Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 ,no iraqi was on the planes.
G.W.- lied about WMD.
It is very clear that he wanted to help a country with very powerfull lobby in the USA.-You guess which one !
He made USA puppet of foreign interests.
Billions of American tax payers money was wasted in Iraq.
Hudreds of people killed.Here is reliable source ?
95 +% of the worlds population hates him.
No matter how you call him he is the reason for atleast 655 000
Iraqi deaths.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stmd
2006-11-18 16:22:52 · 19 answers · asked by novavm 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
couldn't of said it better myself....most people go to prison for far less! Is our president above the law?
2006-11-18 17:43:27 · answer #1 · answered by Pie's_Guy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Allow me to educate you!
The answer is 'NO!' Here are some points you need to understand as you are sorely misinformed:
It is NOT Bush's actions. If it were the United States causing those deaths, it would be on our government, not Bush. There was a vote in Congress that received overwhelming support, even from the Democrats. Of course, they flip-flopped, but you can't eat a hamburger and then ask for a refund because you don't like beef! Once a congressman voted yes, he's partially responsible.
HOWEVER... 655,000 Iraqis did not die at the hands of US soldiers... it is the terrorists insurgents and the sectarian violence claiming the lives of the Iraqis.
No, Iraq did not attack the US on 9/11 but they did support those that did financially and by allowing them to create training camps in their territory.
Bush did not lie about WMDs. If you were educated on the history of the region, you'd know this was Saddam's lie. Saddam only partly complied with UN inspections to hopefully avert a US enforcement of them, but being that Iraq and Iran were embittered enemies, Saddam did not want Iran to think Iraq was defenseless. Remember those mobile chemical labs found with no chemicals? Saddam's smoke and mirrors. He got caught in his own web of lies!
Powerful lobby? I'm assuming you mean oil. If the US were truly after oil, we could release the National Reserves and also tap the Alaskan National Wildlife Preserve to have enough oil to last us until oil has become obsolete! All we'd have to fight is moose and tree-huggers! A much more financially profitable battle. So obviously it is NOT about oil, except to keep that oil from generating revenue for terrorists.
95% of the world do NOT hate him. That figure is just a bald face lie!
Your so-called reliable source is certainly not unbiased and has been known to twist news to the liberal point of view. If you truly want to know the truth, check THIS link out:
2006-11-18 16:42:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hmm ... I'd like to see that source. (That link is broken.)
BBC is a very reliable source (better than most American media).
The number I heard is 150,000 ... which is still a horrifying loss of life ... and an out-of-proportion response for 9/11 (since very few, if any, of that 150,000 were involved in 9/11).
---- P.S. ------
I found the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm
And the people who did the study are from Johns Hopkins University (in Baltimore). And it is based on hospital records indicating a morality rate of up to 500 a *day*.
This is not something that can be dismissed lightly.
2006-11-18 16:53:58 · answer #3 · answered by c_sense_101 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Those numbers were publicly and privately criticized, even by the most hardened anti war groups. The real number is nowhere near that; it's about 48,000. A human tragedy, but an unfortunate reality of this world; you can't allow brutal dictators seeking nuclear weapons, and who enjoy open relations with terrorists to exist.
Thankfully you're not the president. As for the WMD's; study history please because you've been brain washed.
2006-11-18 16:52:14 · answer #4 · answered by billy d 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm pretty sure your country has laws that indemnify the president against civil suits like that...
Basically dude, it would be your government that would get sued, and your american tax payers money...
So many adjectives come to mind in trying to describe you... Idiot, tool, loser are but a few.
2006-11-18 16:42:02 · answer #5 · answered by irishcharmer84 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The man that needs to be sued is Kofi.....for being in charge of the world's largest criminal enterprise....
re the war..this is not a police action...the rules of evidence don't apply.....and if one doesn't think that the pre-war Iraqi government was not a player in regional pro terrorist geopolitics then he needs to stop listening to entertainment news and start reading.
2006-11-18 16:32:14 · answer #6 · answered by James C 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋
1) Your body count is grossly exaggerated.
2) Most of the civilian deaths were inflicted by other Arabs.
Bush has not committed any crimes.
2006-11-18 17:11:20 · answer #7 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Seems to be, more want to toss the blame on our president again. You feel what you want, as for myself,
no President Bush should not be sued now or in the future.
2006-11-18 17:05:48 · answer #8 · answered by Lore 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
655,000? Where did you get this figure?
Please cite your source. This link is bad.
95% of the world's population? How did anyone interview or poll 95% of the world's population?
Why does someone try to post a question similar to this almost every day, but they will not cite any credible sources?
2006-11-18 16:28:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Obviously, 95% of the world should "sue" Bush for crimes against humanity. 95% of the world has legal standing to "sue," so all of those billions of people should "sue."
How many more times are you going to ask this question?
2006-11-18 16:29:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋