It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Saddam vs. Dubya: Who's the Better Dictator?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 08:55 AM

Originally posted by sniper068
ECK.... Can you find anything else to do other than bash Bush with your nonsense ? You accuse Bush for failing to prevent a terrorist attack then complain about going after them. I see why you would favor a person like john kerry. Well in case you havent noticed, there ability to conduct terror operations against us has been severely diminissed, Thanks to Bush and Company.

Contrary to what you think you know, saddam supported terror groups and had links to bin laden and yes saddam had WMD.

Nonsense? I'll tell you what nonsense is, folks who are too blinde and willfully ignorant to see what's going on right in front of you. At this point, anyone who still supports Bush/Cheney needs help or some serious education or deprogramming.

Just to show how silly and presumptuous your comments are, I (a.) voted for Bush and can criticize him until the door hits him on the a$$ on the way out and (b) I never once said I support Kerry. Dumb. Just plain dumb on your part.

I don't accuse Bush of failing to stop any terrorist attack. If anything, his rogue assets are behind much of the mayhem. If you ask yourself, who stands to gain, in most of these situations, it is BushCo. who stands to gain. Everything al-CIAda seems to do benefits this administration. Except in the case of Spain. Those folks knew the deal and kicked out that complicit piece of shyte president of theirs. OLE!

Let's hope the American people are half as savvy as their Spanish counterparts.

Saddam supporting terror groups?
YAWN. Let's see your proof.

I won't be holding my breath, btw.

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:22 AM

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Just to show how silly and presumptuous your comments are, I (a.) voted for Bush and can criticize him until the door hits him on the a$$ on the way out and (b) I never once said I support Kerry. Dumb. Just plain dumb on your part.

Now I have to raise the BS flag. When have you ever, once, said anything negative about Kerry or posted inflamatory (and false) articles about him?
You are the biggest closet Kerry supporter on the board and everyone knows that. So, please stop saying you don't support Kerry. No one buys it.

For us to really even consider that you don't support Kerry we would need to see him get the same treatment that you give Bush.

Back to the subject at hand. Saddam is the better of the two Dictators, he wins by default as the only real Dictator to choose from. The day that Bush suspends Congress and the Justice Department is the day that I will rethink my statement.

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 11:39 AM
I don't have to defend this nonsensical charge. It's a charge and nothing more. Sorry if you can't understand what I've said. Honestly, I've never been a fan of Kerry. I've simply said for the past three years he would be the Dems. nominee. It's called analysis.

I've never voted for a Democrat. Ever. If you don't believe it, so what. The first Dem. I wanted to vote for was actually Howard Dean. This year.

When you open your mind and seek knowledge, change follows. When you embark upon that path, your eyes will open.

On Bush being a dictator, I should have said, Ruler of Iraq. A case can definitely be made, though, that Bush is veering ever nearer to being the first American dictator. Read the Patriot Act if you don't believe it. Read the Abu Ghraib torture memos. He and his lawyers are under the impression, quite wrongly, that he is above the law. All law. National or International. That qualifies as dictatorial. Here's a gem of a quote:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

For him to even say such a thing is unbecoming of a president, to say the least.

As for whose the better ruler of Iraq, all the current data shows that Saddam was actually by far a better ruler of that country. (This is only analysis. It is not support for Saddam.)

One thing also should be noted, Saddam was more effective even under the years of harsh sanctions. When Iraq was not at war and not being sanctioned, it was a very beautiful, relatively safe, prosperous, educationally forward and pro-western place.

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 12:01 PM
ECK, you left out one very important stat. What about the 263 mass graves holding some 300,000 people that Saddam was responsible for. GWB has a long way to go to catch up to Hussein in this regard. These are just the graves they have found.

In the unlit blackness of an October night, it took a flashlight to pick them out: rust-colored butchers' hooks, 20 or more, each four or five feet long, aligned in rows along the ceiling of a large hangar-like building. In the grimmest fortress in Iraq's gulag, on the desert floor 20 miles west of Baghdad, this appeared to be the grimmest corner of all, the place of mass hangings that have been a documented part of life under Saddam Hussein.

At one end of the building at Abu Ghraib prison, a whipping wind gusted through open doors. At the far end, the flashlight picked out a windowed space that appeared to function as a control room. Baggy trousers of the kind worn by many Iraqi men were scattered at the edges of the concrete floor. Some were soiled, as if worn in the last, humiliating moments of a condemned man's life.


Oh wait, there's more.

Survey: Saddam Killed 61,000 in Baghdad alone

The survey, which the polling firm planned to release on Tuesday, asked 1,178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 percent said yes.

This was a survey done by The AP

Why don't you ask those families who is the better 'dictator'?

Saddam is an equal opportunity dictator. He will even torture children to get what he wants.

The star witness against the government of Iraq hobbled into the room, her legs braced with clumsy metal callipers. "Anna" had been tortured two years ago. She is now four years old.

Her father, Ali, is a thick-set Iraqi who used to work for Saddam's psychopathic son, Uday. Some time after the bungled assassination of Uday, Ali fell under suspicion.

He fled north, to the Kurdish safe haven policed by Western fighter planes, but leaving his wife and daughter behind in Baghdad.

So the secret police came for his wife. Where is he? They tortured her. And when she didn't break, they tortured his daughter.

"When did you last see your father? Has he phoned? Has he been in contact?" They half-crushed the toddler's feet.

Now, she doesn't walk, she hobbles, and Ali fears that Saddam's men have crippled his daughter for life. So Ali talked to us.

From a BBC article

That is enough for now, I am actually getting ill reading some of this crap. How can you compare the two?

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in