I know he won't be. But I think that he should be. One of the worst mass murderers of the modern era. Put Rumsfeld, Abrams, Wolfowitz and Cheney in the defendant's chairs right next to him...
2007-08-15 19:48:37 · 24 answers · asked by Steve-O 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
3800 dead Americans
hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, 3 million or more refugees
For those who say there's no justification...do you really think the "mission accomplished" banner wasn't thought out ahead of time? This whole war was a political stunt, a "splendid little war" that went terribly awry.
2007-08-15 20:06:37 · update #1
angry right wingers all over Yahoo Answers tonight...
What specifically should he be charged with?
Indiscriminate slaughter (massive civilian deaths through US air campaigns)--this failure to separate non-combatants from combatants is the basis of most war crimes judgments.
Use of chemical weaponry (phosphorous munitions used in siege of Fallujah, admitted to by US Marine Corps)
Waging a war of aggression (pointed out by some that this was one of the crimes at the Nuremburg trials)
If we can't hold our own accountable...what basis do we have for judging others? Bush is as bad as Saddam Hussein.
2007-08-15 20:11:09 · update #2
sfaa:
Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So I don't see the point to your answer.
And yes I feel bad for those people too. If we're going to live in a more peaceful world, we have to hold all of those who murder the innocent to justice.
2007-08-15 20:30:59 · update #3
Interestingly, one of the reasons for indictment at the Nuremberg War Trials was "waging a war of aggression." Had the Nuremberg laws been applied to Bush, Cheney, and their various hangers-on, they would all be dangling at the end of a rope.
2007-08-15 20:02:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
There are some weak minded bush supporters here today. Just have a look at what he has actually done.
The invasion was illegal in the first place. His stupidity has destablised not only the immediate region but the whole world. By removing a head of state, no matter whether you agree with them or not leaves a power vacuum and many small would be despots try to take control.
You shouldn't be surprised at the response of the opposition, if you poke a hornets nest, you're likel;y to get stung
2007-08-15 20:24:41 · answer #2 · answered by Nemesis 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There should be no such thing as "war crimes." War is a ruthless battle that shouldn't have rules. Rules are the reason we are having such trouble. The enemy doesn't play by the rules so why should we. Do what needs to be done regardless of the intense severity.
2007-08-15 21:38:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
the place do you get this rubbish? Are you incredibly attempting to declare that the yank President is to blame of all this? What relating to the folk we are battling? How properly do you think of they're abiding by potential of the Geneva convention? Your question is an absurd humorous tale and your loss of sophistication is disgraceful. SO - I think of which you anti- conflict supporters think of we are shooting at stable style-hearted harmless human beings over in Iraq now - good?
2016-10-15 12:30:14 · answer #4 · answered by finnigan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They have a different system of justice and wear a Teflon coating. Perhaps the George W. Bush Library should be demolished before its completed. They are building an Aircraft Carrier to be named after Bush Senior. Perhaps they will name it, "A thousand points of light".
2007-08-15 20:31:38 · answer #5 · answered by liberty11235 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
One of the worst mass murders of the modern era was on September 11th, 2001. Islamic terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four airlines. Two airplanes, with the passengers still on board, struck the World Trade Center in New York, one airplane per tower. 2,947 people died in the attacks. These people's deaths meant nothing to their attackers. They were merely a political expression. A number. They were tools. These people had done nothing to warrant the attack. They were killed not because of who they were, but because of what they were, Americans. They all left family and friend's behind to mourn a tragedy they couldn't understand.
2,947 innocent civilians dead. 2,947 innocent civilians deliberately attacked. 2,947 innocent civilians murdered. 2,947 Americans dead.
Where's your outrage at that? You make me sick.
2007-08-15 20:27:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. You can't hold it against him that millions of people have had to suffer because of his decisions. Although, his cronies such as Cheney and Rumsfeld look like pretty good candidates not only because they orchestrated the war but also encouraged and approved the horrendous actions that followed it.
2007-08-15 20:04:35 · answer #7 · answered by presidentwilly 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Try and think for yourself. Get your news from more than just the places you like the answers. Would Harry S. Truman have been convicted? (He's the guy who dropped nuclear weapons on Japan). Don't allow yourself to be dumbed down by people who hate the president.
2007-08-15 19:58:18 · answer #8 · answered by blather 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You got to be f**king kidding me you dip$h!t...?
You have no f**king clue do you?
Its idealist like you who are more of threat to humanity.
You are like to those weak leaders and judges who hand out light sentences to criminals and sex offenders. People like you always want to go after those who have strong will and decisive and determine to take a stand.
Look inside...you know that is the truth about you.
What do you...suffer from low self esteem?
2007-08-15 20:10:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
And what specifically has he done that qualifies as a war crime?
I know.. I know.. you hear somebody say it once and you thought it was catchy. And you never bothered to look into the matter because you hate thinking for yourself. It's ok, you're a liberal.. that's what we expect of you.
2007-08-15 20:02:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋