who's the real martyr here? what a way to get revenge for your father?
2007-01-03 00:35:43 · 13 answers · asked by kindkayeye/im a chick 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
He didn't go there for hussein, that was the pretext, he went for oil, unfortunately he was too much of a pantywaist to tell other countries that didn't help (ie: france) that they could share in the proceeds, thus giving up america's rightfull claim to that oil.
He should have just admitted it and taken the oil.
2007-01-03 05:53:41 · answer #1 · answered by bluto blutarsky2 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First of all when I hear people say that Bush killed our troops; it makes me sick. Ask anyone that is in the Military if they joined just so they could travel, NO when someone joins the Military they go in knowing that there is a chance that they will have to fight a war of some sort. This is why it is called the United States Military, not day camp!!! I think there was a saying that went something like this, "When I grow up I want to join the Military, so that I can travel, meet interesting people, then kill them" so one does not join the military with-out the expectation of having to kill someone, or fight in a war, so please before you go blaming any one for the death of our WONDERFUL, BRAVE and SACRIFICING Soldiers, ask them if they were lied to about one day having to defending our country? Why would one join, take an oath to protect this country and them blame someone else when it happens?
2007-01-03 08:55:32 · answer #2 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
ALSO.. it must be remembered that the REAL conflict against terrorism today is in AFGHANSTAN .. NOT Iraq as the media would have you all believe. All media report have taken the spotlight and the rightful focus from the source of the alleged terrorists training and hiding ground in AFGHANISTAN.. and the REAL reason USA asked UK/NATO to help USA by deploying troops to AFGHANISTAN to help US troops there, then promptly withdrew 77% of US troops leaving a grossly under-manned and under-resourced UK troops to sort the mess out !! (to be fair, NATO can take some of the blame for the UK malady in AFGHANISTAN today because many NATO countries refuse to allow their troops operate in a "war fighting role" there - only an admin role !!, and Tony Bliar has yet to fulfill his promise made on air Oct 6th 2006 promising UK troops (majority of NATO troops in AFGHANISTAN) that "whatever they needed they woudl get"..)
2007-01-03 08:45:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anthony B 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Besides you infantile and simplistic view of the war, you are basically either misinformed or a troll. I would hope a troll because I cannot conceive of anyone believing what you posted and not being in an asylum.
2007-01-03 10:36:45 · answer #4 · answered by netnazivictim 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would try to explain this, but I doubt you have the capacity to understand....
Saddam killed WAAAAAAAY more than 148 people though.
I guess you've never watched the news, or read a newspaper, have you?
Of course, that's if I believed you COULD read, which I doubt.
Idiot.
Oh yeah, to answer your question, it's just you.
2007-01-03 08:59:37 · answer #5 · answered by kvalley_94061 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
148 is not even close to the amount of people that man killed. Saddam was not the only target or issue either.
2007-01-03 08:43:58 · answer #6 · answered by 2007 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
C'mon now, don't tell me that you sent all those troops over there and now you are blaming Bush. You sound like one of those bleeding heart Liberals.
2007-01-03 08:47:57 · answer #7 · answered by gyro-nut64 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, Saddam killed thousands of his own people.
Does that make what Bush did right? NO.
But remember, Cheney was the one who really wanted the war.
2007-01-03 08:39:01 · answer #8 · answered by opjames 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Who are you referring to? Not Saddam, he killed hundreds of thousands.
2007-01-03 08:45:04 · answer #9 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
he killed more 148 try doing some research as for Bush he should be dead to.
2007-01-03 08:37:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋