Why is it that when Saddam ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis, it's a crime and he's executed, but when Bush does it, it's collateral damage?
I mean, if we're arguing semantics, doesn't Saddam have more of a right to kill his own people than Bush does?
Now, I would never call for the painful, public and brutal execution of George W. Bush, but if anyone else wants to......
2007-01-17 04:34:15 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If you can't see the differences you really have a problem with cognate thinking.
2007-01-17 04:39:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
The difference between George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein ....... ....is the spelling.
2016-05-24 00:19:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
saddam did it to swow his prowess and that he is in charge .
it is funny how we hear of the deeds but we don't hear of the lead up or the effectivness of the deed,as I remmember the shyites were the majority faction in Iraq when saddam was put into power ,outnumbering the sunni's something like 8-1
and in the early part of his reign he had to show his fearless will and prove to his population not to question his authority.
remmember there are huge differences between a dictatorship and a democracy.
there was an instance about 15 years ago where the shyites tried to overthough saddam by their numbers and were kidnapping and and toturing sunni's over diffences in religion and it was getting to the point of geniside when saddam used chemical warefare on a shyite dominated part of his own country that was being infiltrated and undermind by Iran .if you look for the insident I'm reffering to You will find it in the archives .there was world condemnation for this action but after the investigations nothing further came of it.
now he wasn't hung because of that incident he was hanged for the 148 beath of those who plotted to assasinate him and failed and to ensure that it would not happen again he publically shows what would happen to those that might try in the future.
no by no means do I give the guy any support for what he did or am I saying I agree with his brutality in any way shape or form .
what i do know is that he would still be the dictator of Iraq if the U.S. does not invade his country and send the man into hiding and eventual capture and trial that leads to him being hung in a most disgracfull manner that makes the exicutioners no different then what he did prior. And the reason he was hunted in the first place was not because of his actions after a failed plot to assasinate him but for supposedly building an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that he was plotting to use on the entire world ,all curtisy of the U.S. inteligance report put out from information that was supposedly collected from U.N security forces in Iraq with there own eye's and saw mobile nuclear producing labritory's capable of mass producing chemical weapons (those of which requier a process that usuallly is manufactured in 10,000 square feet warehouse/labratory .
the fear factor was easing in 03 and osama was no where in sight and the government needed another target to cover up its inept ability to capture and bring to trial osama binladin but over the past 3 years it's been for the most part "Osama who"?
the congress is going to have to deal with Iraq before it can adress the bush coruption senario and by the time they get around to uncovering anything it won't be public record for anothe 50 yrs.and by then bush will be dead and no one will care.
to answer your question yes as a dictator saddam had the right to do what ever he wanted and bush has no right to kill anyone as president of a democracy,who knows maybe that is why he wants there to be no more dictator's,lol he's jealous of that kind of power,lol.
2007-01-17 05:27:37 · answer #3 · answered by matthew_yelle 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush=alive
Saddam=dead
2007-01-17 04:36:32 · answer #4 · answered by davelibby321 4 · 10⤊ 2⤋
Well Bush was given authority by congress, Saddam ruled with an "iron fist" and murdered any opposition. There is a big difference
2007-01-17 04:47:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Bush is a brutal, sick dictator that makes Saddam look like an absolute joke. Bush is also a mass murderer and traitor to the United States. Bush is by far the most hated and feared man in history, sweeping Hitler by millions of votes.
2007-01-17 04:48:01 · answer #6 · answered by m s 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Congress authorized the Iraq invasion. Bush didn't intetionally go after innocents, while Saddam specifically targeted innocent people.
What about Clinton? Bill Clinton wanted to go to war with Iraq in 1998. Bush is following through with Clinton's intentions.
2007-01-17 04:38:28 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Saddam was never a threat to America.
2007-01-17 05:16:25 · answer #8 · answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Saddan ordered the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people. Bush did no such thing. Almost all deaths if iraqi civilians have been inflicted by other Arabs, not Americans. Any inflicted by Americans were either accidental or were done in contravention to policy.
2007-01-17 04:51:06 · answer #9 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Bush Sr. contracted with Saddam to do USA's dirty work against Iran in the 1980s, using Don Rumsfeld as his intermediary.
Bush Jr. contracted with Don Rumsfeld to do the Halliburton's dirty work against Saddam, using American general's as his intermediaries.
2007-01-17 04:41:36 · answer #10 · answered by Jack C 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
the main difference between the two-besides the fact that the basis of your "question" is all bullsh!t,is Saddam is DEAD,President Bush is ALIVE!
2007-01-17 04:38:28 · answer #11 · answered by slabsidebass 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋