i am sure more iraqi's have been killed by the u.s. invasion then by saddam, this leaves a big question was it worth it.
remember the war started on lies no wepons of mass destruction have been found and we have lost the lives of good innocent american solders
2006-12-31 08:05:15 · 24 answers · asked by Refugio O 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
As a Republican voter, I must say.... yes he should, he is responsible and here in America we should hold our leaders accountable.
2006-12-31 08:07:31 · answer #1 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋
If we were not over there keeping them busy, they would be here, daily, blowing up and killing people and you same ones would want him on trial for not doing his job. You cant have it both ways!!!
While I don't think Bush has done all he can do, I know this, we cant hide our heads in the sand and hope Terrorism goes away. For many nations, from Israel to Spain, from Bosnia to Indonesia, they live with it daily. All you have to do is open a news paper or watch the news on TV and you too will see what is going on in the world.
So far, since the start of Iraq, we haven't had any bombings in LA, or Washington, or New York or Houston. We have not had any major attacks on our soil.
So my question to you is, " if you had been the President on 911, WHAT would you have done?" Don't say negotiate cause the UN with all its resolutions and all the talk since 90, still hadn't solved the problem.
You need a serious reality check on life cause its not fair, its not FREE and sometimes the cost for the Freedoms we have and abuse, is not Free.
Semper Fi
2006-12-31 08:12:03 · answer #2 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
First of all, the war was not started on lies of WMDs. Just because none were found does not mean they lied. They were just wrong.
As far as your original question, what kind of war did you expect? Did you expect us to invade a country without anyone dying? In a perfect world we could avoid this sort of thing, but this world is far from perfect so we will continue to fight, and people will die for their cause.
2006-12-31 09:00:20 · answer #3 · answered by Curt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't know why people here are so offensive about ur question, though it is av good reasonable question. u r the most intelligent among them as u don't take things for face value as they do. from a humane point of view, YES he deserves to be on trial for causing the death of unbelievable number of innocent human beings for no real reason. sorry to say the american soliders wasted their life for no real cause!! from an elusive point of view,no because of his war against terrorism, though terrorism characterizes his massacres in Iraq, and Afganstan or did u forget that u fight every enemy but ur enemy, where is osama bin laden now ?! can anyone answer this question. i doubt Actually he puts the seed of terrorism by enlarging the number of his enemies!!!
2006-12-31 08:46:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're wrong. Way less Iraqis killed (innocent ones anyway) by the US than by Saddam.
Why don't you research BEFORE posting a question that is wrong on all aspects?
2006-12-31 08:42:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All of us soldiers joined the military knowing the risk. Not saying I agree but soldiers follow orders too a T thats why we are a successful nation. Bush is doing what he has to do to protect this nation and other nations.
2006-12-31 09:58:56 · answer #6 · answered by Kyle 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Guess what? The dead American soldiers you speak of volunteered for their service. They were not innocent as you proclaim... they were soldiers willing to fight and die for our country... it comes with the job.
You wouldn't know what a patriot is even if they punched you in the face.
2006-12-31 08:17:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well why didn't they send Roosevelt to trial too for killing thousands of germans and japanese?
Funny thing about war maybe people not dying will be the new concept of 21st century.
2006-12-31 08:09:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
For about the 20th time today, no.
And there were WMD pal, we sold them to the guy. Thanks to the UN for stalling long enough to make billions off the oil for food scam and thanks to the revisionists who wish to deny they were there. What do you suppose he killed the Kurds with...harsh language?
And Congress and the Senate had all the same intel he had. Why no love for them? Doesn't fit your plan of hatred and blind bashing?
After Tehran is in the hands of it's citizens and not under the control of radical Islamic cowards, then we can decide if it was worth it. See, we haven't finished yet.
2006-12-31 08:10:10 · answer #9 · answered by Rich B 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
To put someone on trial, you must have direct evidence to have him found guilty. I don't think that the evidence would be strong enough to put Bush away. Its not what you know, its what you can prove.
2006-12-31 08:09:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
This says that our priorities are screwed up. they're like hundreds of folk protecting up indicators for secure practices against canines, and prefer none for the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq truthfully impacts human beings. Mike Vick is basically a tousled guy or woman that frolicked with the incorrect human beings, he isn't a bad guy. he's unlike Saddam or a terrorist. yet human beings could think of that he's.
2016-10-19 07:05:49 · answer #11 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋