2006-12-30 22:18:17 · 15 answers · asked by NONAME 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
BUSH.. without a doubt
In any case, Saddam was funded by America(Reagan), so it comes back to Bush.
2006-12-30 22:22:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 7⤋
Saddams reign was far worse for deaths than during the Bush years. See the difference is that the Bush's killed Iraqi's. Saddam killed Iraqi's. So we were just helping Saddam.
2006-12-31 06:22:39 · answer #2 · answered by Rick R 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The answer is easy. Saddam is responsible for 100s of 1000s of deaths, therefore, he takes the cake...FACT...... Don`t forget how many servicemen the Dems killed off in Viet Nam, 58,000 !!! Bush has a long way to go at 3000 to reach those kind of numbers.
2006-12-31 06:26:18 · answer #3 · answered by Just Hear Me Out 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, Saddam was in power for 25 years, and both Bushes combined will have been in power a total of 12 years. Statistically speaking, a little more than twice as many people would have died while Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti was in power in Iraq. As far as who had more people executed, the answer is still Hussein. There was that one time he had 184,000 Kurds executed in one day. There was also the time he had his son-in-law executed for disagreeing with him. Having people executed was one of Hussein's favorite activities. There is a reason he was hanged yesterday.
2006-12-31 06:37:29 · answer #4 · answered by DOOM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That is another insane question. People around the world have died every day. With your logic our president during WW2 would have the most deaths under his watch. Or maybe it was president Lincoln ? It always seems to amaze me how some people blame our president for every thing in the world. I suppose you blame the deaths in Darfur on him as well. How about the floods in Indonesia ? Saddam butchered people for disagreeing with him. Nice try !
2006-12-31 06:25:53 · answer #5 · answered by meathead 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
You seem to have a problem grasping reality.Saddam would have had you killed for asking.All of his elections were won by a hundred percent vote.
You have freedom,you have liberty to be a fool,you have the supreme ability to vote as you see fit.If you think so little of the country and people then maybe you should go where there is a dictator and see if you are allowed such foolishness.
2006-12-31 07:10:33 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You know, with all your blatant hate filled anti-president, anti- American questions all the time, have you ever thought of just moving to to another country that you think would better suit your philosophies? It would probably be a lot less stressful for you.
2006-12-31 07:17:37 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah.. Look at history it was definitely Saddam. Who knows how many more unmarked mass graves are out there in Iraq.
2006-12-31 06:34:06 · answer #8 · answered by ompie 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
(hic) Saddam holds that honor by a wide margin.
2006-12-31 07:40:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you include both Bush's probably them if we count all the soldiers - civilians (whoops) and rebels they've killed over in the middle east.
2006-12-31 09:24:43 · answer #10 · answered by one10soldier 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
um..i cant beleive you felt the need to ask this question, unless you are including natural causes, the answer is obviously Saddam
2006-12-31 06:20:57 · answer #11 · answered by Adam 4 · 6⤊ 2⤋