I keep racking my brain on why people think Bush should be treated as if he is war criminal? I don't like him...but he is not "offing" people like Hitler. How about the nations in Africa killing their own people by the hundreds of thousands and we sit and do nothing. Well, we did try in the 1990 in Somalia...but, that didn't work. And the UN doesn't care either.
2007-08-07 09:12:51 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
To those saying he is...Bush is not resposible for killing those people...claiming over hundreds of thousands dead. The stupid insurgents are killing. Our soldiers probably contributed to about 1,000 or more innocent lives during this WAR. It is a WAR. People die....but, we are not actively killing people. We are triyng to secure a place that is in civil disarray.
2007-08-07 09:27:38 · update #1
good point
2007-08-07 09:15:59 · answer #1 · answered by austinblnd 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
He preemptively attacked another country without provocation. (For the slow people out there who still don't get it, the 9/11 attack had nothing to do with Iraq.) His decisions have led to the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Oh, and treating torture laws and Geneva Convention rules as "quaint" artifacts that he can ignore at will, can't forget that. How are these things not criminal?
And don't give me the WMD BS story. Bush and his people knew they were manipulating whatever shoddy, out-of-date intelligence they had when they weren't fabricating it outright.
There's been enough of the story revealed to know that the WMD argument was nothing but a flimsy pretext for a war Bush had been planning long before he sold a false connection between Iraq and 9/11 through propaganda.
Bush is a war criminal, but it's not like he's the lone U.S. president to be one. I'll give you that much. The Mexican-American war and Spanish American wars weren't exactly above board, either.
"It's the insurgent's fault, not the U.S. Military's under the command of Bush."
Really? Do ya think there would be any insurgents if we hadn't started this war in the first place? Who destabilized the region leading to chaos and insurgency? Hmmmm?
2007-08-07 09:16:17 · answer #2 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
The whole reason why people make up rumors about Bush is that they just need to get a hobby. All they want is to blame someone else for there own problems. When hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans most of the people wined and complained for brand new houses when they lived in pieces of crap they called houses, and they started blaming Bush. People just need to give Bush a break.
2007-08-07 09:33:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think Bush is a lot of things. But like you, I don't see him as a war criminal. Usually war criminals commit acts of unspeakable proportions such as genocide, using WMDs, direct attacks against civilians, and mass torture. War criminals like Hitler and Idi Amin make Bush seem like Gandhi. While the Bush administration has been criticized for its policies on torture, I don't believe that it justifies him being labeled as a war criminal.
2007-08-07 09:23:29 · answer #4 · answered by Lemondrop 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes Bush is a war criminal because he "we" invaded a country for no true real reason, he is getting our people killed for nothing. And causing more of the world population to hate and distrust use as a nation.
2007-08-07 09:19:01 · answer #5 · answered by zipper 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, Bush isn't a criminal. If he was, they would have to indict most of Congress along with him.
I think he is a tool of the neocons, which ultimately makes him look the fool, especially considering the mess the US is in from the Iraq invasion.
2007-08-07 09:17:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
A war criminal would have to order genocide, directly or indirectly, and that is not what is happening. We are trying to build a government in Iraq, and letting them do it themselves, that is not the behavior of war criminals in the slightest. I don't understand where this war criminal idea comes from either.
2007-08-07 09:18:59 · answer #7 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There's a big difference between being grossly incompetent and being a war criminal. Bush is very incompetent, but not a criminal.
2007-08-07 09:17:54 · answer #8 · answered by PoliSciFi 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I do not think he is a war criminal any more than I think Bill Clinton is a Traitor.
2007-08-07 09:16:05 · answer #9 · answered by Monte T 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It's a mental illness called "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Either that or they are a low enough watt lightbulb to be able to see a lie.
2007-08-07 09:19:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Of course he is a War Criminal.
White phosphorous on children? Depleted Uranium bombs that will deform children for generations to come? Publicly advocating torture on innocent citizens which were snatched off the streets for the REWARD MONEY OFFERED BY AMERICANS? Going into war with NO PLAN WHATSOEVER???
Here are some pictures of what Depleted Uranium does to children:
http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/deplet...
**************************
Here are some pictures of what white phosphorous does - which we dropped freely in Iraq:
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix....
********************************
I hope he swings from a rope for High Treason.
2007-08-07 09:17:54 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋