why is this inequality . if bush can kill for his interests why cant saddam.
2007-01-23 21:30:06 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
In this world where do we live, only terrorist survive and honest people die.
2007-01-23 21:34:30 · answer #1 · answered by Robert P 1 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Considering Saddam killed for his own pleasure and President Bush is sending troops (who mind you, signed up for the military, knew that joining said military might mean they'll go to war where they might die) to defend this country, your question makes no sense. This trite point has been tried on here before. You're not being controversial or even original. You're just hopping on the bandwagon of 'hate Bush' which is all well and good except you're spouting off your crackpot opinions, not facts. If Bush were to be executed for what you call crimes, so should a few more Presidents because this ain't the first war in this country, sweetie. The military is there for one reason. War. That's what they train for and that is what they knowingly signed up for. Consider showing some respect to the brave men & women who are over there right now defending your rights to say ignorant things such as this.
2007-01-23 23:24:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Darlin' you really need to KNOW what you are talking about before making such uninformed rants. Saddam was only tried for ONE of his many attrocities. Since he could only be hung once, the Iraqi government's decision was to try him on the one crime that was the easiest to prove. He ordered the cold-blooded murdering of hundreds of thousands of people (if not more).
Trying to put some type of moral equivalence on the tragic deaths that come from the war in Iraq to that is naive at best.
2007-01-24 02:20:35 · answer #3 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
staring at a number of the previous solutions jogs my memory that people who shout loudest have the least to declare and the main to disguise. The Iraqis that Saddam killed have been generally killed with the conivance and appoval of england and u.s., no longer that Britain has had an self reliant voice for years, and we killed many with the sanctions we imposed on Iraq, which the politicians knew and in all hazard was hoping may be the case, so as that they might portray what have been their murderous tyrant as now an self reliant murderous tyrant. attempt looking at the back of the headlines, a number of you.
2016-11-01 03:46:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know, I assume, that Saddam killed way more than 128 people. That was just one, one time. He believed firmly in torture and the use of WMD. He used poison gas on his own people and killed thousands that way. His death toll is estimated to be well over 100,000 people. They are finding mass graves all over Iraq. He would torture and kill people who may have said something against him. His sons were noted for arresting women and their favorite method of torture was rape. This is the man you are defending. What is wrong with you.
2007-01-23 22:45:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bush didn't order killing of Iraqis. Its Iraqis killing each other. Am I abusing children in China by buying iPod, Nike or other things that might exploit child labor without my knowledge? Should you be put in jail for buying cheap craps from Wal-Mart?
2007-01-23 21:58:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Easy...he is attempting to eradicate one of the most poisonous elements of our world to date. If winning the war on terrorism means millions must die then so be it. After all, "where's there's doubt, there is no doubt", and people from "that" part of the world have proven time and time again we have every justifiable cause for doubting the authenticity in their wanting to blend in with westerners. If you are a westerner, then your question alone suggests bigotry against your own kind and more than likely treason. Did you know treason in America is punishable by death? Need I say more???????
2007-01-23 22:02:11 · answer #7 · answered by ? 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
besides the 128, there are more than half a million that he never stood trial for, it is their justice system,
2007-01-24 18:56:30 · answer #8 · answered by thevillageidiotxxxx 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
~First of all, to another answer... I'm not defending Saddam!
I won't defend Bush either! They are BOTH wrong. Bush is doing it "legally" by calling it "terrorism."~
2007-01-23 23:20:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Okie dokie, another misinformed poster.
2007-01-24 02:23:22 · answer #10 · answered by clwkcmo 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If you massacre people for the fun of it, you're called a dictator. If you sent thousands off to their deaths for your own interests, you're called a President.
2007-01-23 22:16:57 · answer #11 · answered by Debra D 7 · 2⤊ 6⤋