It is estimated at 655,000 not 150,000. So yes GWB is just in the same league as Stalin and Adolf. And a select others. He said that Saddam killed thousands but in removing him he killed more.
The price of freedom is a myth. People dont get it. If they were rulled by their own guy and now they are ruled by the Americans how can that be called freedom?
2006-11-09 17:47:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, its the price of Terrorism
The VAST majority of those death, and its a lot more than 150,000 are civilians that were killed by fellow Iraqis.
The vast majority of civilian deaths have been the result of fighting between the Sunni and hte Shia.
Would this fighting be taking place if the U.S. never invaded? no it would not, but that does not mean you can blame the U.S.
you cannot blam the U.S. for murder being commited by others. The U.S. has been trying to stop the killing. Its the Iraqis who do not want it to stop.
So no, this is not the price of freedom, this is hte price that is paid when terrorists are allowed to roam the streets as they do in Iraq
2006-11-10 02:15:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by urbanbulldogge 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If these civilians died fighting for their freedom, then it is the price of freedom that they willing pay. However, since they did not choose to fight, but died mostly because the Americans were seen as occupying forces and mostly they became collateral damages, then it is not the price for their freedom.
More than 3000 American men and women died, in the slogan propagated by the current administration, and there were many slogans, including freedom, we are paying the price for the slogan of the day.
The current politcal development is merely a reflection of more people coming around seeing their sons and daughters paying the price.
2006-11-10 01:34:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by ele81946 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Usually a people volunteer to die/fight for freedom. Their freedom actually. Few people fight and die for other peoples freedom. Americans are one of the exceptions. We know the price of freedom and have been paying it since before this country was founded. In fact it is what this country was founded upon. Doubt that most Iraqis understand this. Dont know though. I would have to visit and talk to the people of Iraq but I honestly feel they wish we would just go home. At least most do.
2006-11-10 01:23:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The price of freedom? For one, the war in Iraq will make USA even more unsecure. The relatives of those innocent 150,000 civil killed will want to take revenge, and will not shy away to even give their life for that purpose.
Amazing sense of justice Mr. Bush has. Only to punish one man, he went to war with entire coutries. TO punish one man, 150,000 people were sacrificed. The same model was applied in Afghanistan, and now again in Iraq.
The answer to your question, these 150,000 deaths are not the price of freedom, they are ticket for Mr.Bush to burn in hell.
2006-11-10 01:30:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mustafa rOcKs 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
In a war civilians or soldiers must die to be killed. There is no war that nobody die. Out of 150,000 killed half are killed their own people. The massive bombing of Iraqi only killed about 70,000 is a good record.
Now compare,how many civilians were killed when US drop TWO bombs on two Japan cities in 1945?
2006-11-10 01:29:14
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Freedom was initially the natural state of life. Incarceration is unnatural and warfare is one of the things which can bring incarceration.
2006-11-10 01:28:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by Sir 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
10 of millions died during WWII. That was the price of freedom.
2006-11-10 01:19:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by oskeewow13 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
You weren't there, so you cannot tell us what the death rate was before. What was the quqlity of life also.
What will our death rate be now that we are on the road to appeasement and surrender. Now our blood will be on your hands
2006-11-10 01:28:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by jekin 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I saw this story on the web news sites. Before the election it was our troops who were the culprit. Suddenly, after the election, it's insurgents who are guilty. That's the drive-by media for you...
2006-11-10 01:25:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by christopher s 5
·
1⤊
1⤋