do you think bush couldnt take it when saddam called him little bush?
957634
I'd like to think President Bush is a bigger man than that; but after all, he is Little Bush.\n\nI think that Information Minister was funny, also.  Sports teams with losing records should hire him to commentate.\n\n"No, no, Texans very good team, make lots of wins.  Do not listen to ESPN, they know nothing!"
160862
Ya know, we really shouldn't get into name-calling and using putdowns and employing pejorative terms to define those with whom we disagree...\n\nOh screw it!\n\nYeah, most bush supporters strike me as ignorant of the facts, arrogant in their support of much that is in fact evil, and juvenile in terms of their political sophistication (or lack of same) and understanding of the world at large.\n\nMan, that felt good. ;)
766914
Personally I don't care about Saddam.. if anything I'm aggervated by it.. because we waged war over there caught their leader.. and yet we still have never caught Bin Laden or do we have any idea where he is....
280504
Not really I thing he is A little thug...
774290
Yes. That guy in the video has many good points. Bush just isn't a very bright man. \n\nI only hope that Iraq can live peacefully within itself in time.
25448
I don't. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of President Bush. But many Americans believe that deposing Saddam Hussein will bring a new era of freedom and prosperity to Iraq and give the West a much-needed ally in that area. His supporters are more optimistic than most people about progress in Iraq and hopefully they'll turn out to be right.
799878
I think that Bush has touted himself as a religious leader.  I feel that Bush can be viewed by anyone as anything, so yes, some do.  I think this is probably the worst thing that could happen.  God must have told him to invade Iraq.
996804
First off, funny reading all those ignorant answers.\n\nSaddam was installed to power by US and everything was fine until Saddam wanted independence from Washington and dissended with the oil cartel because we wanted to get paid for oil in euros rather than dollars. \nFor some reason a couple of decades AFTER the alleged crimes, Bush overthrows Saddam and gets him charged. Of course, whatever Saddam did was internal affairs, US had no right to intervene, no one asked them, Iraq never threatened US, just wanted to be left alone to handle its affairs.\nAlmost nobody in Iraq was actually against Saddam, under his dictatorship Iraq new such economic development that 1 liter of pump oil was less than a liter of Coke.\nAnother thing that most people forget to mention is that the -innocents- killed were suspects in a foiled attempt to overthrow Saddam. Seems that instead of raising against the decision of the dictator, the people of Iraq agreed with the reprimand and kep quiet.\nDuring the history of mankind, each regime that became too opressive was overthrown from inside, when its people decided things went bad. If Saddam's call was bad, he should've been deposed by his own people and tried, not by foreign intervention.\n\nOf course, everything becomes ok if some guy declares it's a war going on. Wait a minute, I'm sorry, but Bush declared a 'war on terrorism'. The sides in the war are the US and terrorists, whatever that means by Bush's standards. Iraqi civilians aren't civilians of the terrorists side, nor has US formally declared war on Iraq. In fact, they are the ones who are supposed to be 'eliberated'. I guess that being killed by depleted uranium bombs does count in a twisted way as 'liberation'.\n\nFrankly I would expect from a force that claims enough moral superiority to decide who's bad and who's good and intervene to correct those wrongs to be able to procted the innocent.\nMoreover, I double those expectations when the intervention comes from such a high-tech army like that of the US.\nWhere is that super-class intel that should ensure only terrorists are tageted? Where are those high-tech guided bombs that can hit within a meter of its intended target? Where are those super-precise guns that Discovery channle keeps praising?\n\nThere are way too many mistakes in the war, way too many intentional and unintentional attacks against civilians, way too many civilian targets bombed to believe that US isn't in fact terrorizing the people of Iraq.
231514
It is impossible to address the issue of the invasion separate from the ongoing sanctions against Iraq that were imposed by the United Nations after the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq was subject to extreme economic sanctions. An unknown number of Iraqis died of hunger and treatable diseases during the twelve years 1991-2003. Though liberal journalists often criticized the U.N. sanctions (relating them to the suffering and deaths), it should be pointed out that the Iraqi "president" Saddam Hussein allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to prohibited weapons systems and to building several presidential mansions, as well as underground facilities in Baghdad. Thus it seems rather ridiculous to blame ONLY the sanctions for the suffering of the Iraqi people. Also, importantly, Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated the terms of the peace agreement in 1991. It caused many (significantly, also President GW Bush) to increase their suspicions that Iraq was making prohibited weapons of mass destruction. No one doubted that Saddam Hussein was a despicable person, that he was a brutal, insensate dictator, but there was considerable disagreement about whether Iraq was making prohibited weapons. G.W. Bush was very frightened on Sept. 11, 2001 when he realized that the United States (and by implication, he himself) was being attacked. He certainly recalled the threat (significantly) to his father's life in the Iraqi assassination effort in 1992. This fear struck the younger Bush to the core: it was the reason he could not move for six minutes after he was informed on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 that the U.S. was "under attack." History records that he sat motionless for six minutes, unable to address the situation. With Iraq attached to the assassination attempt on the president (his father), there was always a pointed unease about Saddam Hussein remaining in power in Iraq. Hussein himself liked to play upon American unease by taunting American sanctions enforcement aircraft in the "Southern No-Fly Zone". Like a dastardly brat, Saddam Hussein tried to stoke the American fears (of terrorist support) by giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide terrorists. This occurred in 2002. Though the war may seem to be a failure in many ways, no one can know what might happen if a rogue dictator were able to dismiss U.N. sanctions with utter impunity. Even if Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD (and no one really knows this, even though they think now that they know), there is the intractable problem of having to discourage other governments and leaders from threatening the world.
257079
It was not for want of trying that Bush and Blair failed to find a real reason.   To attack Iraq will go down in history as the dumbest move ever.   Sorry - the second dumbest : the first was to take Saddam alive AND PUT HIM ON TRIAL!!   This farcical process matches the one against Slobodan Milosovich at the Hague and is going the same way, with a fairly good- and straight-looking defendant outshining his prosecutors in every way, just as Milosovich did at the Hague, and Goring and Streicher did at Nuremberg (another kangaroo court).
532928
There were definately WMDs there, we sold them some!  However I think he made some assumptions, and perhaps lied as well as to the seriousness of the situation.\n\n- I don't believe we invaded to protect USA against an Iraqi attack\n- I don't believe we spent billions on a war to save a nickel at the pumps\n- I DO believe they assumed that the Iraqi citizens would be helpful and not resist\n- I SUSPECT that the real reason behind our invasion had to do not directly with oil, but indirectly the power behind it.  Iraq began to accept Euros for oil, which devalued the dollar.  Also, whoever controls the most oil controls the most power.  Not to mention Saddam WAS a mean ole bastard and it was a nice diversion from the "We can't find Bin Laden" stories that had been all over the place.  I just don't think it went as smoothly as we had hoped.
557555
They should have given Saddam to the Iraqis to drag through the streets 3 years ago. The trial doesn't mean anything to the Iraqis, it's for George Bush.
476878
Yes I did.  Did you know that Osama was responsible for 9/11 and not Saddam?  Did you know that Bush has failed to bring Osama to justice?\n\nBush is the Commander-In-Chief of the military.  Therefore Bush is directly responsible for the failure to bring Osama to justice.
916961
Yes absolutely, he ordered hundreds of thousands of Kurds to be gassed to death. He was sadisitic and had two awful sons who would rape and torture at will. My only concern is that hanging Saddam will just inflame the situation in Iraq as it will make him a martyr and will annoy his followers
47382
Absolutely not. He's turning a world against us, killing thousands of innocents (including our own troops), and lying out of his teeth in the name of his special interest puppet masters.\n\nWhew. That took a lot out of me.
773951
It's a bit late to reinstate Saddam, but maybe now stupid Americans can understand why he was a successful ruler.   As for him gassing Kurds....well DUH, they were his political enemies, and that's what dictators do: they destroy their opponents.   I'd like to add that as many as 600,000 Iraqi civiilans have died in the present conflict, so what's worse?   To be destroyed by your own government, or a foreign invader?
223468
Okay. In my opinion he was all bark and no bite. I don't believe there were any weapons of mass destruction to begin with. He didn't know how to deal with the U.S. or U.N. so therefore he threatened and tried to scare people. I don't think he really scared the U.S. I think Bush was looking for a reason to go in there to get ahold of the oil and to get back at him for threatening George Bush Sr. If you are a teenager are you going to go fight a first grader? That's what's happened. The first grader (Saddam) stuck his tongue out at the teenager (George Bush) and the teenager is a bully because the first grader has something that he wants so he's going to use the excuse that the first grader stuck his tongue out at him to get what he wants. So my friend, I can't say anything good about Saddam because I don't know him personally and the news isn't going to say anything good about him, but I can't say anything bad about him either because there is no proof of him doing anything wrong. I hopes this helps.