Hey, he does talk from the side of his mouth ..
2006-06-28 06:36:36 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Define "person"
2006-06-28 06:39:36 · answer #1 · answered by Edward Z 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
For me i'd say the Iraq warfare. Maaaaybe they extremely believed that Saddam had WMD. besides the undeniable fact that it became out that he did not, and all indications are that we both knew he did not, or a minimum of said conflicting intel comments, yet invaded a sovereign u . s . besides. i'm no longer protecting Saddam - he turned right into a nasty, undesirable guy. i'd have supported a covert assassination plot. yet this warfare is a clusterf*ck without objective. even if if he did have WMD, his longest-variety missles had one of those about 2100 miles - nowhere close to sufficient variety to hit the US. so as that they were by no skill any probability to us. nicely, i assume they'd have carried it into the US someway, yet that would were confusing to tug off even if in the experience that that they had a warhead. I only imagine it really is unhappy that 3,000+ of our troops have died, "protecting us" from something that become by no skill any significant probability. Invading Afghanistan, on the different hand...i guess i'm able to get behind that. Al Queda become (and probably is) an major probability to us, and they did not hand them over. And convinced I understand for sure that Al Queda is in Iraq *now*. yet on the time we invaded that they had no presence there. so as it really is, i'm no longer optimistic if i imagine we ought to continually surge, stay the direction, or pull out. yet I adamantly do not imagine we ought to continually have lengthy previous in in the first position. thus far as Saddam's human rights violations, i guess that become the UN's pastime to handle, no longer ours...besides the very undeniable actuality that i will admit the UN absolutely wasn't doing squat in that note of. > Jon--i'm able to understand your perspectives-yet does that make him evil? thanks, and that is an enticing question. i assume all of us have some good and some evil in us. i guess my finished rant above boils right down to "my intestine tells me he did an evil component". yet that would not unavoidably make the guy evil. i'm optimistic if he were my mailman or neighbor, i'd like him only effective.
2016-11-15 09:11:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whats the saying? " I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy" The answer is no,but OBL might be.
2006-06-28 06:44:11 · answer #3 · answered by bereal1 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
How can someone who has been an instrument to save and protect millions of lives be an evil person?
2006-06-28 06:45:36 · answer #4 · answered by msg 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He personifies corporate greed for power and wealth at any cost. If you consider that evil, then yes, he is.
2006-06-28 06:46:17 · answer #5 · answered by SurferRose 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would be tempted to say yes. Although it's only opinion.
2006-06-28 06:39:20 · answer #6 · answered by bluejacket8j 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dare not answer because I may be arrested and atken away.
2006-06-28 06:38:59 · answer #7 · answered by Jakarta 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The real question should be: why is he still in charge ?
2006-06-28 06:41:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh, please. What kind of stupid question is this?
For people who whine about the conservative Christian 'theocracy' you certainly seem to be fond of judging others' souls.
2006-06-28 06:45:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yeah, he is controllin bush's movements ( imean politcally
2006-06-28 06:41:51 · answer #10 · answered by punkgrl 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋