Better "get": Bush getting Saddam; Obama getting Bin Laden?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bucs90, May 1, 2012.

  1. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    So which is the bigger "get":

    Bush "getting" Saddam Hussein?
    Obama "getting" Bin Laden?

    The simple way to figure this would be: Which evil man was worse for the world, and which man was responsible for more evil while here? And finally, which man, if left alone, would have caused more death, destruction and chaos in the future? Hussein or Bin Laden?

    Yeah, you guys forgot about Bush "getting" Saddam, huh? Maybe because he didn't gloat about it the rest of his term.
     
  2. Clementine
    Offline

    Clementine Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,597
    Thanks Received:
    3,900
    Trophy Points:
    350
    Ratings:
    +8,775
    Another question is if Bush hadn't started the search for bin Laden, would Obama have even concerned himself with it?

    I think over the years Saddam did plenty of damage, killed countless people and who knows what more he had planned. Osama bin Laden was the brains behind many terrorist attacks, though he is not unique. He does not rule his own country and there are other terrorists in line to fill the slot when the top guy is taken out. The war on terror isn't over. Killing bin Laden did not end a single terrorist organization and likely got them plotting revenge. Saddam was an evil dictator and had way more power than bin Laden. Both were evil, but Saddam had the power to do more harm and to do it a lot faster than bin Laden. The terrorists can succeed when people are caught off guard. Our security supposedly improved, but since most of our measures are reactionary rather than proactive, there is always a chance they'll strike again. Saddam pretty much did what he wanted for years. He was just as cruel to his own people as he was to sworn enemies.
     
  3. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    41,539
    Thanks Received:
    9,373
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +21,079
    Well according to the libs on the board and in the media Obama is definitely "the man".

    [​IMG]

    :lol::lol::lol:
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2012
  4. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    If Bush hadn't started the wars, then no, I doubt Obama would have pursued him. But who knows what world we'd be in after 9-11 if Bush had not gone to war. No way to know.

    Both Saddam and Bin Laden were great "gets". I agree though, that Saddam had maybe killed more innocent people, in fact, almost certainly did by far.

    And, Saddam had an actual military. Tanks, soldiers, planes, chemical and bio weapons which he used on his own people.

    Osama would love to have had those things, but didn't.

    In the long run, killing Osama probably will save far fewer lives than killing Saddam did, but the world is better off with both dead!
     
  5. bucs90
    Offline

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    26,548
    Thanks Received:
    5,995
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    Love it
     
  6. Lakhota
    Online

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,767
    Thanks Received:
    4,718
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +16,084
    Bush didn't do shit. Saddam was found by accident - not on purpose. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and then Bush fabricated false evidence to invade Iraq. Saddam hated Iran, but now Iran will continue to gain greater influence in Iraq. America has paid a heavy price to topple Saddam. Was it worth it? I say HELL NO.

    In short, there is no comparison between Saddam and bin Laden. Bin Laden was the target after 9/11.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  7. J.E.D
    Offline

    J.E.D What's tha matta?

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    10,904
    Thanks Received:
    1,774
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,576
    How many "Let's downplay the death of Osama" threads does this make? Thanks, wingnuts, for once again showing us how patriotic you are.

    I have a better question. Why did Bush let Osama go to invade Iraq -- a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

    Hack of the week.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  8. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    Both needed dyin', and both Bush and Obama did the job we pay them to do. How's that for a non-partisan approach?
     
  9. theDoctorisIn
    Offline

    theDoctorisIn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    30,045
    Thanks Received:
    5,803
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    East, but still West
    Ratings:
    +11,991
    I've got one too:

    Both of these "gets" were nothing more than publicity operations, and nearly meaningless on any sort of real scale.
     
  10. Douger
    Offline

    Douger BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    12,323
    Thanks Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Not fucking there !
    Ratings:
    +915
    Neither. Both were engaged in illegal activities.
    Clinton got the best "get". He got a blowjob.
     

Share This Page