I say yes. The war is all about oil nothing else. No weapons found and human right.pshhhh what about rawanda bush how come no action there because they have nothing to offer no oil? Bunch of bull I say....
2007-09-07 16:11:31 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Rawanda was only an example and I would agree with taking action if weapons of destruction were found but not the case but lots of oil and what about NC 6.2 billion to clean up but will spend 900 billion on a war..No just wrong...
2007-09-07 16:22:20 · update #1
Did the american people vote him in twice or did florida get ripped off of their votes you decide not me.
2007-09-07 16:31:03 · update #2
Please do not attack me I just asked a question and gave my views its called freedom of speech I disagree with whats going on in iraq and I feel for the soldiers that are there fighting and familys. If a threat is posed I agree to take action. Bin laden is not from iraq either so do not use 911.
2007-09-07 16:33:57 · update #3
YES beats out the No's
2007-09-07 17:07:39 · update #4
Bring on the Noose baby!
2007-09-10 17:51:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Get your head out of your **** for a second and realize that no American president will ever be charged with "war crimes" because of misinformation. I'm no Bush fan, he is as looney as they come as far as I am concerned but War crimes? Who is going to charge him and take him into custody? Not the American people that voted him in twice and who else would face the next nutcase with all the nukes you have to try and convict him. Once you can answer a few of those questions, you will see that Bush will never be tried. , let alone convicted, he never invaded alone, he had the backing of basically everyone in the US as well as a few other mindless clones that came along for the ride. Bush is America, he is everything good and bad and to indite Bush would be inditing the entire nation and we all know that will never happen because America is never wrong, everyone else is.
2007-09-07 16:26:37 · answer #2 · answered by Bob D 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
shall we be straightforward....very very nearly each and every president over the previous 40 years....could desire to be sitting in penal complex for some thing. And if we counted senators and congressmen....over a million/2 of those adult adult males could desire to be in penal complex. So the place is the dividing line? that's what I continuously emphasize to human beings....as quickly as you open a can of beans....it ain't rather. war criminal? Its undesirable not undemanding to place Bush interior the league of Hitler. it extremely is the concern with this finished USC 2441 episode. Its like writing tax code and setting up the crime with the meant criminal. you finally end up with some thing which you somewhat did not undersand or understand.
2016-10-18 07:10:52 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I strongly suspect that you (like most of the world it seems) have not been following closely the chronology of events. You have missed all of the truly major points on which the decision (voted on by both Dem.s and Repub.s alike) was based. And please don't start whining about having been lied to. The only one who lied was the Iraqi Chemical Engineer who defected -- it was on the information he provided that the final case for going to war was made, and he now openly admits he lied.
When you review the facts, this thing plays out like Otto von Bismarck and WW I. But then, you would have to actually study history to understand. Clearly, you do not and are instead influenced by blind hatred.
2007-09-07 16:20:38 · answer #4 · answered by Doc 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why wait. If you have evidence, do it. If not, quit your blind accusations based on partisanship.
So you are saying you would support the action in Iraq, if the U.S (under clinton). had gone into Rwanda, where the U.N. was, and left? Or are you being an obvious hypocrite by pointing out that you want U.S. interference in human rights violations, but not in Iraq?
I can't seem to follow your lack of common sense mixed with hypocrisy.
2007-09-07 16:15:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 3⤋
Agree 100%
2007-09-07 16:30:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
The war was for oil huh? Then why the hell have gas prices gone up? Don't get me wrong I don't have any preference when it comes to which guy got elected (Bush or Kerry) I think they would have done just about the same.
2007-09-07 16:19:34 · answer #7 · answered by Woden501 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Rwanda occurred during Bill's reign. As did the carnage in Sierra Leone.
If you wish to charge Bush with war crimes then Bill should have his own docket for what he did to the Serbian people.
2007-09-07 16:17:47 · answer #8 · answered by illiberal Illuminati 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I think George Bush should be charged as an accomplice to mass murder! Why wait? He should be impeached! Now! As U. S. citizens, we all should want this!
2007-09-07 16:26:31 · answer #9 · answered by ms 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Rwanda ??
Nothing is happening in rwanda.
or did you mean Darfur region of the Sudan ?
Which does have oil, alot of it.
Oops.
2007-09-07 16:22:11 · answer #10 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋