WHO IS WORST, Saddam Hussein OR George Bush?Why aren't they both not on trial?

Question

lol,,,,,,,get out of denial

Answer 1

George Bush because he does not have no brains to be a president.

Answer 2

Saddam Hussein did not invade someone elses country but something had to be done with him but that was George Bush Snr job when he was president George Bush Jnr used 9/11 to clean up his fathers mess they are both as bad as each other and it looks like Osama Bin Laden got of scott free Shame on you George Bush both of you. Also dont forget hurricane Katrina

Answer 3

I assume that this is not real a question but just a complaint about the current president of the U.S.

Saddam Hussein is on trial because his regime was overthrown and the people who had lived under that regime, once they were free to do so, chose to try him.

George Bush is the elected president of the United States of America. He has broken no U.S. laws and so is not subject to no impeachment or trial.

Who is worse? Well that is a matter of opinion. I know very little about Saddam Hussein but in general I approve of George Bush.

Answer 4

Bush takes the gold medal. He attacked Iraq based on lies and deceit. Saddam only killed his perceived enemies but Bush destroyed the lives of innocent children. Through his deceit and lies Bush has created hatred between the Muslims and the rest of the world who have co-existed for centuries. Bush has destroyed the US credibility. He has brought pain and suffering to billions of families all over the world. What can be a worst crime than to bring humanity to the brink of disaster?

Answer 5

thats a no brainer. saddams worst lol BUT, we're comparing two rotten apples here! by our standards, Bush has proven to be quite damaging to the constitution and overall gov. fuctionality. Saddam IS on trial, being judged by a very angry judge (finally). Bush though....he has been treading on very thin ice on the stage of international law. lets look at clnton for a moment. if he had invaded aghfganistan or pakistan after the cole, he would be on trial right now for violating international law. bin laden at the time was not yet labeled a wanted man in the international courts. but, now he is, he was t he reason we went into other countries, so bush may not face the same reprecussions clinton would have. BUT, Bush has violated a number of laws (ours and the worlds), so he may face a trial of sorts after his 2nd term ends. its possible. likely? i dont know.

i'll disagree with some on this point: if you ask questions like this, then you are not a loyal american. while formulating a question like this is skating on very very thin ice (both on facts and reason), i thinks its farely legit. my deffinition of a LOYAL AMERICAN is: a person who loves this country; a person who is NOT afraid to ask questions regarding our leaders; and is genuinly concerned about its well being. by asking this question, nevermind formality, tells me your all those things. just because you question Bush's integruity doesnt mean you hate this country or dont appreciate your guarinteed rights, it means you are concerned. thats a great thing.

Answer 6

I can't believe some people said G. B. is a good president. If you think about it, he also is responsible for thousands of lives (sending troops over to Iraq/Afghanistan in the last few years) He should start solving the elusive game of "Find Bin-Laden". I believe Saddam is probably a bit worse on the whole however, except, at least you knew what he was all about and his agenda. With Bush, he's alot more ambiguous and two-faced.

Answer 7

BUSH!!!! Saddam had more control then we do . We need to mind our own business and invest in our country.Fix this screwed up election system so we don't get another dip s_h_it as president!

Answer 8

i believe there are quite some factors to why Iraq became invaded - the anti wars substances you with one tale, and the experts yet another....shall we seem at a number of the information..... at first i believe Saddam further this very a lot on himself, even although regrettably he became type of stuck between a rock and a puzzling position. As all of us comprehend, Saddam became an best buddy of the west for decades, inclusive of the years even as he gassed the Kurdish village. yet he became the important anti-Iran impact contained in the area, so best buddy he became. Saddams first mistake became invading Kuwait - possibly he idea that western governments does not act, yet this lack of judgement further about his downfall After Kuwait, UN protection resoluton 687 became signed, with between the component that he had to teach that he had destroyed all the WMDs (which all of us comprehend he did have - gassing villages, utilising adverse to Iran and so on, anthrax and so on) - yet back, the following became the puzzling position - if he proved he had were given rid of them then he became exhibiting weak point + exhibiting his enemies he became militarily weaker than they idea. His 2d undesirable lack of judgement became his brinkmanship with the UN guns inspectors - even Hans Blix, the governmentUN weapon inspector suggested this. And with this coming after 9/11 he surely quite screwed up (and UN SCR 687 suggested that if he did not teach that he had destroyed the guns, then "severe outcomes" (i.e. warfare) would take position) - so i think, on stability, that the Iraq invasion became justified (even although you may want to argue why dont all the UN protection resolutions get enforced!) the position the U. S. and uk did screw up over Iraq became the go out approach, errr, or lack of! in basic terms because WMDs were not found in Iraq does not recommend that there became not a good reason to seem for them, as UN SCR 687 and the blockading of the UN guns inspectors presented this

Answer 9

Saddam is worse. As much as I dislike Bush, Saddam needed to be taken out.

If I thought that was why Bush was in Iraq I would support him but it's not.

If Bush was a good president he would have bombed that country until it looked like a strip mine the moment one American soldier came home in a body bag.

Answer 10

That's just silly. Saddam used nerve gas on his own people. Some of the chemical weapons were disguised as childrens dolls. His sons ran torture chambers where they lowered people feet first into industrial shredders. There is video evidence of this. Where have you been Mars.

Until the president starts dropping nerve gas on Michigan he doesn't compare to Saddam. In the meantime I suggest you get that tin foil hat resized its cutting off the blood flow to your head.

Answer 11

W. for putting his dad's puppet on trial. Saddam must really feel betrayed. Bush for genocide in Iraq, or does not 600,000 dead constitute genocide. Bush, for invading a country that did not attack us. Bush for torturing prisoners of war. Bush for bankrupting our country.
Only the victors can put the losers on trial. ( Except for the World Court ) Bush will have to wait for that.