who is worse president bush or sadaam hussein we all know sadaam hussein has done some pretty horrific thngs but is bush any better is he a murderer to i do not condon anything sadaam has done but how much better is bush did he really have the right to invade another country on his own beleifs without evidence does he really have the right to rule the world all these invasions are rediculas (even to talk about invading) Is he putting the united states at risk as well as the rest the world..Is really helping the problem or making it worse..
2007-02-16 16:56:56 · 10 answers · asked by hot choclate 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
well, you make a good point. depends on how you look at it. you have to see the situation from both ways. how do you feel personally about each one. to me, president bush seems worse in te case that he is killing so many americans each day and many other nations too. sadaam killed many people in his own country and maybe some of other countries. professionally speaking sadaam,is worse.
2007-02-16 17:06:26 · answer #1 · answered by random and unique 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
sadaam is way worse, bush did have evidence to invade turned out to be false when it was to late. sadaam was killing his own people and there were terrorists hiding in his country. for the world it is a good thing we invaded. yes good people have died which nobody likes. but the amount of death is nothing compaired to other wars this country has been in in world war 2 there were days when more people died in one day than all the days in iraq so far. what do you want bush to do? just pull out now? that'll leave a nice nesting site for more terrorism.
2007-02-16 17:04:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
In the back of my mind I really wondering where your loyalty is to our country and our troops. My family is over there, fighting al Queda and other insurgent extremeists. They believe in saving this country from future terror attacks, which we have not had in the last 5 years.
The extremists they are fighting 'are among the terror groups' and the fight is there, not here. Where do these ideas of yours come from? Are you in that much denial that we had captured the person reponsible for genocide to his own people and are assisting the newly formed government of Iraq to get on it's feet? My family is in Army Special Forces and they ARE finding bits and pieces of what is left of chemical warfare that was being created by his insanity Saddam. This monster had torture rooms, rape rooms and all other amassed torture equipment.
I don't understand any of the attitudes here. Yes, people have died...but any war is hell.
Congressional leaders are stuck in their armchairs making decisions for the last month and they want to cut off our brave men by taking away the money that will supply them with the things they need to stay safe.
Now, who would you rather root for?
It reminds me of how prez candidate Obama made that horrible comment about our brave men and women are 'dying for nothing' and then apologizing...and a lot of good that would do. My family heard that, and this senator does not get the vote of any of our family or friends. He's a political fool and belongs to a church that believes 'they will rule'!
2007-02-16 17:14:02 · answer #3 · answered by chole_24 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is only about the 1,000th time I have seen some variation of this question. Saddam was a brutal dictator who murdered 100,000's of his own people. Bush is the democratically elected President of the United States who overthrew that brutal dictator giving Iraqis their 1st ever chance at being free. In other words, Saddam was very bad. Bush is very good. I hope you are able to understand this crucial difference.
2007-02-16 17:05:59 · answer #4 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
First off use punctuation. It's there for a reason.
If you seriously think Bush is the worse president you need your head checked. Bush never declared mass genocide on his citizens. Bush never picked Americans at random to torture and brutalize just for funs sake. Bush never forced his own children to kill people before the age of 10. Bush never went to Iraq with the intent of stealing it's stupid oil like the retards would have you believe. That was Hussein who went into Kuwait for that purpose.
Please read your history books or at least the news before posting dumb crap.
2007-02-16 17:03:50 · answer #5 · answered by Nationalist 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i can declare he's not a undesirable President, i admire he middle believes. conflict is Hell, yet on occasion needed, This one in needed. in my opinion, he's a greater valuable President the bill Clinton, China is the probability is in immediately because of the Clinton's, he's a greater valuable President than his Dad, he did no longer only drop the ball and run a month after the beginning up of the conflict. yet i can not say he's as sturdy of a President as Reagan, Now that became right into a guy who did no longer take no **** from all people, Reagan is the rationalization that I grew to develop right into a Republican, a actual Republican and not this fake Pansy's we've in Washington.
2016-11-23 14:26:33 · answer #6 · answered by stiefel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This question is such an old one, it's been asked a billion times and most of us on here have moved on from this. You are lagging behind. And if you think it's cool to compare our president with Saddam you are making things in this country worse than Bush is!
2007-02-16 17:01:37 · answer #7 · answered by Brianne 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I love how so many inbreeds just forget the fact that the Senate gave Him approval to go into Iraq. They all agreed with the Intel, but somehow they all get out of any responsibility.
2007-02-16 17:02:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Saddam
2007-02-16 18:05:10 · answer #9 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You're an idiot.
2007-02-16 17:01:57 · answer #10 · answered by BG 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋