The resultant collapse of the government of Iraq is responsible for increased violence . Before the war approximately 300 people a year were being killed by terrorists world wide . Since the war began that number has increased to 20,000 people a year killed as a result of the war in Afghanistan And Iraq .
SO before the war a few hundred since the war thousands .
Is it hard to accept that the world looks at the numbers and has declared Bush a bigger threat then the terrorists .
Its like an ant pile in your yard . From time to time you may get bit .
Stir it up and many bites will result .
Since conservatives do not want the entire nest killed then it would be good to leave it alone to reduce the contact and possibility of a bite .
2007-05-29 03:42:52 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
you've already made up your FAR LEFT TERRORIST APPEASING MIND so why should I even bother answering?
2007-05-29 03:46:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Terrorisim killed all of those people so get your facts straight. Put it this way so the anti-Bush nuts get it. If the terrorists would not have attacked US repeatedly in various places around the world and including the WTC in 1993 and cumulating in 2001 then that would have caused us not to need to go after them thus causing the unfortunate deaths of those who are trying to do their jobs of protecting the country. All of their deaths fall back onto the terrorists hands not Clinton or Bush or the next president. All of those people you talk about being killed are a result of the terrorists actions, not those of the Americans, our war allies or any member of the government esepcially the president. All of this falls back onto the terrorists hands.
2007-05-29 10:54:24 · answer #2 · answered by Sane 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
GW Bush has more blood on his hands. Bush is directly responsible for the invasion of Iraq and all the deaths of civilians & militants that have resulted from this. There can be no justification for reckless acts of violence. If we respond to violence with more violence than we are no different than the so called terrorists. Every one is quick to cry ". . . .but THEY attacked us first, THEY started it, and THEY hate us." No one even knows for sure who THEY is. Was it Ossama? Was it Saddam or Iran or Seria or the Saudis? No one knows for sure. There has never been any conclusive evidence, only speculation. War does not solve any problem, it only creates more war. Eventually war will result in peace, but only after everyone is dead. Fighting for peace makes about as much sense as focking for virginity.
2007-05-29 11:17:25 · answer #3 · answered by SKYDOG 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Obviously the deaths are the fault of the terrorists.
The regime of Saddam Hussein was terrorist in nature.
Tyrannical at best.
If the terrorists weren't continuing to murder innocent women and children, no deaths would be occurring in the area.
All the deaths are the result of terrorism because the innocent civilians need to defend themselves against the terrorists.
The fact is, we are in WW III because terrorism is a world-wide problem.
The sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner we will be able to act realistically in dealing with the problem.
Conservatives tend to be better than most at recognizing fact!
2007-05-29 10:57:32 · answer #4 · answered by Philip H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Terrorists
2007-05-29 10:55:20 · answer #5 · answered by Fenix Girl 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The terrorists are responsible for more deaths. We would not have gone to war in Afghanistan or Iraq if it was not for 9/11. Every death in the war on terror is because of the terrorist not because of Bush.
2007-05-29 10:49:56 · answer #6 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
You don't consider the sudan, darfur, somalia etc as acts of terrorism? Wake-up and smell the blood of the innocent who can't defend themselves. The terrorist are responsible for more deaths if you don't look the other way.
2007-05-29 11:04:35 · answer #7 · answered by Steel Rain 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush! For one thing, the American's assisted getting Sadam into power in the first place, as they have other, in the past, other sedistic leaders. Bush had NO proff whatsoever Iraq was involved in 911, and yet still attacked. Should have finished it up in Desert Storm in '92! Sadam was complying with the UN on the inspections and was getting rid of weapons. There were NO weapons of mass destruction found, NO nuks, NO chemicals, NO biowarfare, etc., yet Bush attacked. He allowed Sadam to be hung making him a martyre.
For every action there is a re-action.
2007-05-29 10:52:49 · answer #8 · answered by bannermoon 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
The US has killed over 600,000 terorist, harborers, bystanders, and innocent casualties
While the Terrorist have killed barely over 3,000 soldiers in combat, and possibly 5,000 Iraqis, Contractors, Press, and Afgahns in terrorist attacks.
I think the US is kicking *** and not taking names.
2007-05-29 11:14:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
And...once the contact is reduced, the owner of the house will simply wait, believing all to be well...until the carpenter ants have chewed away at both foundation and structure...
2007-05-29 10:53:36 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well it's pretty easy to calculate who is responsible for more deaths.
Bush's decision has directly led to the deaths of somewhere between 100,000 and 600,000 innocent Iraqis due to military attacks, according to the estimates.
The terrorists are probably directly responsible for the deaths of no more than 50,000 since 911.
That's the math, pretty much. Make your own value judgments.
2007-05-29 10:49:17 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋