Don't you think the leader of the most powerful democracy on earth should be held to higher standards than a third world dictator? This is a really bad argument. So will you only start thinking Iraq was a bad idea when the number of people killed there surpasses the number of people killed by Saddam?
Well, newsflash: That infamous gas attack everybody refers to made 5 000 victims. At latest count, the Bush fiasco made at least 66 000. See the problem?
I don't know about you guys, but if I was in court and all my lawyer could say in my defense was at least I was not Charles Manson, I'd be pretty worried.
Sources:
http://hnn.us/articles/862.html
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
And finally, an old favorite, from back when he was our bastard:
http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2003/02/rumsfeld-saddam.jpgpf8qfo.jpg
2007-07-09 23:19:24 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
wow, facts, now watch the right ignore them.
2007-07-09 23:23:19 · answer #1 · answered by crushinator01 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Actually I heard it the other way around. The old Saddam was better than Bush routine. When will these people see that the comparison is very extreme. I don't even like Bush, but I sure can't up for people with that kind of imagination.
2007-07-09 23:38:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well let's see here... I don't even know where to begin with such a ridiculous statement. First off, Bush is not the president/leader/prime minister anything of Iraq, that title belongs to and Iraqi, so there goes your whole arguement. Secondly, the number of people that died as a result of Saddam's regime (see below) is well over 15x as many people as the US has killed in this war. Thirdly, I realize some of those are civilians, but the LARGE MAJORITY of the people that the US has killed in Iraq are people who HATE America. If you are against the killing of people who hate your country than I would wager you have no patriotism and should leave, maybe move to France. Bush is doing what is right for this country by eliminating a tyrant who hated America, to the extent that he ordered a US Presidents assassination. We are relieving the citzens of Iraq of a brutal leader who would murder his own people for even voicing a disagreement with his policy. How can you support allowing that kind of terror reign? Not to mention the fact that there are terrorists there and he has had WMD's before, we may not have found them when we got there, but we know he has used them in previous wars including ones with us. So what now smart guy?
The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait.
(800,000 total deaths attributed to Saddam from ONE war.)
From :
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5773
Saddam kill tally: Approaching 2 million
From:
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html
All of the following sources agree that Saddam had killed well over 66000 people, most of these sites state upwards of 1,000,000:
http://eddriscoll.com/archives/003293.php
http://watch.windsofchange.net/03_0120_0126.htm
http://trojanhorseshoes.blogfodder.net/archives/009311.html
2007-07-10 00:45:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that there is any type of comparison to be made between Saddam and Bush - there isn't!
People killed by Saddam were innocent. Those who died as a result of the Iraq liberation were either (1) Saddam regime loyalists, (2) radical Islamists, (3) foreign insurgents, or (4) criminal elements. Any collateral damage which may have occured was entirely inadvertent.
2007-07-09 23:25:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Because they have run out or any other excuses.
Had to be amazed though by the person who said that Saddam killed only innocents and yet we killed only bad guys. Sure. Life is not an action movie
2007-07-09 23:49:13 · answer #5 · answered by ash 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush is not the end-all-be-all of american politics, whereas Saddam was the ulitimate guy in Iraq policies. So, yeah, Bush is better than Saddam.
2007-07-09 23:35:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
People say Bush is better than Saddam because dumb Democrats compare Bush to Saddam, Hitler, and any other third world dictator.
2007-07-09 23:25:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Thanks, this is great! You're right - it's really funny how certain people on the right claim all sorts of moral superiority as the basis of their politics, and yet they don't acknowledge any moral absolutes as modeling factors for our leaders.
Except of course for the moral absolute that one must never get a b!owjob in the Oval Office.
2007-07-10 05:25:32 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i'm a Democrat, and that i might ought to declare President Bush, through fact Bush did not initiate a frivilous conflict & invade yet another united states for no reason, and then get his own countrymen killed... ...Oh, wait, nevermind...I forgot...
2016-12-14 04:31:39 · answer #9 · answered by mento 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree it is amazing how low the standard set by Republicans for thier own leader is. Still with this guy you wouldn't want to set it too high.
2007-07-09 23:43:17 · answer #10 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The right doesn't ignore facts. When they come from reputable sources.
2007-07-09 23:25:01 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋