»

Originally Posted by Hog

pfft there are many leaders of countries like him or even worse than him!

I think that is a tad bit of an exaggeration

[Dave]

The situation now isn't that much different from '92. Bush sr. was looking after a faltering economy in the wake of a war in the gulf. He was widely expected to beat Clinton for much the same reasons as Dubya is expected to beat Kerry-strong leader, experienced, he got us into this mess, he can get us out etc.

Kerry proved on Wednesday night that he is the more convincing of the two candidates when it comes to home affairs and the economy. That's where US presidential races are won and lost.

My only concern is that the last member of Congress to be elected President was JFK. Having been a Governor is a major plus in the eyes of the electorate.

[Hogisbald]

Originally Posted by HARRY

I think that is a tad bit of an exaggeration

So you have not heard of Robert Mugabe?

Yes I have, but that wasn't the point. Suddam has to be one of the worst, and should not be compared to anyone else, regardless of them being worse or not
No consolation should be given to this man

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Hog

So you have not heard of Robert Mugabe?

Oh God, not the Saddam/Mugabe debate again!

Mugabe never possessed WMD's, never invaded a sovereign country and was not in violation of UN resolutions to ther degree Saddam was. It's completely different!

[jester1470]

Originally Posted by Louis Louie

Oh God, not the Saddam/Mugabe debate again!

Mugabe never possessed WMD's, never invaded a sovereign country and was not in violation of UN resolutions to ther degree Saddam was. It's completely different!

This always reminds me of the comments made by Eddie Izzard which is that we just ignore genocide/oppression etc if its the leader of the country doing it to their own country. Its wehen they do it to other peoples country that we get upset. A life's a life whether its in your country or the country next to you, if you order them dead you're still a murderer.

Cheers

Stuart

[Dave]

Originally Posted by jester1470

This always reminds me of the comments made by Eddie Izzard which is that we just ignore genocide/oppression etc if its the leader of the country doing it to their own country. Its wehen they do it to other peoples country that we get upset. A life's a life whether its in your country or the country next to you, if you order them dead you're still a murderer.

Cheers

Stuart

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Mugabe, but Saddam's track record was a lot worse. Different league, in fact.

Hopefully something will be done about Mugabe in the future, but everyone's a bit tied up right now sorting out Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, North Korea et al.

[Hogisbald]

Originally Posted by Louis Louie

Oh God, not the Saddam/Mugabe debate again!

Mugabe never possessed WMD's, never invaded a sovereign country and was not in violation of UN resolutions to ther degree Saddam was. It's completely different!

I do agree that he is very different to Saddam although Mugabe is killing way more people than Saddam ever did. He is basically blackmailing his entire country i.e if you dont vote for me you will starve.

[Jake Wifebeater]

Can I just mention that they could also vote for Ralph Nader?

[Jake Wifebeater]

Originally Posted by Louis Louie

Oh God, not the Saddam/Mugabe debate again!

Mugabe never possessed WMD's, never invaded a sovereign country and was not in violation of UN resolutions to ther degree Saddam was. It's completely different!

And just who was it that sold Saddam those weapons in the first place? You know, those weapons which he got shot of in 1991? 13 years, not 45 minutes.