Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 1 decade ago

sholud blair and bush be charged with genocide?

Blair and Bush went into Iraq under a pretence of WOMD and the Iraqi people are worse off now than they were under Sadam Hussien and all the bomb attempts in The UK are due to his stand based on lies

22 Answers

  • rosbif
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Genocide?No.Crimes against humanity,the illegal invasion of Iraq most certainly.

    Anyone who thinks that the Iraqi people are not worse off now than when Saddam was in power are either or deluding themselves.

    Innocent Iraqis are being killed every single day.Bush and Blair supporters will tell you they are being killed by the insurgents.True.But the insurgents wouldn't be there if the invasion hadn't happened.

  • 1 decade ago

    STOP.... put the cool-aid down and walk away now. There was no "pretense" about going into Iraq, the reason was 17 violations of UN resolutions. By the way... how many Iraqis have told you they would rather have Saddam back???

    But what the heck... for argument's sake. Just what culture, race, or ethnic group are they trying to get rid of??? Unless you consider terrorists a race of people... then they would definitely be guilty!!!

  • 1 decade ago

    Your whole question is based on a lie! The Iraqi people are not worse off. Sodom was a murderous dictator, the Iraqi people had free elections because we are in Iraq. What if Americans were not allowed to vote our conscience would we really be better off?

  • 1 decade ago

    no, you don't know what genocide is if that is what you think they did. Yes Bush is a D/A but he is no dictator, no one has intentionally killed civilians in mass quantities like Saddam or other people who have been convicted of war crimes. I am actually getting tired of all this, we all know Bush is a horrible president and we should not have sent our troops over there under false pretenses, but you know what we have no choice in the matter, to many people charge blindly to one side or the other and don't think about the consequences that things like that mean. so know i don't think so.

    Next time everyone show up and vote for the person that will do the job they are supposed to do and not be to lazy to learn the facts and vote accordingly

  • brim
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    beneficial he will ought to i'm no longer anti conflict even if i'm against the invasion of Iraq located on the Lies that Tony Blair &Co recommended. uk /united states allegedly have the friendly intelligence gathering on the planet MI5/MI6/CIA/SIS/FBI so if the Iraqi's had WMD why have been they now no longer able to pinpoint the places and direct those inspectors in the present day to them. could u . s . of america enable a russian delegation of inspectors into all their cyber web web content of WMD i doubt it. How could america and Britain have self belief if the troops of foreign places government pulled down the statues of their leaders. The BBC gave Tony's spin on Saddam's crack royal take care of the place are they if the existed there ought to have been countless individuals killed that the united kingdom united states have not admitted to killing substitute into it precise to seek for out his sons execute them and parade their bodies could blair like this to happen to his kinfolk he substitute into only as vast a tyrant as Saddam in his very own skill

  • Jadis
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    You are a moron. Do you even understand the concept of genocide? According to, genocide is "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." Who exactly are you accusing Bush and Blair of systematically exterminating? The Sunni and Shiite may be guilty of genocide, but to say Bush and Blair are just shows your alarming ignorance.

    Here are the warning signs of genocide:

    CLASSIFICATION: Categories to distinguish “us and them” (you could almost apply this one, but we're not trying to distinguish between us and the Iraqis. We're distinguishing us from terrorists)

    SYMBOLIZATION: We give names or other symbols to classifications; symbols may be forced upon unwilling member of pariah groups (evidence of this from Bush or Blair, please)

    DEHUMANIZATION: Members equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder (Sounds more like anti-Semitic propaganda that is popular in the Middle East - again, how does this apply to Bush and Blair?)

    ORGANIZATION: Special army units or militias are often trained and armed. Plans are made for genocidal killings (Again, evidence making this relevant to your question?)

    POLARIZATION: Forbid intermarriage or social interaction (Nope, hasn't happened. At least not in America - can't speak for the UK)

    PREPARATION: Victims are identified and separated. Death lists are drawn up. Members of victim groups are forced to wear identifying symbols. Property is expropriated. Segregated, deported, or confined. (Again, not happening.)

    Instead of reacting emotionally, why don't you educate yourself on the facts? Accusing someone of genocide is one hell of a charge, and if you're going to make it, you should certainly be ready to back it up.

  • 1 decade ago

    What?! How dare you?

    Saddam was murdering his own people. There is proof of tourture chambers, rape rooms, and mass graves. There are videos of things done to innocent people who may have done something as simple as speaking their mind.

    I saw a particularly chilling video of somone being forced to walk off a 3 story building. The man survived, and crawled away, both of his legs appeared to be broken.

    There were also giant shredders that they would put people in, feet first, so they would be in pain until it reached their spine or so, and would render them unconscious.

    Do you even know what Genocide means? The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide describes genocide as being

    " any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

    This is hardly what is going on, and it is disgusting to even hear such a question.

    It took years to rebuild europe after WWII, but it is better off than it was with Hitler in power. It will be a process to rebuild Iraq, but they already are better off with Saddam out of office.

  • 1 decade ago

    I was more like thinking of the Nobel Peace Prize. Can't wait till Hessian neck is broken

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You obviously only listen to CNN. Get a life, actually talk to a soldier who's been there. Most of the Iraqis actually welcomed us.

  • Sean
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    No. And by the way there are soldiers from a lot of other countries besides the US and the UK in Iraq.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.