2006-09-15 04:59:06 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
look at the bush arrogance,and cold eyes ,and the power he yields ,my god what is the devil ,lotes of other death leaders too,hey ,you know what depleted uranium munitions are doing to .you talk of killing,what about suffering and all the other forms of misery in the world,death is different from killing,are we all not guilty of killing in one way or another,as we sit and watch to do nothing ,means we are killers in a sense...
2006-09-16 16:38:29 · answer #1 · answered by CIVILIAN 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on what you mean. Do you mean continuing to look the other way while madmen build power so you can continue the "dialogue" much as was done while Hitler build one of the most powerful armies on earth and was already invading other countries while many European leaders wanted to try to continue the dialogue believing he could be reasoned with. Do you mean standing by idly while thousands are murdered in terrorist attack after attack,I'm sure Clinton would endorse that one,Oh wait that's just what he did. Do you mean threatening economic sanctions,OH MY!!,while the Iranian president essentially threatens Israel with nuclear annihilation. I'm desperately trying to decide which idea suits your argument best. I do hope however that the people who believe in peace at all costs win on current events,so that when a nuclear explosion comes to a city near you from the people everybody wanted us to just "reason" with while they were openly threatening our destruction I can be left with the pleasure of saying,Told you so!
2006-09-15 12:12:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because violence is a short and simple solution, even if it's only temporary. Isn't it easier to get a kid silent by slapping him/her than explaining why he shouldn't do it or solacing him? Governments have 4 years usually to achieve a result. For example, let's see Bush. Would he won the elections for a second time if he started to aid Africa with more tax on the Americans, or was it easier to support the local dictators to shut up the Africans?
2006-09-15 12:20:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the same reason you fight with other people, for the same reason you kill to get money, for the same reason you kill for jealousy, for the same reason you kill to get drugs, for the same reason you kill without a reason.
If we cant sort small problems without killing how can we expect world leaders to be immune to killing?
2006-09-15 14:48:00 · answer #4 · answered by alcáçovas 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The leaders rarely kill they get others to do it for them
2006-09-15 12:04:07 · answer #5 · answered by philipscottbrooks 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because there are too many factors of conflicting imperialistic issues of personal "interests" involved to make a handshake agreement viable for some of the involved.
2006-09-15 12:02:35 · answer #6 · answered by For sure 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ask terrorists why they have to kill others. If the terrrorists put down all weapons in the Middle East, there will be peace forever. If the Israelis put their weapons down, they are toast.
The only response to someone who wants to kill you is kill them first.
2006-09-15 12:00:57 · answer #7 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
leader without killing?are you kidding?
2006-09-15 12:00:30 · answer #8 · answered by Moe M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They think war is the answer when its not. They don't have any other solutions because they are too lazy to get together and make SMART decisions.
2006-09-15 12:00:43 · answer #9 · answered by . 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
because they dont want to
-----dont do it it's a trick
2006-09-15 12:02:42 · answer #10 · answered by NarNarNar i 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋