Yep, they both suck. Personally, I think the US and Isreal is worse. Everyone expected that kind of thing from Saddam.
2006-08-10 14:07:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by Nicky 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Saddam
2006-08-10 21:02:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by Prep♥™ 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Definitely the first one because in the U.S. and Israel we can choose our leaders and speak out against atrocities. In Iraq, Saddam had sole power and did not have to accept any criticism for his actions. Good question, it was very thought provoking. Too bad you will be attacked for it.
2006-08-10 21:04:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You've been standing a little too close to the "radiation" emitter.
How can you dare to compare the use of conventional weapons to chemical weapons? It is obvious to anyone knowledgeable of the effects of chemical weapons, that you are totally ignorant.
2006-08-10 21:06:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by Don 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Saddam, killing dissidents isn't exactly legally or morally acceptable. Accidents are more acceptable.
2006-08-10 21:03:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by Black Sabbath 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
How Do you get 100,000 of people on to an airplane???
2006-08-10 22:48:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by smartman_06 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
they haven't even killed a thousand civilians that Hazbollerahj hid their weapons and men behind! but does this prove there were WMDs?
2006-08-10 21:02:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Bawney 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
saddam is worse. israel is protecting itself. why do you hate the jews?
2006-08-10 21:06:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by afterflakes 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
US and i'll tell u why
becuase we are also indirectly responsible for Sadam's crimes as well. we sold the weapons to him and remember who put sadam in power in the first place.
2006-08-10 21:18:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by GNOSIS 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Both are bad, there is no worse. while this is a great question, there is no answer. Neither is acceptable.
2006-08-10 21:05:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋