saddam killed several hundred people after a death threat. Bush invaded a country and killed hundreds of thousands because of an attempt on his Dad.
2007-01-03 06:57:47 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So going to war is a crime? Defending yourself and your regime is a crime? Then when is Bush on trial. You people have really sucked it all in, haven't you.
2007-01-03 07:03:47 · update #1
I just want one person to say it: Because we are Americans we don't have to play by the same rules.
2007-01-03 07:05:43 · update #2
Saddam committed genocide
Bush brought him to justice
2007-01-03 06:59:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 3⤋
If you really don't know the answer to that question, I'd suggest you move to Iran or Syria and find out for yourself what the difference is.
If Saddam had allowed the UN to come into Iraq and do the inspections for WMD that had been ordered over 10 years prior then there would have been no war in Iraq.
2007-01-03 15:22:11 · answer #2 · answered by Sean 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your comparison is factually absurd and morally bankrupt.
Saddam is responsible for the deaths of roughly 2 million people. His crimes against humanity could fill volumes.
Bush hasn't done anything even remotely close to what Saddam did.
Your belief that "Bush killed hundreds of thousands" is laughably WRONG (see link below), as is your belief that the motive was "because of an attempt on his Dad."
You have NO IDEA what you are talking about.
_____________
pink angel: while you're accusing the U.S. of "putting him in power" (which is debatable) perhaps you might explain to us WHY such a thing occurred. Any idea? Do you even care to know? Or is it good enough for you to slam the United States at any opportunity?
2007-01-03 15:10:50 · answer #3 · answered by C = JD 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
not quite.
hundreds of thousands is a bit much.
saddam released chemical weapons on a city, plus is said to have killed and tortured thousands more. By trying to rationalizie his actions is like saying that what Stalin did was acceptable.
The war in Iraq is a war, and it's not only Bush. The U.N. was involved as well, it was a world effort to remove Sadddam from power.
2007-01-03 15:01:59 · answer #4 · answered by Sgt. Pepper 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Saddam gassed thousands of people, tortured hundreds and slaughtered villagers that opposed his government just because he could .
Bush took documented evidence before the House and Senate , presented his case and then the House and Senate voted to authorized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I can see your confusion .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Your own words......I just want one person to say it: Because we are Americans we don't have to play by the same rules.~~~~~~~~~~~~
The same rules as what? A terrorist dictator that ruled by killing his own people. A dictator that killed Muslims just because they were a different sect?
We are Americans - we went to the UN , we have laws that state the President must have authorization for the Congress to go to war. We don't go to random cities and gas people that disagree with the President.
Grow up
2007-01-03 15:07:38 · answer #5 · answered by Akkita 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
He hasn't done anymore than Bush has done. The only difference is Saddam killed in his own country, Bush went on a preemptive strike killing in a foreign country that hadn't done one thing to us. Our troops are coming home in body bags and maimed beyond recognition. Innocent Iraq people are laying in the road with flies swarming them, Iraq children are use to seeing this in the street, they just pass without even noticing
2007-01-03 15:09:28 · answer #6 · answered by Nicki 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
You Saddam loving Liberals should move to Iraq for a while, find out what its like, go tell the Iraqi people you think Saddam was treated unfairly!!
2007-01-03 15:03:16 · answer #7 · answered by FEVER 3 · 8⤊ 3⤋
Because Saddam purposely did it because he hated a group of people.
Bush killed people because they were either terrorists, or accidental civilian deaths. Believe me, in a democracy a president doesn't want to anger the public and things keep going wrong all around Bush. I seriously doubt he wants our soldiers to kill civilians.
2007-01-03 15:00:44 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 8⤊ 4⤋
They both suck. However, the US put the madman into power in the first place. Everyone seems to overlook that particular fact. Good question, BTW....you got it, the US doesnt have to play by the rules.
2007-01-03 15:11:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
There is a big difference and only a Liberal would purposefully ignore that difference. No one thinks you are a free thinker, progressive, or avant garde because you compare a genocidal tyrant with an elected public servant.
2007-01-03 15:05:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋