English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-10-18 06:33:25 · 37 answers · asked by dstr 6 in Politics & Government Politics

For those of you who are calling me names instead of answering the question..I am reporting you

2006-10-18 06:41:00 · update #1

Armygirl9...
That was not my question

2006-10-18 06:42:28 · update #2

37 answers

Yes, all of them, since they blew up the water sources, food sources, hospitals, and closed them off from any relief to medicines. A lot of children died of malnutrition too, they starved to death. It's all in the British reports.
http://iraqwar.org/deaths.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

2006-10-18 06:40:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 10 2

No, Bush is not responsible. We the people are responsible for all the deaths in Iraq. And only we the people can stop the madness.

2006-10-20 01:07:41 · answer #2 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0 0

What the heck is a president for if not to be in charge and responsible for overseeing the major mauneuvers taken by this nation...???

Jesus people!! He didn't kill them one by one with his own hands... he just made the decision... and that makes him accountable.

Saddamn Hussein didn't kill all of those people with his own hands... but we still hold him responsible... how is it irrational to give Bush the same responsibility???

And NO of course Bush isn't responsible for ALL the deaths in Iraq... but obviously you people are missing the point of the question!

2006-10-18 06:41:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Yes he made the ultimate decision to invade Iraq. He is ultimately responsible. It come down to the "But for" clause. If not "but For" the invasion in Iraq would all of this death have occurred. The answer more than likely is NO!!

2006-10-18 06:37:19 · answer #4 · answered by ;-) 1 · 3 1

Well yes he is. You cant have it both ways conservatives.
He is either the commander in chief and in control of the army or he isnt. He is the "decider" or he isnt. As horrifying as it is, he is the President of this country and he decided to go to war based on faulty intelligence, so yes he is responsible for all the deaths in iraq, since the war started.

2006-10-18 06:42:33 · answer #5 · answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5 · 3 0

It could desire to Suck once you attempt a loaded questions and maximum resposes decrease back fire on you. pass decrease back to the daily Kos, or email George Soros, or John Edwards. in the process the Saddam's time as Dictator of Iraq, he did here, Invaded His Neighbor we call that The Gulf conflict Gassed his own human beings, with mustard gas Straved and Brutally ruled his those with terror, VIOLATED 17 U.N. rules FOR 17 YEARS!!! Refused to permit U.N. weapons INspectors to do there activity replaced into Bombed in ninety 8 by using Clinton with a similar intell Bush and CONGRESS had to INVADE. His savagely beat and killed who ever detrimental him bought weapons with oil money from France and Russia that replaced into supossed to feed his human beings. HARBORED TERRORISTS CAMPS AND replaced into A STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM OF THE WEST. Had plot to Kill George Bush our President additionally bill Clinton pronounced he replaced into particular Saddam had WMD's congress voted on it with a similar intell Bush had. militia Intell is the final available information on the time, and saddam had Mustard gas that's a WMD. Is that sufficient reasons for you Yeah we could desire to constantly have permit Saddam stay in power he replaced into an surprising guy, happy he's ineffective, and maximum sane human beings are.

2016-10-19 22:51:54 · answer #6 · answered by itani 4 · 0 0

Not really. A recent article in the Washington Post indicated that the insurgents have moved beyond U.S. targets. One leader was quoted as saying "Good news. The U.S. is no longer the enemy. The Shiites are the enemy. We will kill them instead."

Sectarian violence has been going on in that area of the world since the 8th Century. To understand it would require a long history lesson about the legacy and heirs of Muhammed. The fighting began thousands of years before Bush was every born.

2006-10-18 06:46:37 · answer #7 · answered by itsnotarealname 4 · 1 2

Yeah sure he is. He's also responsible for all the deaths due to Aids. Cancer... GWB's fault. I think he is also to blame for Custer and his buddies being killed at Little Big Horn. I am sick of this crap. People were being killed left and right in Iraq long before we got there. Ask the Kurds, oh that's right... Saddam had them all gassed to death. Give Bush a little credit too. The economy is booming. The Dow just topped 12,000. Unemployment is at 4.6%. More people own their own home that at any point in our countries history. Blame Bush for that too.

2006-10-18 06:49:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Well he might as well be. Bush is responsible for all kinds of things that have no basis in reality. Did you know that the reason hurricanes are formed is because President Bush drops a bomb onto a butterfly on the other side of the world?

More liberal garbage.

2006-10-18 07:00:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

No, Bill Clinton is, he gets blamed for everything that has happened in the last 100 years, and he will be blamed for everything in the next 100 years at least by repuglicans.
Yes, George Bush is the worst mass murderer this century 655,000 Iraqi, 2800 of our people, many, many more wounded and forever disfigured, all of this rest on his shoulders, for taking us to war base on a lie.

2006-10-18 06:40:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Actually the answer is no. If you must blame someone I would say the UN is the best bet for blame if we we are going to be honest.

1) The UN refused to enforce 17 different resolutions regarding Iraq.
2) The UN knew that Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction against his own people in gassing the Kurds and did not take nor support any action to bring him to justice for crimes against humanity.

The ultimate upshot of what I am saying is that if the UN had acted responsibly in this matter there would have been no reason for the United States to resume hostilities against Iraq in the first place.

2006-10-18 06:42:45 · answer #11 · answered by Bryan 7 · 0 4

fedest.com, questions and answers