He started a war with false accusations and then kept changing his reasons just to continue the war. what do you think and why?
2006-12-11 08:20:24 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I say yes, if only to serve as a warning to future fascists who try to kidnap democracy.
2006-12-11 08:29:21 · answer #1 · answered by dopeadevil23 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The U.N. laid down sanctions in Iraq after the first Gulf War, stating that Saddam HAD to allow UN inspectors into the country (because Saddam had used chemical weapons on civilians) He kicked the UN out, in '98. Clinton bombed Iraq in '98 but didn't do anything more. The UN had FIVE years to get back in there and get Saddam to comply with the sanctions...they failed.
Bush had ligitimate worries about Iraq going completely unregulated. The UN dropped the ball. I don't agree with the excuses Bush gave us, he should have just been honest and said that the UN screwed up and we needed to get back in there.
Also, banned weapons were found in Iraq, as well as the capture of a dictator that was guilty of crimes against humanity. The problems in Iraq are politically driven and everyone in Washington DC is guilty of it. They should be working together not bickering like children.
2006-12-11 16:32:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Should Jack Murtha be prosecuted for treason? By saying the things he does about the President he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. President Bush and The Brits and The House of Representatives and the US Senate all were given the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion. So the answer is NO. President Bush is a hero and a man with the courage of his convictions.
2006-12-11 16:37:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'm sorry, what? The Democrats saw the same intelligence that the Republicans saw. Of all intelligence around the world, whose are you gonna believe? Majority of Democrats also decided to go to war. And for your information, congress declares war, the President just announces it. You know they vote on those decisions just like everything else. Get your facts straight buddy.
2006-12-11 16:36:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Certainly yes. No matter what the reason was, nobody should initiate war.
It does not make any sense to me that an under-privileged third world country (Iraq) would be a threat to the supremest country in world (USA).
War for freedom? Who is he trying to fool?! Isn't ''war'' the complete opposite of ''freedom''?
2006-12-11 16:31:44 · answer #5 · answered by Confused 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Nope.
And if he is, you'd better prosecute every senator and congressperson that voted for the war. That includes John Skerry.
2006-12-11 16:23:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think this question has been asked too many times, and the asker of this question should just reference any one of the last 2000 times it's been asked.
My answer is NO, he should not be, because he hasn't COMMITTED any war crimes.
2006-12-11 16:34:49 · answer #7 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
To answer that - just ask yourself whether that should happen to any other world leader directly responsible for causing so much blood, death and destruction as GWBush has in Iraq...!!!
(Together with his pet poodle, Tony Bliar, of course...!)
2006-12-11 16:35:35 · answer #8 · answered by TruthHurts 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No sweat. Everyboy ... gets what's coming to him.
2006-12-11 16:23:32 · answer #9 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Try em' & fry em'
2006-12-11 16:25:12 · answer #10 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋