NationStates Jolt Archive

DONT VOTE IF YOU DONT POST, ITS SORT OF THE IDEA BEHIND THIS TOPIC.

Please give detailed reasons as to WHY you picked the option that you selected.
No, Im not going to put the title of this poll or any information related to it in the body of this topic so you can see it by running the mouse over it on the main page.

Though I'm not a big fan of George, I voted Saddam because:
1. Ethnically motivated violence against the Kurds.
2. Held and retained power undemocratically.
3. Required an army to remove him from power (whereas Bush will only need a scheduled election to show him the door in three years).

Indeed, I selected Saddam for the same reasons, as well as:
-Tourturing his own people in various ways. I considered linking to pictures, but decided against it.
-Use of checmial agents against Kurds and Iranians
-Living the high life while his entire country suffered
-His sons, who were, if possible, WORSE than he was, and would have taken power once he died.

Same here.. and for pretty much the exact same reasons: Saddam.

Bush, he will be responsibel (sp) for the death of thousands more then he has already killed, and has made sure that americans will live in poverty 30 years down the line while japan takes over as super power (or a united EU). He has probably caused the death, in the future, of soooooooo many more people then saddam, and he has made sure that soooooooooo many more people will live in debt and poverty. Saddam did things that would last short term, Bush, he has screwed us for the long run.

Bush, he will be responsibel (sp) for the death of thousands more then he has already killed
Saddam killed nearly more than half a million in his career, and that was just the ones that were confirmed I think.
If you ask me, a thosand Americans is a damn good price to pay to end something like that.
and has made sure that americans will live in poverty 30 years down the line
This may suprise you, but the economy is picking back up. The Social Security plan (if thats what your refering to) was never intended to pay out to as many people as are currently drawing on it, and should have been fixed back in the 70's.
while japan takes over as super power (or a united EU).
I doubt it on both counts, China seems more likely to 'take over', but I dont think the US will lose its superpower status anytime soon.
He has probably caused the death, in the future, of soooooooo many more people then saddam
How so? In three years he wont be in power anymore and never will be again. 400,000 Americans died in WWII (I think? Ill check on that), I dont think that Bush can do any better.
and he has made sure that soooooooooo many more people will live in debt and poverty.
You mean like in Afghanistan?
From what I hear, Afghanistan is doing quite a bit better than it was under the Taliban, Iraq will start doing better once the insurgent attacks start dropping off, unless Iran decides to invade.
Saddam did things that would last short term, Bush, he has screwed us for the long run.
See my point about Saddams sons. Once Saddam was dead his sons would have taken over and been even worse than he was.
I dont suppose youve ever heard of the wonderful Kurdish massacres, or all the nice mass-graves in Iraq?

I picked Dubya, because at least Saddam has the excuse that he's nuts.

I picked Dubya, because at least Saddam has the excuse that he's nuts.
Same here pretty much. Saddam has the excuse of being a loon. Bush however is a sane person, he's just an idiot, or gets kicks out of destroying everything. (Both of which are bad)

So, basicaly you think hes worse than Saddam because you dont like him?

Irrational behaviour and insanity are two different things. You can debate the former, attempt to show exactly why it violates what principles of reason. The latter does not provide any grounds for debate. I think that both these leaders are sane, but perhaps operating from false premises in some cases.

The first tragedy is that America is happy to be seen as top dog while doing things which it reviles in other people - regardless of who POTUS is.

Iraq's tragedy is just the tragedy of numerous other small-time dictatorships. Small-time, but even more sadly, large-population.

Bush may be reviled for his ideas, but at least his country re-elected him.

Roathin - you been reading Deception Point by Dan Brown?

I agree with what Australus said - I voted Saddam for the same reasons.

And - just to disagree with Pyro Kittens - a United EU? I live in the UK, and anyone who believes that we can become a 'super-power' that can reckon with the US and China on a military scale...well, you must be having a laugh.

The EU is only good for one thing - economic progress. But let's not get off topic.

Saddam is, imo, more 'evil' than George Dubya - Saddam is probably more intelligent...but then, a turnip probably has more intelligence than good ol' George.

Though I'm not a big fan of George, I voted Saddam because:
1. Ethnically motivated violence against the Kurds.
2. Held and retained power undemocratically.
3. Required an army to remove him from power (whereas Bush will only need a scheduled election to show him the door in three years).

I second that all the way, and I would like to add: Saddam had disagreeing parts of the populace shot on the spot, whereas Bush would've just sent a relatively small portion of dissenters to prison in the name of "anti-terrorism".