2006-11-28 09:17:03 · 31 answers · asked by Danny 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
bush isnt the one shooting the troops.
2006-11-28 09:18:22 · answer #1 · answered by jared l 4 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Bush is responsible for our troops being in the Middle East, yes. He is the Commander in Chief, and therefore does have the responsibility of making difficult choices. However he cannot be the only responsible party. The insurgents are the ones that are attacking our troops and the fellow Iraqis that are fighting along side us that are striving to strenghten thier country. They have thier own part of the responsibility. There are flaws in the military system, and not enough people to fill the important roles. People were doing jobs that they were not fully trained to do...for example...cooks going on patrols and getting killed due to lack of expertise. They may have made the decision to join, but they did not ask to perform a job other than the ones they signed for. However it happens. Everyone who joined swore to be a soldier first, so even if they arent supposed to go on patrols, they knew it was a possibilty.
So leaders and planners in the military are also responsible. People make mistakes...troops included. They may cause the deaths of thier friends that are with them unintentionaly, or due to negligence. So you cannot blame just one individual...there are mutliple factors and sweeping generalizations never are a good choice. And most importantly, dont belittle what our soldiers are/and have done over there. Those soldiers that Bush "killed" went there to support and protect our freedom and help others achieve freedom. They served hard and gave all they had, and if nothing else, your brother should remember that and be thankful that he is allowed the freedom to make his sweeping generalizatons.
2006-11-28 23:36:20 · answer #2 · answered by lilmiss_3007 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would guess the answer is "Mostly true." I wish I knew more about who all the players were in deciding to invade Iraq (a decision, BTW that some like Paul O'Neill say was made long before 911). The question of why we're really there still bothers me too. If the real goal was to throw the middle east into a violent, chaotic, bloodbath maybe Bush and his handlers are smarter than I thought. Mission accomplished. Since Bush was the front man, at the least, I'd say most of the blood is on his hands. IMHO.
2006-11-28 09:32:10 · answer #3 · answered by socrates 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Republicans are never responsible for anything, at least according to Republicans.
But is your brother more right than wrong? Yes. Not all things are black and white and this is not a simple yes or no answer. To say "absolutely true" or "absolutely false" would be inaccurate.
Would less troops and Americans be dead if Al Gore was our president? Absolutely. But since this is opinion and not provable fact, there are those who would deny this.
2006-11-28 09:26:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not exactly a yes or no question, but it kinda goes like this:
As commander in chief, he ultimately has responsibility for putting folks in situations where they could be killed.
The President didn't kill the troops, the terrorists shot them. Bush sent them there to remove Sadam from power and free the Iraq people.
So it is a bit difficult for a precise answer.
2006-11-28 09:24:13 · answer #5 · answered by chefantwon 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow, some of the answers are just amazing! Apparently, some simply cannot connect the dots, and see cause and effects.
Let me ask you this... Let's say you knew that there is a killer waiting in an alley, but you tell someone else to go in there anyways, if that person gets killed, can you absolve yourself of all responsibilities afterward???
As much as it sucks to admit it, everyone is responsible to some degree, some more than others. In fact, those who voted for Bush and supported his policies, are also partly responsible for what he did abroad.
2006-11-28 09:42:59 · answer #6 · answered by Mike V 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm afraid as unpleasant as it sounds, as CIC the buck stops with him. Or any President.
It's the CIC's responsiblity to send young men and women into harms' way. He knows some will die and he accepts (or should, anyway) full responsibility the moment he takes the oath of office. All part of the job.
2006-11-28 09:23:37 · answer #7 · answered by Atrocious 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No it is not true. He is the commander and chief, and he ordered the military to war. But no, he is not responsible for all the deaths. The terriorits are responsible. They are the ones doing the killing. The car makers are not responsible for all the accidents. The gun makers are not responsible for all the gun shots. People are responsible for their own actions.
You brother must be a liberal democrate. Be strong and tell her you are a young Republican, love Bush and dont like Clintons.
2006-11-28 09:20:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
No, Radical Islamic Extremists are killing our American troops and innocent Iraqi citizens. They also murdered and injured thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11/2001.
How old is your brother?
2006-11-28 09:24:09 · answer #9 · answered by dakota29575 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Actually, I blame the people that voted for Bush.....especially the second time!!
wait a minute.....did that Dakota chick above try to connect 9-11 to the war in Iraq????? My God, there are still people dumb enough to believe that??
2006-11-28 09:42:33 · answer #10 · answered by renee 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sending troops into a country that didn't attack us and setting them up for slaughter constitutes 'responsibility' as far as I'm concerned.
2006-11-28 09:39:48 · answer #11 · answered by LatexSolarBeef 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋