Those other leaders INSTANTLY would've thrown him under the bus for being the world's worst mass-murderer since Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Tse-Tung. Without hesitation, I'm sure. They'd have wanted nothing to do with him or Cambodia.
They had a SIMILAR person in their midst this last week. GW Bush -- the worst mass-murderer the world has seen since Pol Pot. Responsible for the deaths of **at least** 100,000 innocent Iraqis. So WHY didn't they reject BUSH, just as the almost surely would've rejected Pol Pot? Greed? Hypocrisy?
And who are WE to whine to them about human rights, when we have a President who doesn't give a flying rat's patoot for them?
2007-09-09 04:31:11 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A bit of fine-tuning -- Most of those Iraqis would NOT have died if not for BUSH having activiated the mechanisms for their destruction, with his illegal INVASION of Iraq. Bush was the decider... and the implementer... of their doom. Making him the worst mass-murderer since Pol Pot.
2007-09-09 04:50:43 · update #1
To "conranger1" -- GW Bush is the worst mass-murderer the world has seen **SINCE** Pol Pot. **At least** 100,000 **innocent** Iraqis have died, thanks to him. FAR more than Saddam ever killed. (And besides the 100,000 innocent Iraqis who've died thanks to Bush, there have been a comparative handful of non-innocent ones. The vast majority have been innocent.
2007-09-09 05:32:58 · update #2
The USA has never had a more loathsome "president" than Bush. It would have been wonderful if all the others at that conference had outright rejected him as a war criminal! And been very public about it. Too bad they didn't!
2007-09-09 17:16:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sorry to say G.W.B. has not been proved to be running mass extermination camps in the USA or killing off anybody who had a career as an Academic, Doctor, Teacher, etc etc and trying to remove America back to the time of pre-technology.
I think you will also find that Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin racked up far higher body counts than G.W.B. so that would make them even bigger mass-murders than your alleged 100,000 innocent Iraqi's.
The idea that every Iraqi person who has died in Iraq as being "innocent" is certainly not provable by the likes of the criminally insane and the ignorant like yourself.
By your definition it was better to leave a despot like Saddam Insane in place, a man who had no qualms about the gassing of hundreds of thousands of Northern Iraqi Kurds, men, women, and children.
And a man who had no problems with funding Islamic terrorists as well.
So if your rant is over off you go to your rubber room and take your medicine like a good little boy.
2007-09-09 05:00:39 · answer #2 · answered by conranger1 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You and Pol Pot have something in common. Disinformation campaigns. The Shining Path, Pol Pot and the Communist killed over three million in Laos, Cambodia and S. Vietnam when the Democrat Congress refused to fund the troops causing our withdrawal from Vietnam.. North Vietnam was ready to sue for peace and this action by the Dems emboldened the North to hold out longer. Some of the same Dems are still in Congress and are trying to hand America a defeat in Iraq only for political gain with the far left extremist just like they did in 72.
Additional: It was the policy made by Bill Clinton to remove Saddam from power. Bush just did what Clinton would not because of his pandering to the Moslem vote. Less we forget 17 U.N. resolutions.
2007-09-09 04:57:00 · answer #3 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
by way of fact individuals often are dumb and have self belief what television tells them. they do no longer truly care approximately human actual,they do so in the event that they like to be thrilling and attempt to electrify somebody. in the event that they have been so into human rights they might examine the U. S. first the place primary human rights at the instant are not respected(Exemple:jails,homeless ect...). the final public of people do no longer care approximately what Bush does ,they're afraid to criticize him attributable to the patriot act. Bush is the worst president ever and that they nonetheless voted for him a 2d time. individuals do no longer prefer to be certain their very own flaws and problems of their very own us of a so as that they look at somebody else's us of a to police.
2016-10-18 10:29:44 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US military are not the ones blowing themselves up in the middle of market places.
2007-09-09 04:44:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
They don't reject President Bush because he is trying to do the right thing. You would see things differently if you weren't an angry liberal bent on destroying anything good in our country that you don't agree with.
2007-09-09 04:37:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
your refering to that study that said that 100 thousand iraqis were killed right?
the one done by a far left organization?
im sorry but you must have "forgotten" to mention that these iraqis were killed by muslim extremists not americans
just thought you might want to correct that.
2007-09-09 04:41:36 · answer #7 · answered by Greshymn 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋