Saddam killed his own people, but the US military under the Congress and Bush have done a good bit of torturing and killing Iraqis too and even bringing in private contractors to torture and smuggle weapons and whatnot, and that's not even mentioning to good old Afghan opium trade.
2007-12-10 16:40:14 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The US under Bushfraud and Israel used chemical weapons on the Iraqis and the Lebanese civilians plus we gave the chemical weapons to Saddam so WTF?
2007-12-10 16:51:30 · update #1
This is what bothers me. People have such a limited view that they don't understand that this is exactly what the world is wondering. Just what is the difference between George Bush and any other aggressive leader using the military to achieve a means to an end. I really don't think people get that and what's more we will start to feel the world's disdain if we go any further with Iran. It's a sad day in America when the Iranians have the sympathy of the world and not us.
It's just unbelieveable how low George Bush has brought this country.
2007-12-10 16:53:36 · answer #1 · answered by Jackie Oh! 7 · 6⤊ 4⤋
The world would be MUCH better off without Bush. Indeed, Sadaam may not have been the best dictator ever to come down the pike, but he wasn't near the threat to the world that Bush has been and continues to be, since Sadaam had little military and very little power and influence outside of Iraq.
2007-12-11 13:42:03 · answer #2 · answered by worldinspector 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To my knowledge, Bush has not conducted a chemical warfare attack on his own people. Until he does, I don't think he compares to Saddam. At any rate the world will be better off without him, in 2009.
2007-12-11 02:35:33 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You're a little confused. Bush captured and eliminated Saddam and his sadistic sons. You may not know but Saddam previously used chemical weapons on his own people killing thousands including women and children. He also used chemical weapons during the Iranian war. Saddam was a brutal dictator. Bush is the democratically elected President of the United States, an open democracy. There are checks and balances on the Presidents actions. Bush has also captured or killed many Al Queda operatives which makes us all safer. Perhaps you may want to try and get your information from an objective source in the future.
You Democrats love dictators.
2007-12-10 16:47:27 · answer #4 · answered by Bob 4 · 3⤊ 5⤋
No. Bush Would Could Have Been A Very Successful Pig Farmer. As Long As He Was Quiet Around Other Farmers.
2007-12-10 16:46:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
The two aren't even equivalent. Saddam was a mass murderer who personally took delight in the slaughter of innocent Iraqis. Although personally I think the Iraq war has been mishandled, the vast majority of killing in Iraq has not been at the hands of Bush or U.S. forces. We are not responsible for the reprehensible actions of others.
2007-12-10 16:49:30 · answer #6 · answered by Rainier 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Definitely.
The world would be a better place if every member of the Bush clan were spayed or nuetered.
2007-12-10 19:04:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Bush has killed a lot of Americans too, so I would say yes.
2007-12-10 16:43:52 · answer #8 · answered by Gruntled Employee 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Osma bin laden certainlly thinks so. Bet he'd like to meet you...But would you like to meet up with him?
2007-12-10 16:54:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋