Was Saddam a better leader than Bush?
2007-03-11 07:27:52 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
If you have two options, both of them are bad, but you have no way but to chose one of them, so.... won't you chose the better one?
Saddam was better than Bush. At least there was security in Iraq, during Saddam's reign we have never heard about bombing that kill dozens of Iraqis everyday. Saddam committed some crimes but not as the ones we see today in Iraq after Bush invaded it. Unfortunately, Saddam ruled his people using his power. Through history, Iraq has seen many brutal leaders, and Saddam is nothing if we compare him to those who ruled Iraq in the past. They also brought prosperity to this country. Maybe it's the destiny of Iraq to have leaders like those. See those links, they are interesting, they are actually about some former leaders of Iraq. The first is the most interesting..........
2007-03-11 09:45:58 · answer #1 · answered by MagicWand 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Saddam made sure that the people had at the very least electricity and clean water..he even was awarded medals and awards for the school system that Saddam implemented. That is more than Bush has been able to provide.
2007-03-11 07:52:21 · answer #2 · answered by hera 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The sentiment, good or incorrect, replaced into to unfastened Kuwait. that's the place the worldwide help replaced into too. Bush (40-one) additionally listened to his advisers (in assessment to Bush 40 3) while he replaced into instructed that a ability vacuum could open up if Saddam replaced into taken out of ability and we could ought to freshen up the mess, in a feeling you wreck it, you purchase it.
2016-12-14 16:24:52 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, he was not a better leader.. he was a tyrant.. however, Bush is certainly not doing a much better job. Not as many are dying.. but lots are..and all for nothing.
And he is nowhere nearer aggrieving his idea of a perfect Democracy than it was before... I think he should concentrate on how his own country is falling apart as he tried to prop up another.. another that did not ask for his help.
God forbid he should help any more countries!!!
2007-03-11 07:37:39 · answer #4 · answered by Debra H 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
What the H kind of a question is that?? Bush isn't in charge of the Iraqis....only giving them freedom.
2007-03-11 07:44:14 · answer #5 · answered by chole_24 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
first of all saddam was a ruthless evil dictator.
Second, our Troops are not fighting your every day Iraqis. They are fighting your saddam loyalists and evil terrorist insurgents from other terrorist countries.
2007-03-11 08:38:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
George W Bush never understood the
meaning of
"When in Rome, do as the Romans.."
2007-03-11 07:33:41 · answer #7 · answered by kyle.keyes 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Bush is not cruel...
Saddam was cruel that is how he got ppl under control ok ???
Ppl say Bush is cruel but they obviously don't know about Osama Bin Laden ... a.k.a. osama bin butthead
2007-03-11 07:32:39 · answer #8 · answered by So American 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Sure, if you think "leading" by torture, rape, mass murder is the best way to control people, then Sadaam was a better leader.
2007-03-11 07:30:57 · answer #9 · answered by dsl67 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
As Bush isnt an actual dicator and his millitary are an occupying force, so they have little help from the native populace.
2007-03-11 07:33:03 · answer #10 · answered by spiro_sea 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋