English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Mike Vick, who I don't defend, will go to jail for killing dogs, while George Bush will remain free though he helped orchestrate a flase pretext to a war which today caused over 200 innocents to die.
What do you think this says about American people's values?

2007-08-15 10:41:42 · 17 answers · asked by Hapaman 2 in News & Events Current Events

Someone says Bush doesn't kill Iraqis- that Iraqis do. Says two things: Bush won't fight his own battles, and kills our working class instead.
Iraqis kill iraqis with guns that were brought into Iraq from where? Mostly America.

2007-08-15 11:02:57 · update #1

17 answers

In a just world, Bush would be put on trial as a war criminal, and if found guilty, spend the rest of his life in prison (I don't believe in the death penalty). Cheney, Rumsfeld, Abrams, Wolfowitz, et.al., would join him as co-defendants.

Yes, what he has done is far worse than what Michael Vick did. And yes, sadly, as the responses to your question so far indicate, Americans care far more about dogs than Iraqis. Michael Vick at least had the courage to look at the dogs he was killing. Bush cannot and will not look an Iraqi in the face as he is killed by the American military. He is a coward from square one.

For Bush and Americans in general, the war in the Middle East is an abstraction--Iraqis don't look like us, talk like us, we don't know them personally and our mainstream media has shamelessly collaborated with the Bush administration to hide the true pain and terror of war from the American people.

Americans don't know what it is like to wonder if your family members will be dead from violence the next day. They do not know what it is like to pick up body parts after a bombing. And they will not admit how many of the dead in Iraq are directly victims of the violence of the American war machine. There is copious evidence of massive civilian casualties in the fighting in Fallujah and Najaf, for instance. Phosphorous munitions and napalm were used by the US Marine Corps in the fighting around Fallujah, clearly weapons of terror by any rational definition of the word terrorism.

We hear almost nothing about the massive air campaign being conducted in Iraq by the US, and the enormous amount of "collateral damage" caused to neighbors of people who are insurgents or Al-Qaida members.

I don't blame the individual service members for this catastrophe, and when this war finally is over I will not judge them for participating. But Bush and his cronies should be held to account.

2007-08-15 15:46:47 · answer #1 · answered by Steve-O 5 · 1 1

This says that our priorities are screwed up. They're like hundreds of people holding up signs for protection against dogs, and like none for the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq actually affects humans. Mike Vick is just a messed up person that hung out with the wrong people, he's not a bad man. He's not like Saddam or a terrorist. Yet people would think that he is.

2007-08-16 04:44:05 · answer #2 · answered by Justin D 5 · 0 0

Good question! I've seen more hatred and spite directed at the McCanns here than at Bush. A lot more than 200 innocents have died because of LIES this administration told (remember the Lancet study anyone?). I have faith that he will see justice eventually though. It may take years but history will show that there's only so much the American people will take. Let reason prevail!

2007-08-15 11:10:35 · answer #3 · answered by contrarycrow 4 · 0 0

Not much. It amazed me that more e-mails were sent to CNN regarding the Michael Vick Dog Scandal than were received in relation to stories surrounding how People were suffering in New Orleans waiting for rescue after hurricane Katrina. I guess we put animals over humans, our own citizens and foreign people as well. The amount we are spending to blow up, shoot, and bring democracy (LOL) to Iraq could fix all of the damaged bridges in our country, repair the power grid, and provide health care for all Americans.

2007-08-15 11:00:26 · answer #4 · answered by Rosebudd 5 · 1 0

It says that Bush is the President of the United States, and although, now, many people disagree with our involvement in Iraq, at the time, Congress gave Bush permission to put us there. You are comparing apples and oranges.

2007-08-15 10:46:36 · answer #5 · answered by claudiacake 7 · 5 0

On March 16, 1988 Iraqi troops, on orders from Saddam to stop a Kurdish uprising, attacked the Kurdish town of Halabjah with a mix of poison gas and nerve agents killing 5,000 people, mostly women and children.

Here is Saddam's complete "kill tally". Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

The 200 dead that may, or may not have been caused by the Iraqi War pale in comparison. My question is just how many people were SAVED by this war? How many people WOULD he have killed?

Perhaps, the US army should take over the NFL. That might make it more even, yeah? (sarcasm)

2007-08-15 10:46:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

the genuine question is why did the guy have such undesirable aim? i don't be responsive to every person, aside from some on Yahoo solutions, that does no longer desire to throw shoes at George Bush. no longer purely the main unpopular president ever yet in addition the stupidest. besides, who cares? relatively. enable's in simple terms get the hell out and concentration on our economic device and issues at living house. Now there's a novelty. no longer aggravating approximately every person else. who're a number of those stupid individuals who easily thought they have been going to love us whilst we went in there? who're all those stupid individuals who nevertheless think of we are making a distinction? Surge, surge, surge...a waste of time, money and lives...ain't none of it going to alter a element. EVER.

2016-10-10 07:29:36 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

George Bush... Political Moron
Micheal Vick...Sadistic Moron
And didn't the 200 innocents die from a IED blast?
That would be due to Terrorism's favorite sport.......
Cowardly Murder Of Women and Children

2007-08-15 10:56:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Why should we care about a nation that we invaded illegally, which was NEVER a threat to us in the first place, and has shown little inclination to change for the better?

2007-08-15 12:58:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Do Americans came more about dogs than Iraqis?
_______________________________________

First!

Move away from the computer keyboard.

Try to locate

School SPELLING book?

Then.

If you are still able?

Please locate your

English book so you will then learn as too

How to establish good

Understandable

Sentences in trying to

form a

QUESTION...

2007-08-15 11:18:00 · answer #10 · answered by Old Dawg 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers