is there any difference between BUSH n SADDAM?
466037
Saddam killed his own people vs Bush sent his own people to be killed.
216893
George of course.  If the trial ever happens, Saddam will hopefully be executed for crimes against humanity while Bush will get off scot-free.
758998
they are all the same . bush's grandad was in bed with Hitler was in bed with Mussolini. bush is in bed with bin laden Blair is bush's lap dog they are all evil . Hitler was crazy bush and Blair doing it for money and control over oil which leads to power.  very good question. Hitler killed Jews bush kills Muslims.
1105870
go ask Saddam he knows
576268
I agree, America has brought more death and destruction to Iraq then Saddam ever did, I know he was not a nice person but to invade a sovereign country is just wrong, Bush is the only president to ever do that.
763083
There is really no main difference between a sunni and a shiite. A sunni just believes differently about the caliphs (religious leaders after Muhamed's pbuh death) saying that Ali (RA) was the first while a shiite believes Abu Bakr (RA) was the first. There are other differences too, but they are minor and thus there is not a main difference. personally, i'm a sunni and for me all that matters is that a shiite is still a muslim ............. we do follow the same book after all \n\nas for the fights and wars among each other ......... poki answered correctly - damn politics\n\nEDIT: i'll just add that Abu Bakr (RA) was related to our prophet (pbuh) by blood, whille Ali (RA) was not ............ shiite believe caliphs whould descend from blood line, sunni don't think it matters really
89825
well, the environment of this wasn't created by Bush, he mearly reacted to the situation, the only way he could. He of course was first provoked into it by 9/11.  Then the bad intellegence he got, didn't help matters any.  Everything that Saddam said he wouldn't do, he continued throughout the Clinton era, because he knew there would be a blind eye turned his way.
923226
see, you're slightly incorrect here....\n\nBush 2 (and for the record, sequals are always worse), didnt learn squat from anything ever, especially foreign history, but all the ppl around him like cheney and rove did learn something, they learned what happens after a war, and they realized how you can manipulate the masses during a war, and in doing so, you can profit from it financially. \n\nbush and his buddies just looked for the quickest way to do what they wanted, how they wanted, and didnt care about anything else. they're not even pretending to care about our country. their regime is the most thinly veiled corruption ever. dont get me wrong, Saddam was a tyrant, but there are worse, and more dangerous out there, why didnt we go after them?
441828
Very good question.  As you know, there isn't any difference at all.  As a solider (freedom fighter) fighting for so-called democracy in Iraq, I kill an Iraqi insurgent.  In America (for the most part), I'm a hero, I'm right.  In Iraq (for the most part), I'm the devil, I'm the terrorist.  Yet, if you thought the destruction of the World trade Center was horrible, imagine living in the hell that is Iraq ever since U.S. Troops arrived.
919750
Nope.  Under Saddam the utility system worked, there were no roving gangs of thugs, and there were not Al Qaeda insurgents wandering the land.  Since the invasion 600,000 Iraqis have died.  Saddam was a bad guy, but the price of the invasion has been very high for Iraqis.
1044146
Yeah, Saddam used WMDs IN THE 80'S. Fair enough. Bad guy. But did he actually have WMDs that he could actually use in 2003? No way. They were, even by Santorum's account degraded at that time.
749564
If you are Iraqi and most of your family was wiped out by Saddam, then Saddam is evil. But if you are American then it is a toss up as to who is more evil.
810062
BushCo supported Saddam before, why would you expect anything better now?  Bush is not there to prevent disorder, he is there to preserve it so the plunder can continue on unabated.
857986
yes\n\nhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
842601
True, Bush has not committed any crimes. Libs are steaming mad that they have been out of power so long. They're also mad that Bush accomplished what they wanted to do but did not: topple Saddam.
881843
Whilst both were supported by America, only Saddam threatened the oil supply. I believe that is why Saddam was hated by America. They have supported quite a lot of dictators in the past.
913039
bush Jr is disliked by most of the people in the world. he second to ladden in some countries as per polls done by the guardian news papers. except UK, there is no friend to the USA .he is considered as danger to world peace even in countries like Israel and the UK.but it was not so in the case of Clinton.he did not take a brutal decision like invading Iraq without valid reason and caused for the deaths of  more than 600000 iraqis.