Sadam was excuted ... he was accussed of killing innocent iraqis
on the other side ... stands G Bush
he killed more than 650 000 innocent iraqi for a false war
his troops raped thousands of iraqi women
thousands of prisoners were abused without any human rights
cities were bombed and knocked down over the head of innocent civillins ...
thousands of children were killed or lost thier parents
thousands of prisoners in guatimalla was abused and still without any trail .... any rights ....
will he accused of killing innocent iraqi too ...
will the day he'll be excuted come ?
2007-01-06 02:57:20 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Bush lied and killed and lied relentlessly.
Saddam just, well, killed.
God knows best
Peace and Love.
2007-01-06 03:25:00 · answer #1 · answered by mil's 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Where are you getting your data?
What do you mean by "innocent"?
Why are you generalizing about "his" troops? It's not his, they are mine too. I'm a tax payer.
Which cities were bombed or knocked down? You mean cities, or just a couple of buildings?
What children are you talking about? Again, where are your sources?
US doesn't have any military operations in Guatemala. If you mean Guantanamo Bay, that's another story.
The truth is this: Bush made many decisions which are considered less than appropriate by any human rights standard. I do not like to see anybody, terrorist or not, detained without anybody knowing about it, without legal defense and so on...I criticize this government about it.
But you have to understand this: What makes US different, and so much better than the majority of other countries is the fact that we can talk about these violations. Other countries are violating human rights often also. The fact that they cannot be even discussed is what makes a country better than the other one.
US is a country which is doing fairly well, and has a lot to loose. Therefore, US has a greater reason to use less that proper methods of protecting itself. The unfortunate thing with the US is the fact that it is too transparent, compared to the other countries.
US is going after it's own interests. The only difference is between US and other countries, is that US realized that it's interests include helping other people/countries also. US gives the most aid to other countries. US helped Taliban fight the Russians, and helped Iraq fight against Iran. Sadam was a leader who was not as dangerous as the Iran leadership. Therefore US helped him. He became dangerous, and he was disposed of. As simple as that.
The truth is that I do not care who is the superpower. Iran can be the superpower of this world, as long as the people will live better, and I will have all my rights, including the right to believe in my own God, be that Allah, God, Jehova, or another one which I made up for myself.
2007-01-06 04:33:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow dude, where did you get those facts? Those are so far from being true.
"he killed more than 650 000 innocent iraqi for a false war"
1) 650,000 people have not died even when you include the military, 9/11 victims, and everyone that's died of even a heartattack over there. Less than or around 10,000 people have died overall, including all of military deaths, not just those from USA, and including Iraqi soldiers, police, and innocents. That figure is extremely high.
2) It's not a false war. Though the reasons for going to war remain shady, the results of removing a dictator that gassed thousands of people was the best thing for the world. Though democracy was not asked for, we aren't giving Iraq an American democracy, only a way to do government that is fair to the people. They are completely allowed to have their religion define the rules and laws if that is what the people want. We have given back the government to the people. In reality, most people in Iraq are thankful for that. The news only portrays the radicalist.
"his troops raped thousands of iraqi women"
1)Thousands? I don't even really want to comment on this. Maybe in the Vietnam war there were at most 400 women raped by both Americans, French, and Vietnam soldiers. In Iraq though, that just doesn't happen anymore, though there are a few cases that have come out in the media, it's not in the thousands, and comitted from Americans, it's not even in the hundreds.
"thousands of prisoners were abused without any human rights"
There is a possibility of this, abused and tortured P.O.W.s, but it's not thousands. We don't have the resources to manage thousands of prisoners.
"cities were bombed and knocked down over the head of innocent civillins"
Sounds like 9/11 ...
"thousands of children were killed or lost thier parents"
Very true and I wish that didn't happen. However, it beats the millions of children that would have lost their parents to Saddam's gassing, or have been killed themselves.
"thousands of prisoners in guatimalla was abused and still without any trail .... any rights .... "
1) you already said this above
2) Guatimalla couldn't handle that many Iraqis, plus whoever is there now. What would you rather by the way, security and protection, or rights to those that are out to kill you? If you would like to sacrifice your protection and life for the rights of the man that hates you and is trying to kill you, that's fine, but the rest of us, would like to live.
"will he accused of killing innocent iraqi too ..."
Bush couldn't shoot the wall he stands in front of...that's Cheney's job.
"will the day he'll be excuted come ? "
No, because he didn't gass thousands of people and kill thousands more, while oppressing thousands of others.
2007-01-06 03:09:12 · answer #3 · answered by Curtis 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well, since Sadaam was executed, the trial that would have shown neocons' complicity in his larger crimes isn't going to happen. How convenient for the neocons, hey?
By the way, American troops did not rape thousands of Iraqi women. That's simply false, and if you have any decency, you'll retract that statement, and never repeat it. You should know better than that, and saying things like that undermines the important points you might otherwise be making.
2007-01-06 03:09:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
nicely, first of all, both Bush and Obama are alive and nicely, so as that is a significant massive difference between them and Saddam. yet Saddam also had those that spoke out hostile to him imprisoned and killed. considering it truly is hostile to the U. S. structure, i do not bear in mind that being something that has run ramped in this usa. inspite of the indisputable fact that the U. S. has dedicated crimes that i might want to quite not learn about and that i'm particular are incorrect, they're actually not something compared to the likes of Saddam.
2016-12-01 22:07:24 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The difference; G. Bush Jr. will join several ex-presidents (World class leaders), in retirement. The will not challenge the government, or the people again. Sadam intended to stay in power for life, and he almost did. Our ex-presidents will travel the world, with honor. The will contribute, as private citizens in a way that Sadam, and all other dictators will never be able to do. They will rest in peace...
2007-01-06 03:20:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Judged by subjective human values they are poles apart-in reality when karmic law is applied they aren't very different. Bush hides behind the facade of democracy and Christianity but he will still have to account for his actions and the negative karma he has accumulated.
2007-01-06 03:00:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
im 9 and i watch the news so and im in alpha but sadam is a marder and bush is war
2007-01-06 03:01:12 · answer #8 · answered by Sophia M 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sorry but Bush aint no better than Saddam. Saddam outright killed people, he didnt hide his sick mentality. Bush hides it well, but as we all know money talks.
2007-01-06 03:15:59 · answer #9 · answered by M W 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Don't you ever get tired of asking this same stupid question?! I, for one, am tired of seeing it asked over and over. BTW, your facts are absurdly wrong. And what does this have to do with religion, anyway?
2007-01-06 03:06:04 · answer #10 · answered by mrfoamy 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋