user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Newest Ballots
Newest Blogs
Private Ballots
Joke Ballots
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Let both of them live and put them on a reality TV show. They'd probably end up getting married.
No punishment.
There is a difference in being president during a war in which civilians are killed and rounding up or gassing your own people just for the hell of it.
Guess what Country was encouraging the Kurds to rebel against a recognized leader (good or evil) ? Do you think the U.S. would tolerate an uprising within this Country (with "outside" help) ? If a president starts a war is he liable for the casualties ? Food for thought...I can't agree with either of those choices...
Bad analogy soothsayer. The US isn't using chemical weapons on its own people to suppress an uprising. Other than fast food perhaps. Make people so obese that they can't fight back.
Fluoride? Aspartame? Television? LSD?
As Governor of Texas, Bush enjoyed executing innocent people by lethal injection.
In Iraq, of course, the murdering of innocents was done in the name of Big Oil and big ego.
At the very least, Bush is a war criminal.
Using gas was not "right, but neither was using an atomic bomb, unless you are the victor, and surgical strikes that miss their mark are no better,no matter what method, you can wind up with unintentional dead victims...notice how many "suspected" terrorists are killed ? In war that just about includes anyone you kill to cover your *ss...
The methods don't matter. Bush ordered the US military to attack Iraq and now it has resulted in 100,000 dead civilians. So, Bush is responsible for 100,000 dead civilians. I'm no math wiz but I know that 100,000 is a lot bigger than 148.
The only reason why Bush isn't is Saddams place is because Bush is a member of the elite class who protect each other and make sure that they don't go to war crimes court for the tyranny they cause. Saddam Hussein was in that elite class too up to 1991 when he was kicked out. Keep in mind that Saddam Hussein was strongly supported by the US up to a decade after this massacre occured.
The US government doesn't give a shit about the Iraqi people. They don't care about the Kurds or the Shiites, that's just what the media says to make the war look like a Hollywood film. If you believe that the US cares about the Iraqis, you're only fooling yourself. It only cares about the benefits that it will get from a capitalist, US controlled Iraq. Think about this. If the US is the world liberator and it REALLY cared about the Iraqis then where was the United States government to stop Saddam in the 1980s when all of this happened? You know where it was? The US government was in bed with the Iraqi government that whole time pretending that none of this stuff happened, only because Saddam gave the US oil at crackhead prices. Then when he broke the (economic) deal and showed dissent towards the US, the US attacked, making the whole Kuwait war it's main reason when in fact it had nothing to do with Kuwait at all.
Well, you could say the same about any leader: what about the Iranian president who commits human rights violations, the Saudi leaders, Pinochet, etc. The list goes on and on. It's not only Bush and Saddam responsible for the death of innocent civilians. If we're going to start holding Bush responsible for the death of Iraqi civilians, the same standard should be held towards other leaders as well.
by aya on Tue Nov 07, 06 9:42am
[+]
If we're going to start holding Bush responsible for the death of Iraqi civilians, the same standard should be held towards other leaders as well.
by aya on Tue Nov 07, 06 10:42am
Absolutely. So when do we start?
"If we're going to start holding Bush responsible for the death of Iraqi civilians, the same standard should be held towards other leaders as well."
You're right, it should. The only problem is that the people who's job it is to persecute the really bad apples (like world leaders) have deals with these leaders to look the other way.
Yes, he should. I can't come right out and say what you're saying or even vote on it, but yes!
|
|
