no such thing. It’s pure invention and lie to play on public negative emotions and justify criminal policies.
Now, what is the result of this paranoid delirium? Did this policy make the world a safer place with less people willing to become terrorists?
It is not even necessary to answer to these questions; the facts speak by themselves...
Everyday hundreds of Muslims in Middle Eastern countries are killed by American soldiers, thousands are humiliated by the same soldiers, and millions in other Muslim countries are humiliated by what happens to the people of the illegally occupied countries without talking of the concentration camp of Guantanamo.
Not only Iraq and Afghanistan are becoming the new Vietnam, but they are the place where more and more people are willing one day to hurt America. The people killed, maimed or humiliated daily by American occupiers, will forever hate America and will try to have revenge.
Middle Eastern people have a very special sense of honour and family. A population killing their daughters just because they have kissed a non-Muslim guy, performing what is called "honour killing" don’t give the same meaning to honour and revenge as Western people. It can survive centuries and pass on from generation to generation. You can see it between Shiites and Sunnies...brothers in Islam but still enemies... And that’s what America had become for them thanks to George Bush’s policy...all these people who lost a member of their families because of American invasion, have been maimed or tortured or imprisoned, or have been humiliated in any way directly or indirectly will hate America forever and look for revenge. It means that even if the criminal invasion and occupation of these countries stop, the police control of American borders will remain very tight trying to avoid revenge acts of terrorist willing to pay back for example the loss of a brother or father in the hands of American soldiers...
If the war on terror never existed, the war of individual terrorists will take a very long time to end. All is needed is an individual motivated by revenge and hatred, taking an airplane ticket with a tourist visa and looking for a way to harm America... and that’s impossible to avoid even with the tightest border controls.
We just have to hope that no more US president will use these crimes, which are a matter of police, to justify illegal invasions and illegal occupations of other countries creating more hatred in a vicious circle of revenge and vendettas.

The only way to save the world is non-violence. I am not a Christian or Muslim but as the Bible says: “the one who makes a living by the sword will die by the sword”... This planet needs more Gandhis and no more Bushes...And it will take them a very long time to heal the wounds created by Bush.

Bush and Blair should be brought to justice and treated as criminals just like Hitler was. Those who agree with Bush's policies have been sold Evil under the name of Good!

Wow...we really need more psychiatrists checking the mental health of presidential candidates before they postulate.

Answer 2

As some are saying, Saddam did not kill Turks. He bombed Kurdish towns (within his own borders) with chemical weapons, killing most of the town’s population. If you do some research on how Saddam (and his sons) terrorized the people of Iraq you will see that a Coalition takedown of the Saddam/Ba'athist Regime was a good thing for the Middle East and the world. Saddam was even considered in some circles as a modern day Hitler, in the way that he repressed and murdered Kurds and the Shia Muslims. All you have to do is talk to Iraqi's that fled that country in fear of the lives and their families lives while Saddam was in power.
Plus, when are people going to learn that the US and its Coalition partners (mainly the UK, Australia and Canada) take more consideration into NOT having collateral damage when bombing or hitting targets than any other nation in the world. The US has not killed millions in Iraq. Check your numbers there, Saddam may have, but not the US. What the US and UK did by going into Iraq, whether WMD was there or not, was for the betterment of Iraq and its people. Iraq is right now in the position to become a great nation and a leading voice of reason in the Middle East if it so chooses. Trying to compare what Saddam (a ruthless dictator) did and what Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair did is like saying a bird and cat are the same.
Just think when you watch the news and see a large group of Iraqi's in the streets of Baghdad or Mosul protesting against something they don't like (whether that be the US or their own government), well they weren't allowed that freedom under Saddam, it may sound like something minuscule, well it isn't to me, they are better off and so is the world.

Answer 3

Millions? We (USA and UK) are the best at killing, we spend millions of dollars and a great deal of survelance to target only military targets. Its funny I just read on Yahoo how the US Military killed 13 Taliban, the operation probably cost us 5 million dollars so we did not shoot an inocent civilian.

Bush is a crook no contest and should be hung not for killing Iraqi's but for lying to the American people and robbing us blind...However is that the signal we want to send outto the World? If we did that we would be no different than any other primative government.

What CHoice did Blair have but to Support us? Blair will go down in History as one of the best leaders of all time.

You are angry and confused. You ae looking for a quick answer and there is not one. Bush did more damage to our country and its reputation in 8 years than has ever been done since 1776. Lets start cleaning up the mess and learn how to avoid it in the future.

Answer 4

Let's be realistic. War crimes, crimes against humanity, etc - they're punishments for those who've failed, not those who've committed something wrong. If every world leader were trailed by the one Saddam was trailed, most of they would be handed too. The most unique thing about Americans is that they've managed to developed selective amnesia. Anything that is unpleasant is simply forgotten. At the start of the war, it seems that everyone in the US know that Saddam massacred his own people. However, few people remembered that less than 15 years ago, the he and the US were allies against Iran and the Soviet Union. Regan sent him helicopters there were for spraying "pesticides" (for humans that is). Then, he fell out of the US's favor and became the demonized figure we know today. No one mentions anymore the schools and roads he built. Those were just too nconvenient. Just remember, it was not what Saddam had done that resulted in his guilty sentence, it was the end of his utility.

Answer 5

First of all you millions have not died. I know that it is difficult to make up lies strong enough to compare Blair to Hitler but sticking with facts always makes you more credible and less a weenie.

I think the UN is by far the most incompetent and corrupt institution in the world. Having Bush and Blair tried for "war crimes" is a great idea. Not only would it be entertaining but in the end the UN would be too incompetent and stupid to do anything about it. I for one would like to see both Bush and Blair ignore twice as many resolutions as Saddam.

Perhaps if Blair and Bush and the leader of India would only follow the example of Saddam Hussein and butcher only those that disagreed with their policies and not carry it out abroad this world would be better. They could round up people like you and your family and torture you and kill you and call it "political survival".

Answer 6

For one Bush and Blair has not killed Millions, Saddam had plenty of time to stop the situation by stepping down as President of Iraq. Saddam was the one who has been killing his own people for years. Bush Sr and Bush Jr have only been looking out for the well being of a country that has been destroyed by its own people. War was declared, and now the war is over. What is going on today is a Police Action. The People whom we are after now is the ones that are keeping Iraq from becoming a free country. Saddam was the one who was gassing the Kurds to test his weapons because he didnt like them and he wanted their land.

Answer 7

you just cant leave everything to God - akband - its time we came out of our little cave of ignorance and superstition and faced the facts in our face. jaypea - I live in Dubai and people here hate Bush. Saddam & Osama Bin Laden are heroes and martyrs here. I'm a Bush hater - i havent got my head chopped off. Maybe the figures given are wrong but the point is - Bush is a criminal and he should be tried for massacre in the International Court of Justice, and so should Ariel Sharon (he ordered the Shattla and Shabila massacre in Palestine)

Answer 8

There are no pleasing some people. If we had done nothing after 9/11 Bush would have been seen as weak. But we DID do something and now Bush is seen as a warmonger.

Give the guy a break!

Answer 9

You are wrong! They save the world from another big WAR!!! Bush and Blair and certainly right in what they have done, a President & a PM know whats correct with such great responsibility on their shoulders.....

We may not even think about the aspects that they would have looked into before taking this decision...

Answer 10

Saddam did not kill any "Turks" he killed Kurds.Your obvious ignorance of the facts is appaling.
Try doing some basic research before posting questions, as it only shows your ignorance of the subjects involved.

Answer 11

Killing Turks? Maybe partially for killing Kurds. He also killed hundreds of thousands of Shiites and Iranians. I don't think he ever messed with Turkey but I may have missed something.