Sadam died for 182 deaths, shouldn't we hold Bush resposible for 3000+ American deaths?
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
oh yes, all the stupid bush lovers dont though
- psych0bugLv 51 decade ago
You're just another little person in this world that REALLY doesn't understand what's going on.
If you see someone being beat-up everyday would you not help them?
And yes maybe you're right, it's about the oil.
So keeping that in mind, what would you do to keep the oil flowing.
You're going to say alternative fuel source... Um it's not ready or available. Why you may ask, why not?.
Not enough investors.
Or did you think the President has to tell people to invest in alternative fuel's.
Hey better yet, we'll stick him in a lab and make the President invent an alternative fuel. You lib's seem to think he should do everything else.
I got a New Year's resolution for you.
Think, learn then think some more before you talk.
- 1 decade ago
I think that the war in Iraq is unjust, unnecessari, and maybe even illegal. I also think Bush is a terrible president.
Having said that, let's not forget that the house and the senate supported Bush's war plans. And American voters in two elections also supported Bush. Okay, the first election didn't involve the war, and maybe Bush didn't even win it, but in the second election his war was affirmed by the people.
Indeed there are many people responsible for this war and all of the damage and deaths it has caused.
- wunderkindLv 41 decade ago
Someone should sit down with you and teach you the difference between Bush and Saddam. Incidentally, Saddam was guilty for the death of 2 million people not merely 182.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Fair is fair right? If he, his sons, part of his loyal supporters were killed because of this accusation, I think, Bush and those responsible for the death of 3000+ Americans, should also pay the price of its responsibilities.
- Nancy DLv 71 decade ago
You might as well hold every other president responsible then; when we went through other wars. No one held anybody down to join the military. It was their choice to do or go wherever necessary. And where did you get your information on how many Saddam killed??? He's responsible for 1000's and 1000's.
- darklydrawlLv 41 decade ago
yes. and also the estimated 50,000 - 600,000 Iraqi deaths. Most of the world is still not sure why the US invaded Iraq, except maybe to try and secure future oil supplies (esp when the House of Saud is not longer running the show in Saudi Arabia) and settle a score with the US Government's old mate Saddam (who tried to "kill his daddy" to quote dubya himself).
What were the US Government thinking?
Cant't cry terrorism. The 9/11 hijackers was Saudis not Iraqis. Can't cry Bin Laden (he is also a Saudi and loathed Saddam).
Can't cry WMD's. The US Government was aware there was none, and certainly nothing that would harm US citizens living in the US.
Oh and don't forget that for many decades Saddam's regime was funded, armed and fully supported by the US Government in it's covert war against Iran. Many top US government officials have been guests of Saddam over the years.
As for the Taliban and OSB. They were also heavily funded and support in Afghanistan by the US Government fighting a proxy war against the Russians.
Before anyone flames me, please read your history books, read the news, follow the money and if you want to reply, please do it with facts, not rants.
respone to 'psych0bug' :
Like many people, I am pleased that Saddam (and esp his son's) are no longer in power, but consider much of the 'beating up' done by Saddam's regime was done with weapons and expertise provided by western (and especially the US) Governments. This is not anti-US propaganda but verifiable facts from many sources.
"According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China. The Iran-Iraq War began in 1980 when Iraq attacked Iran. Early in the conflict, Iraq began to employ mustard gas and tabun delivered by bombs dropped from airplanes; approximately 5% of all Iranian casualties are directly attributable to the use of these agents. Iraq and the U.S. government alleged that Iran was also using chemical weapons, but independent sources were unable to confirm these allegations." <from URL source 'cold war'>
I agree with you regarding alternative fuel sources. There is no commercially viable alternative source to fossil fuels available now (or in the near future). Oil probably won't 'run out' anytime in the next 100+ years, but it will get more expensive. However out of all the reasons the 'coalition of the willing' used to invade Iraq, securing future oil suppies was not one of them (my country is one a member of that coalition too btw...). Was the invasion based on a lie then?
WRT to fuel supplies. The good citizens of the US could do much to help themselves by selling the SUV and buying a corolla instead. It is much cheaper to use what you have more efficiently then trying to find new sources.
Of course when US drivers start paying the sort of prices per gallon / litre that most of Asia and Europe currently does - alternative fuel research will be more viable. That said, there is no easy solution to the 'oil' issue.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Soldier's job's are to die and present death. Saddam, killed more than 182 people! He started two previous wars where millions of people were killed. Iran-Iraq conflict. 1st gulf war.
Bush's conflicts have some justification... 9/11. Iraq, I agree, is straying from the 'war on terrorism', but since Saddam is gone, the world is better off. I think you might want to do your research on Saddam, and Iraq's military history.
- 1 decade ago
I went to Iraq in 2004 OIF II, when I hear this kind of talk from so called Americans, I thank God I did not have a TV to watch or blogs to read. You Sir are a fool. Bush is a good Pres, and if you don't feel safer here at home you are a cool aid drinker.
- linzeyLv 43 years ago
Gee, you're making an outstanding element. do no longer ignore to condemn all the U.S. Senators and Congressmen to dying, too (yet another 535 lifeless human beings). all and sundry looks to ignore that all of them voted to bypass to conflict, additionally. i think you may desire Saddam placed to dying, additionally, considering the fact that he killed thousands of Iraqis... Oh wait, via U.S., Saddam would be placed to dying. Be for the conflict or against it, yet attempt to a minimum of be knowledgeable relating to the info. And, did you in my opinion count selection the meant "655,000" lifeless harmless Iraqis? It might desire to have been confusing so which you would be able to calculate, thinking we thoroughly destroyed Iraq's infrastructure.
- WMDLv 71 decade ago
Did the 3,000 American soldiers you are speaking of die voluntarily in the service of their country? Did the 182 people that Saddam was tried for executing die voluntarily for their country?
If you can answer this question, good. If not, I can do it for you.
No, 'we' should not hold George Bush responsible.