SADDAMS TRIAL REVIELED THAT THE ACTUAL NUMBER KILLED WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS WAS DRASTICALLY LOWER THAN THE LIBERAL FOX NEWS HAD REPORTED.
SO if American Doctors and Hospitals kill more people than Saddam every year with malpractice.
SHOULD WE ATTACK THE DOCTORS NEXT???
2006-12-18 10:41:17 · 17 answers · asked by 43 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No.
Next question.
2006-12-18 10:43:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Here's why your wrong:
#1: Fox News is supposidly "Fair and Balanced", they do however get criticized for leaning towards the conservative side, I have never ever heard anyone call them liberal
#2: American Doctors do not kill more people than Saddam did.
More people may die in the hospitals, but not because of mal practice
#3: Doctors who do commit mal-practice are "attacked" by law suits and losing their license.(you can't just take away a terrorist's license!
#4: if 20 million people were killed, I still don't think liberals would want to go to war...they're just hard-headed like that!
2006-12-18 19:27:22 · answer #2 · answered by mr_sizzelin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No we should not attack the Ph.d's. We bring about malpractice suits and litagation. The fact that many died on 9/11 is enough to attack whoever is responsible. Are you condoning the use of WMD? You seem to think the US occupation of Iraq is worse than dropping nerve gas on people. It is that very ideology that has this country in the state that it is in now.
2006-12-18 18:53:31 · answer #3 · answered by blood and ashes 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"OK if it was all about the WMD's and not the WTC, then what is the number of dead required for us to attack ??"
One.
Just one senseless, indiscriminate murder is all it should take - the psychotic Islamic terrorists need to learn that murder of innocent people in the name of a demented ideology is not going to be accepted, and the response will be swift and lethal!
2006-12-18 18:57:01 · answer #4 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fox News isn't close to being liberal first of all
The war in Iraq had nothing to do with any of the things you've mentioned.
2006-12-18 18:53:40 · answer #5 · answered by ROBERT L O 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Apparently Saddam was spooking himself too much and needed to be stopped: "The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." —George W. Bush, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003
2006-12-18 18:43:45 · answer #6 · answered by Sean 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Doctors kill many more people in this country each year than guns do.
Maybe we should attack the doctors.
What about the shyster lawyers like John Edwards that get rich with frivolous lawsuits that will cost each one of us for the rest of our lives?
You Yanks, get things complicated, eh?
2006-12-18 18:47:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Dude, are you still back in 2003? Because there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Hadn't been since the first Gulf War, because the UN sanctions were _working_.
And Fox News is liberal? Jeez, are you in a bunker in Montana surrounded by a warehouse of guns or something?
2006-12-18 18:43:50 · answer #8 · answered by random6x7 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
You need to go back and review, WMD's wasn't even in the top five reasons for going to war with Iraq. (But at least we did find the WMD's).
2006-12-18 19:05:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it was never about WMD;s or the WTC...it was about making sure bush got re-elected...no more, no less...without a war to divert attention from the fact that he has no idea what the heck he's doing, there's no way that incompetent drooler would have made it past 2004...
2006-12-18 21:01:30 · answer #10 · answered by spike missing debra m 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you are looking for a # the answer is ....42 That is the answer to everything according to "Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy."
2006-12-18 18:48:07 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋