Should Donald Rumsfeld be charged with war crimes for his involvement in the Iraq War?

  • Caused Tens of Thousands of Civilian Deaths

    Donald Rumsfeld's assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction proved to be completely false, which he knew beforehand. As such, the invasion of Iraq was illegal because the United States didn't get authorization from the UN. Saddam Hussein wasn't an imminent threat to the United States whatsoever and the invasion wasn't necessary at all.

  • Only If Bush Is

    I believe it is doubtful that Donald Rumsfeld will ever be charged with war crimes for his involvement in the Iraq War. If this were to happen I think it should only come in conjunction with George Bush facing war crimes as well. The Bush administration ruined many people's political careers so it is difficult to ascertain who is really at fault.

  • Things gonna happen

    When someone is in a war, and trying their best to not killed by the enemy that they are fighting, then people are going to do things that they should not do, and they are forced to do things that they normally would not do. He was just trying to survive.

  • Makes no sense

    There is no veracity in the statement that the Secretary of Defense should be charged for war crimes in Iraq - war crimes weren't committed, people were just forced to see what war actually was, and how there is no such thing as a clean or fast war that was victimless.

  • Each political party wants to prosecute the others.

    No, Donald Rumsfeld should not be charged with war crimes for his involvement in the Iraq War, because he did not do anything that would constitute a war crime. Rumsfeld did not do anything that amounted to targeting or torturing innocents. Every incoming political party talks about prosecuting the party before it

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.