He sends 10 billion dollars a MONTH to sponsor the war in Iraq when homeless American citizens are dying from hunger. When people all over the world are dying from hunger and natural diseases that require money to be cured. When people are dying because they can not afford to call the doctor. And despite all this, the president sends money for the purpose of hatred, destruction. What do you have to say?
2007-07-14 18:51:48 · 23 answers · asked by dosahyd f 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Oh, of course, and all the soldiers that are dying. Three soldiers are dying every day (on average).
2007-07-14 18:52:15 · update #1
I don't think your question is illogical. This question is the question I ask myself everyday since this war monger is in office.
My answer is YES , a loud and clear yes. And I go so far and call everybody who voted for him twice, the same.
2007-07-14 19:15:17 · answer #1 · answered by willow, the yodakitty from hell 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Not as a legal argument, no.
The military conflict in Iraq is pursuant to a lawful Authorization for the Use of Military Force. So, deaths as a result of that conflict are not murder in the legal sense.
Also, the executive branch doesn't control federal funding. That's exclusively a Congressional function. So Bush cannot be blamed for where Congress allocates the money.
2007-07-15 01:54:54 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
By the same logic, then all previous Presidents would also be accused of indirect murder. Homeless American citizens have died under every Presidency.
2007-07-15 02:42:18 · answer #3 · answered by Still Learning 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
are you insane?
why are homeless Americans dying of hunger? Is it because they refuse to put down the crack pipe, which is a requirement for most of the shelters who are trying to get people off the street?
Why do you care about the people dying of hunger around the world, but not the 100's of thousands of ones who were butchered by saddam, and who will be butchered by the gov't if we allow the extremist groups to take over? Are you going to complain about all the deaths they are responsible for when they take control of iraq's finances, because we decide it's not important anymore?
Are you unaware that emergency rooms are not allowed to turn people away due to lack of money?
What do I have to say? I have to say, that you are very uninformed about what goes on in this world.
2007-07-15 01:59:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
635,000 American Soldiers lost their lives in WW 2, for a fight that Europe was not willing (Other than England) to do for themselves. Was FDR guilty of Murder?
Hitler had no chance of winning once he invaded Russia.
53,000 Died in Viet Nam, now why were we there JFK and LBJ?
200,000 died in Korea and we were basically fighting our "Ally" from WW 2, China.
I suggest you get a grip and put things into perspective.
Had Neville Chamberlain and the rest of Coward Europe taken action earlier, instead of negotiating with Hitler, maybe there would have only been 3600 American lives lost.
2007-07-15 02:28:39 · answer #5 · answered by Ken C 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I don't. This war was not a legal use of our military. He admitted to lying about his reasons for going in there, there were no WMDs and no link to Al-Queda...they knew that going in, the soldiers did not. By starting a war without any justifiable cause, his intent was to kill innocent people, and that's what I think makes him guilty. Charles Manson never murdered anyone, yet he's the on held responsible. What about hiring a hit-man...wouldn't the person who hired him still stand trial even though he didn't kill anyone? I still don't understand why Americans are defending what he has done...
2007-07-15 03:26:33 · answer #6 · answered by jerseygyrrl 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
well, that would be a very good hypothetical question. the short answer would be yes. everyone is guilty of indirect murder. selfishness is a built in trait needed to survive. the more accurate question, that i feel you are really asking is, is it right for president bush to take the lives of others into his own hands? while soldiers are volunteers and assume their own responsibilities they would not be in situations had it not been for their patriotism. another question would be to ask why americans have inspired such hatred amongst people from other countries. so short answer is yes it is logical to assume he bears some responsibility for indirect deaths caused by his actions. we all bear some responsibility.
2007-07-15 01:59:37 · answer #7 · answered by avenging 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Its called war. Soldiers die in wars. And you know what?? this is the least bloodiest war for American History (least number of American deaths of all past wars). Sure, the hungry need to be fed. But more importantly, if we werent over there fighting, terrorist acts would be more frequent, thus more people would be dying from hateful terrorist acts than starvation. Have you not seen whats goin on in Britain lately???
2007-07-15 01:56:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
Suddenly, it is chic for liberals to publicly voice their worry about soldiers. During the 20 years I served, the only thing liberals ever displayed toward the military was disdain. I have a son in the military headed for Iraq. I'll do the worrying about him. You can take your phoney concern and ....
2007-07-15 02:28:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
well the 10 large a month still wouldnt go to the groups you say you want him to spend the bux on, although i doubt if you really give a f about any of those causes. you got any homeless folks living at your place? thought not....
and um, no i dont find it logical to "accuse" bush of murder any more than i would find it logical to "accuse" truman of murder. or lincoln. or eisenhower. or fdr or.................................
2007-07-15 02:16:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Out of everything you listed there is only one responsibility the President has. It is the defense of this country and nothing else.
2007-07-15 02:06:04 · answer #11 · answered by Bill 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋