Who was the bigger war criminal - Bush or Hussein?

[BushOut06]

Hussein slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent civlians, placed people in secret prisons, engaged in systematic torture, and started a disastrous war.

Isn't this exactly what Bush has done?

Which one do you think is the worst war criminal?

[Sean138666]

1. Bush is the worst

The difference: to my knowledge, Saddam Hussein isn't three (or more) generations deep in war crimes like Bush is.

[valerief]

2. Bush 43 has ordered the killing of more people than Hussein. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. Not even close.

Do a little research about Saddam Hussein and e.g. his treatment of the Kurds. If you said "been responsible for" rather than "ordered" it would at least be harder to prove you wrong - the president of America will generally be responsible for more of anything he does than the president of Iraq - but even then Saddam's hands are so bloody and he's been in power for so much longer that it would not be true by any measure that wasn't set up specifically to prove Bush's guilt.

But "ordered" is simply wrong, and massively so.

[valerief]

38. Bush ordered the war. The war killed over 600,000 Iraqi civilians. nt

[Monkeyman]

3. Bush the nut case of all times

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftchick]

5. bush has killed close to a million

and started two disastrous wars and I am sure bush has tortured tens of thousands more. He beats saddam hands down. When is his trial?

[qazplm]

9. I dont think I would call Afghanistan

"a disastrous war".

I dont like the way we have let it slide to focus wrongly on Iraq, but it's pretty hard to argue it was wrong to go into Afghanistan.

Hussein has killed not just a million but the Iraq-Iran War killed millions plural. So not sure he "beats Bush hands down" either. He used chemical weapons extensively. He has killed and tortured countless more than we have. I understand the disdain for Bush and certainly agree, but let's not minimize the evil of others in order to magnify Bush's.

[leftchick]

14. saddam killed many over the course of two decades

bush has killed close to a million in four short years.Don't forget the use of DU and white phosphorous by the US. I believe that is WMD. And he isn't done yet. The Escalation is about to begin.

So I again say, bush is worse than saddam ever hoped to be.

[qazplm]

19. certainly

you agree there is a bit of a difference between DU and white phosporous, the former of which is not intended as a chemical weapon and the latter of which was used sparingly, and the gas attacks of Hussein intended to kill and maim as many as possible?

I would also say Bush hasnt "killed a million". There are lot of people responsible for what is going on in Iraq today. Bush is certainly one, but he isnt the only one. Hussein killed millions and millions, UI dont know what time frame has to do with it. They are still dead, whether it took eight year or four.

Hussein was pretty brutal. Moreso than your average dictator? Prolly not, but good grief must we go overboard to the point of minimizing what he has done so that we can crown our own worstest ever?

[leftchick]

27. DU

the gift that keeps on giving. Thousands of years after we are gone. If there is an earth left.

[qazplm]

36. I'm not really sure

that answers my question.

[DrDebug]

21. The casualties count in Afghanistan is rising year by year

In 2006 it was close to 200 soldiers already (50% American; 50% coalition). It is still nothing compared to Iraq, however it is steadily rising. The overall state of the country is steadily deteriorating as well, so progress as far as security and human rights are far too find. The major cities are reasonable, however you cannot go from Kabul to Kandahar by car even though it is the only interstate in the country, because the road is too dangerous and you need to pay approx. $1,600 IF you can find a driver who is willing to it. Doesn't sound like a major success.

[Mikey929]

6. Hussein

As much as I dislike Bush, I can't really call him a war criminal. He is pursuing a war, which was wrong to start in the first place. But the damage done was as part of the war. Hussein gassed his own citizens, tortured his own citizens, engaged in systematic rape and abuse of dissidents, etc. I think this puts him in a different category.

[BushOut06]

7. So bombing innocent civilians, using chemical weapons, and torturing prisoners is "part of war"?

What, pray tell, would you consider a war crime?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. And Saddam did all of those things, too.

This is a dumb question.

[BushOut06]

16. That's not what Mikey was saying

He was saying that Bush's actions were part of the normal course of war. Of course, Saddam did all these things - I stated that in my OP. However, Bush has also used chemical agents on innocent civilians, and encouraged torture. He's responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents.

Why is it such a dumb question? Saddam Hussein is going to be EXECUTED. Bush, however, more than likely will never stand trial for his war crimes.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. It's like asking if Mobutu was worse than Idi Amin.

What, pray tell, is the fucking point? They're both war criminals.

Saddam Hussein is going to be EXECUTED. Bush, however, more than likely will never stand trial for his war crimes.

Of course he won't. Is that releveant in determining who was worse? No.

[BushOut06]

20. Sorry - I forgot to run this thread through the Thread Police on this board

I'm sorry that my thread isn't quite as deeply philosophical as you would like. Maybe next time, I should send you a PM asking if a thread is worthy for people to discuss?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. You're more than welcome to post whatever you want.

And I'm more than welcome to ridicule it if I see fit. And you're more than welcome to call me an asshole, with some justification, for doing so. It's a discussion forum, geez.

[BushOut06]

26. The one who deserves our contempt sits in the Oval Office

He's the real asshole.

[The Stranger]

23. All of the bloodlust for only one of the guilty tyrants makes it relevant.

If you are going to pick and choose to whom you administer justice, you are not administering justice.

[BushOut06]

25. I think you just justified my post, thanks!

IMHO, they both should be rotting in prison for the rest of their lives.

[The Stranger]

35. But by executing one evil, you are doing the bidding of the other evil,

while knowing (or becoming complicit in the fact that) that justice will not be brought to the other evil.

That's not "justifying" your post, it is revealing its fundamental inner contradictions.

[BushOut06]

37. I don't advocate the execution of either

I wish they would both rot in prison for the rest of their lives.

I was merely pointing out that one will be executed, the other will live scot-free.

[Mikey929]

28. War vs. Citizens

I guess my point was that Bush is engaging in a war, where these bad things are happening. Versus torturing, raping, and mass murdering U.S. citizens. That is where Hussein outstrips Bush in his evilness, for lack of a better word. I did not say torture is part of war.

War crime is an imprecise term, actually, that is hard to quantify. By its very nature, war is a messy, ugly, bloody thing that is defined by death and destruction. If one is trying to artciulate a definition of a war crime, how does one distinguish between civilian deaths as collateral damage, for example, verus civilian deaths as the intended target. Somewhere in that vague mist is a war crime, i.e., the targeting of civilians that has no military justification.

I would point out that the O.P. gave us a choice -- Bush or Hussein. Don't attack me just because I picked the other option as you did.

[itsmesgd]

8. who has killed (or been responsible for) more US troop deaths?

Who has affected your civil liberties? Who has shreaded our Constitution?

[Lowell]

10. I'm not sure about Bush vs Hussein

but Bush has killed more Americans now than Osama.

[cali]

11. Honestly, this sort of question

is something a ten year old would ponder. For anyone older, it's just silly.

[BushOut06]

17. One is about to stand trial, the other will probably live the rest of his life in luxury

Of course it's a stupid question. But how many "rhetorical" questions do we see here in DU every day? Just merely pointing out that everything that Saddam has done, Bush has done moreso.

[Adelante]

12. Oh, Jeez

They're two miserable motherfuckers who should burn in Hell.

[Syncronaut Seven]

15. Rhetorical question, right?

.

[Warpy]

22. Both fought wars of corporate convenience

Hussein against Iran, Stupid against Hussein.

However, Stupid has better toys, so I'd have to put Stupid on top.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Undoubtedly Saddam Hussein.

Do a little - just a very little - research about some of the things Saddam did, and you'll realise just how silly even bothering to ask the question makes one look.

Bush is a very bad leader indeed by the standards of Western democracies,, but not merely many but most other nations are lead by people who make him look like a saint.

[cali]

31. I'll argue that.

I'm not in the camp that compares bush to Saddam or any other notably horrid leader, dead or alive, but bush is a greater danger to the world than any 10 of your corrupt, nasty leaders. He has managed to ignite a terrible civil war in Iraq, destabilize the mideast, handle N.Korea in exactly the wrong way, and alienate the U.S. from much of the planet. He doesn't look like a saint by any standard.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. That's a very different claim.

"How bad a ruler is X" and "How big a danger to the world is X" are two very different questions.

I don't dispute that Bush scores very highly - probably higher than any other living leader, although one could make a case for a few others - in the latter category, because he's the president of by far the most powerful country in the world, but he doesn't score nearly as highly as most other heads of nations would if their nation were as powerful as America.

A slightly bad ruler of America will be a far greater danger to the world than a very bad ruler of my back garden, but that doesn't make him a worse leader.

[Cleita]

32. I'd say Bush.

Bush had the opportunity to use our country's assets for good and instead used them for his game of domination. Saddam actually had to fight many factions to maintain power. Bush was handed everything he wanted on a silver plate yet he used what he got for death and destruction.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. This Matters Why? Is It An Attempt To Diminish Saddam's Atrocities? Isn't He War Criminal Enough?

What's the point of comparing the two? Each stand on their own merits. Saddam was enough of a war criminal to deserve any and all of the animosity he's receiving; Period. Let's not so easily lose focus that an atrocious brutal evil human being is receiving justice. Even if we don't agree the DP is the right justice, or ever justified, we still don't need to take a stance of minimizing or deflecting from his brutal and evil actions. He was enough of a piece of shit evil scumbag to not need comparison to anybody.