2007-02-08 11:09:46 · 29 answers · asked by peace 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
No because I doubt he thought that so many Americans would die in Iraq.
He is deeply stupid but not THAT evil.He thought he could finish his fathers war with Saddam easily and that the Iraqi people would love having a foreign army there.
They don't and as an invader I suppose he is evil but not as evil as Bin Laden.
This is actually a tough question to answer...
2007-02-08 14:47:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I wish they'd found some other way to tackle the challenge of extremists like Bin Laden. So Bush's gone and responded in a typical human way of hitting back...expensive in lives and money.
Bush's behaviour seems very conventional, although depressing in its destructive effects, Bin Laden is very calculatingly brutal and is probably actually a sociopath.
2007-02-08 11:43:12 · answer #2 · answered by Cader and Glyder scrambler 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We're not sufficiently attuned to the fact that we of the West are descended from the Roman Empire. It still exists in us. The good things of the Roman Empire are what we remember about it – the roads, the language, the laws, the buildings, the classics. We're children of the classical world. But we pay very little attention to what the Roman Empire was to the people at its bottom – the slaves who built those roads; the many, many slaves for each citizen; the oppressed and occupied peoples who were brought into the empire if they submitted, but radically and completely smashed if they resisted at all.
We barely remember the Roman war against the Jewish people in which historians now suggest that hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed by the Romans between 70 and 135 CE. Why were the Jews killed? Not because the Romans were anti-Semites. They were killed because they resisted what for them was the blasphemous occupation of the Holy Land of Israel by a godless army. It would remain one of the most brutal exercises of military power in history until the twentieth century. That's the Roman story.
We Americans are full of our sense of ourselves as having benign imperial impulses. That's why the idea of the American Empire was celebrated as a benign phenomenon. We were going to bring order to the world for - OIL, OIL. Well, yes… as long as you didn't resist us. And that's where we really have something terrible in common with the Roman Empire. If you resist us, we will do our best to destroy you, and that's what's happening in Iraq right now, but not only in Iraq. That's the saddest thing, because the way we destroy people is not only by overt military power, but by writing you out of the world economic and political system that we control. And if you're one of those benighted people of Bangladesh, or Ghana, or Sudan, Somalia, Palestine then that's the way we respond to you. We'd do better in other words if we had a more complicated notion of what the Roman Empire was. We must reckon with imperial power as it is felt by people at the bottom. Rome's power. America's.
2007-02-08 12:07:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
You can't really compare these two... Iraq is an ongoing situation, 9/11 was a (tragic and atrocious) one-off.
Also, Bush (though he may be an idiot) did not intend to kill anyone in the same way that Bin-Laden blatantly did.
2007-02-08 11:14:40 · answer #4 · answered by iwalkalonelyroad 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Let me ask you this: Would you rather have the war on our turf or in Iraq? I think I'd rather have the war going on in Iraq...sorry. And, no, Bush is not worse than Bin Laden. Instead of belly-aching about the war, support the troops and the president.
2007-02-08 13:16:23 · answer #5 · answered by futureteacher0613 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Any excuse to twist and distort things to try to make the liberals look rational?
The difference is that our soldiers were voluntary combatants who offered to serve their country. The people killed on 9/11 were innocent victims of an unwarranted sneak attack.
Its a shame that the liberal mentality can't understand the difference or understand serving as opposed to their self service.
I also note that after the 9/11 attacks that were initiated during Clinton's rule, we haven't had another serious attempt on our soil. Same old story as the last liberal president. We get attacked until the clown is out of office. Then the attacks stop. Would you like to take a few guesses why?
2007-02-08 11:19:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
i cant stand bush and think that he's one of the wost terrorist in the world! he wonders why ppl in Iraq think hes a tyrant..and don't like American ppl..its bc under the American regime more Iraqi ppl have died then by the hand of bin laden ..or Saddam! nobody wins in war..he needs to find away out.
2007-02-08 11:37:49 · answer #7 · answered by lisa baby... 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Hard to say. I personally think they are both pretty horrible. The difference bewteen the 2 is that bin laden was a sneak attack and bush let the whole world know what he was going to do. BUT Bush failed to mention he was goping to fight his daddy's personal battle and not for all of the Americans. Bush can not be tried for his crimes and Bin Laden can.
So I guess in my opinion they are pretty equal.
2007-02-08 11:13:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
Sorry..lost me on that one..thought Afghanistan was about Bin Laden..and Iraq was about Saddam?/
2007-02-08 11:59:51 · answer #9 · answered by troothskr 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
They're soliders.
Right now there's no draft.
They knew what they were getting into.
The people in the World Trade Center were innocent lives and they were killed without ever thinking there'd be that risk.
In any case, Bush and Bin Laden have very little in common, despite what people will say.
2007-02-08 11:13:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋