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

12 answers

more troops have died in iraq than the number of people who died on 9/11. i think bush should have checked for wmd's before he sent troops to iraq. and i think that after we captured saddam that the troops should have gotten out of iraq immediatly. bush says we're winning the war on terror, and yet troops in iraq keep getting shot by terrorist and blown up by car bombs each day, i don't think that by the sounds of that that sounds like we're winning. so far i haven't seen hardly any progress we're making on the war on terror. i'm not saying that we are losing on the war on terror, but i'm not saying we're are winning either. but if bush would have gotten the troops out of iraq immediatly after we got saddam we would have had alot more troops still alive today.
we would have had more troops to help out on the hurricane katrina relief. so in short, yes, i do think he is responsible for their deaths. and if you don't believe me, i have an uncle in iraq right now and he says it is hell there. so if you will not take my word for it, then take his.

2006-11-06 02:55:26 · answer #1 · answered by ace 3 · 0 0

Bush didn't send our troops to Iraq to bring democracy to that country. He didn't send our troops to Iraq for any humanitarian reasons. He sent troops to Iraq to 'settle a score' - a vendetta that the Bush family has had against Hussein ever since Desert Storm, when George H.W. Bush was criticized for "not finishing the job" and ousting Hussein then.
The only other reason Bush was ordered to illegally and unconstitutionally invade another sovereign nation (that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the U.S.) was because Dick Cheney wants all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so that he and his Exxon-Mobil buddies can get richer and richer and richer.
This country is ruled by nameless, faceless people from behind-the-scenes, who tell Bush what to do, when to do it, how to act, and what to say. He's merely a dimwitted puppet dangling from the strings controlled by wealthy elitists, the military-industrial complex, big corporations, special interest groups, banks, oil companies, and those who profit from war.
But, still, Bush is the Commander-In-Chief, and therefore he is responsible for the deaths of almost 3,000 U.S. soldiers and 665,000 Iraqis (not to mention the tens of thousands who have been permanently injured, disabled, and maimed).
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all 535 members of the most evil, arrogant, despicable, contemptible, incompetent, cowardly, greedy, selfish, corrupt Congress in U.S. history, should be tried for crimes against humanity in an international tribunal, and - if convicted - should hang right alongside Hussein. -RKO-

2006-11-06 03:40:09 · answer #2 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0 0

Remember: these troops are VOLUNTEERS. There is no draft in the US (anymore...might change, though...) That means the troops know what the risks are; they know what they're getting into, just like a firefighter or a cop. Bush might be responsible for declaring the war, and prolonging it, but he is not responsible for the deaths of the troops!

2006-11-05 23:27:19 · answer #3 · answered by J.A.R. 3 · 0 0

i've got have been given some ocean front property in Arizona for every person who thinks those shipments encompass humanitarian help basically. The Rooskies are already suspicious and it does no longer be magnificent in the event that they have been to confiscate and inspect the a number of candies stepping into. the reason the U.S. is even in Eurasia is for hedgemony over any governments who do no longer % to circulate alongside with the recent international Order or extra wisely called the venture for a sparkling American Century. the government controlled press is making it look like it relatively is all Russia's fault while it replaced into Georgia, decrease than the prodding of the U.S. who attacked Russians interior the breakaway provinces with the intention to elicit a reaction that would provide them a reason to take Russia on. i think of Bush has taken on extra desirable than he can chew this time. This extra to the consistent threats against Iran skill that all of the products are coming mutually for the international conflagration. in basic terms because of the fact the bible says, God is putting hooks interior the jaws of the warring parties. we are able to hate wars all we % however the bible says wars and desolations are desperate good as much as the top.

2016-11-27 21:55:51 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

No. He should be impeached. Though these troops volunteered to go to Iraq, these people fight with honor and die.

2006-11-06 00:22:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Bill Clinton sent troops to die in Somalia. String his lyin', cheatin' butt up!!!

2006-11-05 22:47:23 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 2 0

No. People volunteer to join the military, Iraqis have no choice.

2006-11-05 21:48:32 · answer #7 · answered by Spadesboffin 3 · 1 1

You're either too young to remember 9-11, or you're an idiot.

2006-11-06 01:43:02 · answer #8 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 1 1

Yes, he sure should. That's one way to get rid of him!

2006-11-06 04:20:04 · answer #9 · answered by jonesin_am 1 · 0 0

Why don't you get off the election bandwagon?

2006-11-05 22:55:58 · answer #10 · answered by jb1 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers