NationStates Jolt Archive

Whos the better leader overall, George W. Bush or Saddam Hussien? Please discuss

In what respect?

Your kidding right?

In what respect?
Overall, providing for citizens, keeping up infrastructure, keeping order, etc.

Overall, providing for citizens, keeping up infrastructure, keeping order, etc.

I'd say Saddam was probably better at keeping order.

Providing what? Saddam was a damn sight better at providing his citizens with chemical weapons and cutting-edge torture chambers.

Overall, providing for citizens, keeping up infrastructure, keeping order, etc.

Well he Saddam was crap in providing for his people. Especially when it rained bombs. Keeping order he got a B+. Now if Bush gassed all the liberals than maybe he could match Saddam. But I think that would subtract against him providing for citizens. Unless of course you count a quick death as a +.

Saddam killed his people by sending soldiers to kill them

Bush kills his people by sending them to kill people


It's a tie.

UNA, I thought you were going byebye for awhile?

Anyway..

Bushy has a leak in his bucket (hehehe), so viva la saddam!

Saddam is a far better leader. Everyone agreed with him.

Saddam is a far better leader. Everyone agreed with him.
Voluntarily? Wait, I get it...:D

Saddam killed his people by sending soldiers to kill them

Bush kills his people by sending them to kill people


It's a tie.
Well said, but i disagree with you on the tie.
George W declared war on Iraq supposedly because of "weapons of mass destruction", when he knew from a UN report that they had none. It was hypocritical and pointless, I think the only reason he declared war was because his father didn't win the last gulf war.

I don't think its a fair comparison. If Bush jr had been leader since the late 60's or so as well, then it might be fair. However, comparing a 30 or so year legacy to a so-far 5.5 year stint...

Tie. Both are obviously shitty leaders.

This one is obvious; Georgie.

Georgie, sucks, yes, but here's a list of things George needs to do before he's just as bad.


Execute everyone who publicly disagree's with him.
Destroy all traces of democracy
Use chemical weapons on his own population.
Invade a small and defenceless neighbor to pay off the governments debt.
Invade a large neighbor just because you don't like them.
Ruin the economy. I don't mean "Well gas costs $1 more!' ruin the economy, I mean "$1,000 can only buy me a loaf of bread, I had to sell my children so I could survive, everyone in my town is living off of food-rations" ruin the economy.


And the list goes on.

This is almost as stupid as comparing Bush to Hitler.

Whos the better leader overall, George W. Bush or Saddam Hussien? Please discuss
Well, I don't think Bush could get anywhere near this kind of support:

Iraq - Saddam Wins 100 Percent in Referendum with 100 Percent Turnout - 11,454,638 say yes, 0 say no (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/769961/posts)

Nearly 12 million Iraqis were eligible to answer a simple "Yes" or "No" for another seven-year term for Saddam, who has ruled Iraq for 23 years through the tight grip of the military and police.

The authorities had urged voters to turn out in force to show massive support for Saddam in the face of U.S. threats of military action and President Bush's declared desire to remove him from power.

Bush is better.
Stupid beats evil easy.

This is a joke, RIGHT???

the numbers in this poll are a good example of how liberals attack bush on ridiculous levels. the majority say that bush isn't better than hussein? come on.

the numbers in this poll are a good example of how liberals attack bush on ridiculous levels. the majority say that bush isn't better than hussein? come on.
It all depends which criteria you judge on. I say Saddam is better because of his approval rating.

Hussein is better. He may be an evil dictator and all but there was no crime or anything like that in iraq thanks to him.But now there is going to be a massive civil war after bush eventually pulls his troops out which will kill thousands more and the new guy may be worse than Hussein

Bush is better for people in the US than Saddam was for people in Iraq.

This one is obvious; Georgie.

Georgie, sucks, yes, but here's a list of things George needs to do before he's just as bad.


Execute everyone who publicly disagree's with him.
Destroy all traces of democracy
Use chemical weapons on his own population.
Invade a small and defenceless neighbor to pay off the governments debt.
Invade a large neighbor just because you don't like them.
Ruin the economy. I don't mean "Well gas costs $1 more!' ruin the economy, I mean "$1,000 can only buy me a loaf of bread, I had to sell my children so I could survive, everyone in my town is living off of food-rations" ruin the economy.


And the list goes on.

This is almost as stupid as comparing Bush to Hitler.


But Bush is the Hitler Incarnate...:rolleyes:

he has commited some of those crimes you listed...invade a small country...invade a coutry he doesn't like..he is beginning to destroy democracy with all of his PATRIOT act crap and also he is like 3 steps away from executing people for disagreeing with him..

As for the rest of the thread..Bush is far worse because he is a religous nut job, while saddam was secularist.

Whos the better leader overall, George W. Bush or Saddam Hussien? Please discussNeither. My vote would undoubtedly go to the UN abassadorship...

Although George Bush has caused 1000s of innocent people's deaths, it's nowhere bear the death toll Saddam caused with the attack on the kurds, so I'd say Bush is a better president (I still don't like him though)

Bush all the way. Authoritarian democracy is better than no democracy, and he doesn't kill his own people with chemical weapons but a bad healthcare and disaster relief system. Chem weapons are more unpleasant.

Well, I don't think Bush could get anywhere near this kind of support:

Iraq - Saddam Wins 100 Percent in Referendum with 100 Percent Turnout - 11,454,638 say yes, 0 say no (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/769961/posts)

Nearly 12 million Iraqis were eligible to answer a simple "Yes" or "No" for another seven-year term for Saddam, who has ruled Iraq for 23 years through the tight grip of the military and police.

The authorities had urged voters to turn out in force to show massive support for Saddam in the face of U.S. threats of military action and President Bush's declared desire to remove him from power.

You could replace "in" with "with" to get a better picture :p

This one is obvious; Georgie.

Georgie, sucks, yes, but here's a list of things George needs to do before he's just as bad.


Execute everyone who publicly disagree's with him.
Destroy all traces of democracy
Use chemical weapons on his own population.
Invade a small and defenceless neighbor to pay off the governments debt.
Invade a large neighbor just because you don't like them.
Ruin the economy. I don't mean "Well gas costs $1 more!' ruin the economy, I mean "$1,000 can only buy me a loaf of bread, I had to sell my children so I could survive, everyone in my town is living off of food-rations" ruin the economy.


And the list goes on.

This is almost as stupid as comparing Bush to Hitler.

Hey, good idea. Personally, I think that Dubya is just as bad. He's just a lot more subtle. I agree that, out of Saddam and Dubya, it is a tie. If you give George a few more years, he'll be just as bad. The only thing that won't happen is that the economy won't dive, as he loves money too much. All of those bloody Christian extremists are the same.

Didnt Saddam at one point provide universal free health care and education?
Didn't he break up land holding corporations and distribute the land to the people who worked it?

Socialist bastard!

This one is obvious; Georgie.

Georgie, sucks, yes, but here's a list of things George needs to do before he's just as bad.


Execute everyone who publicly disagree's with him.
Destroy all traces of democracy
Use chemical weapons on his own population.
Invade a small and defenceless neighbor to pay off the governments debt.
Invade a large neighbor just because you don't like them.
Ruin the economy. I don't mean "Well gas costs $1 more!' ruin the economy, I mean "$1,000 can only buy me a loaf of bread, I had to sell my children so I could survive, everyone in my town is living off of food-rations" ruin the economy.


And the list goes on.

This is almost as stupid as comparing Bush to Hitler.

The two countries are extremely different, though. That's like comparing lager and custard (a general fault of this poll, not of you).

But here's what Bush has done in a similar fashion.

*The PATRIOT act
*He won illegally the first time, ignores the UN and also Hamas' *democratically elected government.
*"Friendly fire" in Falluja(sp?)
*Not yet...
*Iraq and Afghanistan (if it's really revenge for September 11th, why not attack the Saudis?)
*Unemployment's up in the USA at the moment. - Also, the USA doesn't have ridiculous sanctions upon it. It probably should, as what the government's done in Iraq is just as bad as what Saddam had.

But the two countries are different, as I said. Most people in the USA are christians and (generally) get along alright with the other sects. Iraqis are mostly of various religious sects which oppose each other. This causes massive problems, as you will doubtless know from the news every night.

You annihilated the native population, so you also don't have to deal with them. When Saddam killed off the Kurds (who I might add you emboldened and armed, making them "insurgents" or whatever) you slammed him for it. That's a little bit unfair, in my opinion.

The economy is Iraq was run well considering the terrible sanctions upon it, I doubt that the USA could do as well.

It's a tie, they're in different circumstances.

Didnt Saddam at one point provide universal free health care and education?
Didn't he break up land holding corporations and distribute the land to the people who worked it?

Socialist bastard!

Yes, a socialist bastard who lived in an enourmous palace with a solid gold tiolet seat* :rolleyes:

*True :D

Yes, a socialist bastard who lived in an enourmous palace with a solid gold tiolet seat* :rolleyes:

*True :D

Well Dubya lives in a pretty big house, dont know about the gold toilet though. I think he prefers to shit on the bill of rights, the constitution, and down Tony Blair's mouth.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, it could easily be argued that Bush's appalling record on the enviroment and habit of lying about global warming could easily cause far more death and destruction in the long run that Saddam could ever achieve.

Just a thought...

Although George Bush has caused 1000s of innocent people's deaths, it's nowhere bear the death toll Saddam caused with the attack on the kurds, so I'd say Bush is a better president (I still don't like him though)

How many Native Americans died from illnesses that the Americans brought over to deliberately kill them with?

And bear in mind that they weren't even attacking you at this point, you killed them off for their land, which is pretty poor of you.




And Randomlittleisland - Yeah, that's another thing... grrr...

How many Native Americans died from illnesses that the Americans brought over to deliberately kill them with?

And bear in mind that they weren't even attacking you at this point, you killed them off for their land, which is pretty poor of you.




And Randomlittleisland - Yeah, that's another thing... grrr...

George Bush sailed on the Mayflower? :eek:

How many Native Americans died from illnesses that the Americans brought over to deliberately kill them with?

And bear in mind that they weren't even attacking you at this point, you killed them off for their land, which is pretty poor of you.




And Randomlittleisland - Yeah, that's another thing... grrr...

Erm, Geoge Bush (you know, the topic of this thread - along with Saddam), has nothing to do with the first Europeans to come to America.

How can someone deliberately bring over disease if they don't know what causes it?
You use 'you' like I'm an American, with no reason to believe that I am. Even if I was American, it's digusting that you can hold someone responsible for what their ancestors did. And if you believe that all natives were good and friendly, I advise you to study history (i.e Fort Navidad). It's ignorant to assume that 100% of the time Natives = good, Europeans = bad.

Erm, Geoge Bush (you know, the topic of this thread - along with Saddam), has nothing to do with the first Europeans to come to America.

How can someone deliberately bring over disease if they don't know what causes it?
You use 'you' like I'm an American, with no reason to believe that I am. Even if I was American, it's digusting that you can hold someone responsible for what their ancestors did. And if you believe that all natives were good and friendly, I advise you to study history (i.e Fort Navidad). It's ignorant to assume that 100% of the time Natives = good, Europeans = bad.

All I'm saying is that the Iraqis simply did it later. In later years, they'll doubtless regret it.

And the natives were fighting a fairly just war, really. The Europeans were invading.

All I'm saying is that the Iraqis simply did it later. In later years, they'll doubtless regret it.

This thread is about George Bush and Saddam Hussein, not the U.S.A. and Iraq. Saddam had the kurds killed, not 20,000,000 Iraqis, so they may regret it happened but the population can't be held responsible for what crazy Sadd' did.

And the natives were fighting a fairly just war, really. The Europeans were invading.

I did't say it wasn't just to defend their homeland.

This thread is about George Bush and Saddam Hussein, not the U.S.A. and Iraq. Saddam had the kurds killed, not 20,000,000 Iraqis, so they may regret it happened but the population can't be held responsible for what crazy Sadd' did.



I did't say it wasn't just to defend their homeland.

The Kurds are the native people in the region, the others moved there. There was actually ethnic cleansing THOUSANDS of years ago, and seemingly Saddam saw it fit to be repeated. Which is fair enough, as they had been attacking Iraqi villages and killing people off in them.

He did also not kill 20,000,000 Kurds.

And the natives really were on the good side if they were fighting a properly justified war (and people burning down your own homes is about as just as you can get).

The Kurds are the native people in the region, the others moved there. There was actually ethnic cleansing THOUSANDS of years ago, and seemingly Saddam saw it fit to be repeated. Which is fair enough, as they had been attacking Iraqi villages and killing people off in them.

He did also not kill 20,000,000 Kurds.

And the natives really were on the good side if they were fighting a properly justified war (and people burning down your own homes is about as just as you can get).

The kurds are the native people in the north of Iraq, not all of it. I don't see how you can see ethnic cleansing as 'fair enough', you obviously see killing Kurd families as satifactory revenge for some Kurds attacking Iraqi villages - which is sickening. Do you even know how many Kurds are said to ahve been killed in the attacks? Around 2 million! But even if it were a much smaller number, killing innocent families for revenge is not right.
By 20,000,000, I meant the Iraqis, who you were blaming for killing the Kurds, so next time read it properly.
You are also implying that everything that the natives did was good, so as I said before: Study the history.

The kurds are the native people in the north of Iraq, not all of it. I don't see how you can see ethnic cleansing as 'fair enough', you obviously see killing Kurd families as satifactory revenge for some Kurds attacking Iraqi villages - which is sickening. Do you even know how many Kurds are said to ahve been killed in the attacks? Around 2 million! But even if it were a much smaller number, killing innocent families for revenge is not right.
By 20,000,000, I meant the Iraqis, who you were blaming for killing the Kurds, so next time read it properly.
You are also implying that everything that the natives did was good, so as I said before: Study the history.

How many Iraqis do you think will die as a result of the invasion? You'll be bloody lucky to see less than 2 million, especially if Iran gets invaded and involved with actions in Iraq.

Also, the Kurds were armed and dangerous, and in a completely lawless part of Iraq (which is under martial law at the moment for that very reason). It's very true that children and women died, all of that, but the U.S. army's killed the same type of people by paranoia or malice.

You also sold him the nerve gas he needed.

The Kurds were regarded in the same way to Saddam that insurgents are to Bush. Bush sends his army to attack them, and takes their families hostage or kills them unless they tell the troops where they came from.



Also, if someone attacks your homeland and you want to free it, then wouldn't anything go?

The better leader is definitely Saddam. That man has got leadership skills and personal presence that Bush can only dream of.

The better head of state? Well, that depends on your criteria.

Saddam maintained a state of order in Iraq, and before the embargoes, the economy was doing well too.
Saddam also attacked Iran, which was a bad move (not to mention attacking Kuwait) - plus he killed all those people.

Bush by himself might not even be that bad, if you think about it. The man is a blank sheet of paper. Give him the right advisors, and he'd decide just about anything.

As for the whole Kurdish thing...I don't think it was 20 million. I'm not even sure there are that many Kurds.
Estimates (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm) range between 180,000 and 400,000.

And part of that is due to the Turks who were fighting the Kurds as well (but then, they're our friends...).

You could have at least thrown in Stalin too, to give this the illusion of choice. Shouldn’t there be a “I have problems eating cookies while wearing my gas mask” option?

How many Iraqis do you think will die as a result of the invasion? You'll be bloody lucky to see less than 2 million, especially if Iran gets invaded and involved with actions in Iraq.

At the current rate of deaths (arounf 11,500 a year) in Iraq, It'll take about 174 more years of fighting to even reach close to 2 million. This isn't even in any relevance to your claim that the killings were justified revenge.

Also, the Kurds were armed and dangerous, and in a completely lawless part of Iraq (which is under martial law at the moment for that very reason). It's very true that children and women died, all of that, but the U.S. army's killed the same type of people by paranoia or malice.

Women and children died alright, Kurdish settlements were attacked. Agian this has no relevance to the way you thought that killing Kurds for ethnic cleanising was 'fair enough'.

You also sold him the nerve gas he needed.

Really? I didn't realise I had any nerve gas in the first place. If your referring to the government, well I'm sorry that you hold me entirely responsible for what the government did, I'll try harder to become leader. :rolleyes:

The Kurds were regarded in the same way to Saddam that insurgents are to Bush. Bush sends his army to attack them, and takes their families hostage or kills them unless they tell the troops where they came from.

Who told you this? How is this relevant?

Also, if someone attacks your homeland and you want to free it, then wouldn't anything go?

Killing thousands of innocent people would not go, no.

Alright, looks like so far people like Bush, at least better than Saddam. Thats means something right? Thats why I dont understand this Bush bashing, I mean come on, he's better than Saddam.

Alright, looks like so far people like Bush, at least better than Saddam. Thats means something right? Thats why I dont understand this Bush bashing, I mean come on, he's better than Saddam.

Yeah, some Bush-bashers go too far when they make it out that George Bush is the worst ever, they should be grateful they didn't have to live under a lunatic such as Saddam.
On the other hand that doesn't mean George Bush is perfect and he has made some bad and costly decisions.

Whos the better leader overall, George W. Bush or Saddam Hussien? Please discuss
In what way?

Well said, but i disagree with you on the tie.
George W declared war on Iraq supposedly because of "weapons of mass destruction", when he knew from a UN report that they had none. It was hypocritical and pointless, I think the only reason he declared war was because his father didn't win the last gulf war.

we won the last Gulf War... Iraq left Kuwait alone, if memory serves.

We went there to take down Saddam... that's what the main motive was.

The answer is President Bush... can't believe anyone seriously would rather be ruled by Saddam. lmao

Say goodbye to freedom of speech... last time I checked, nobody was being tortured or secretly killed in America for speaking out against PResident Bush...

Wow and I thought the Castro vs Bush poll was ridiculous. Even thought I don't like Bush, I would rather have him than either of those evil bastards anyday.

The answer is President Bush... can't believe anyone seriously would rather be ruled by Saddam. lmao

Say goodbye to freedom of speech... last time I checked, nobody was being tortured or secretly killed in America for speaking out against PResident Bush...

No, but plenty of people are being tortured and secretly killed in South America by US-trained paramillitaries.

Their crime? To unionise and ask for a living wage.

Say goodbye to freedom of speech... last time I checked, nobody was being tortured or secretly killed in America for speaking out against PResident Bush...
thats what they want you to think...