Comments by "Dennis" (@Dennis-nc3vw) on "Sideprojects" channel.

  1. LOL!
    8
  2. So many self-styled cynical badasses playing stick-it-to-the-man in the comments! 😆😆
    3
  3. @@apollionsacrezleonard WTF does that even mean? If he did, so did every other country.
    2
  4.  @maverick7291  Panama and Grenada too.
    2
  5. I don't think he killed that many, but he disappeared an estimated 10,000 people every year according to Human Rights Watch. The majority of Iraqis wanted him gone at the time even if they pretend otherwise now.
    1
  6. Bush is different because he's blamed for people he didn't directly kill (90% of Iraqi civilians were killed by insurgents/militia/terrorists). Simon didn't have to do that with any of these others leaders.
    1
  7. Because Bush is only a big baddy when you consider the people he didn't kill directly (about 90% of Iraqi civilians were killed by insurgents, militia, and terrorists according to Iraq Body Count). Notice how Simon doesn't have to do that with any other leaders.
    1
  8. When we mind our own business, people making movies like Hotel Rwanda calling us cowards.
    1
  9. Yes, and we gave him a whopping ONE PERCENT of his arms...ooooh.
    1
  10. You consider Bush a mass murderer because you blame him for the crimes of his mortal enemies. About 88% of civilians killed in Iraq were killed by "insurgents, militia, and a terrorist" according to Iraq Body Count. Well guess what? If Bush has the blood spilled by those people on his hands, logic would follow Saddam has all the blood America spilled on his hands too. But of course no one says it, because logic isn't for cool kids.
    1
  11. An April 2004 Gallup poll shows Iraqis believed the invasion was "worth it" by a margin of 2 to 1. Then later they mass murdered each other in sectarian violence, blamed America, and pretended they never wanted to be liberated. Saddam Hussein was considered the Kim Jung Un of his time. The fact Bush is so vilified for overthrowing him, even if it was a mistake, is just surreal.
    1
  12. It's absolutely surreal Bush is so vilified for toppling Saddam, even if it was the wrong decision. It would be like if the President who liberated North Korea from Kim Jung Un became the most hated man in history. It feels like we're living in some Orwellian alternate reality. Deep down everyone knows it was a perfectly morally reasonable conclusion that Iraq would be better off without Saddam. How do we know this? Well because if a democratic uprising had happened in Iraq, and the President had decided to side with Saddam on the basis that he was good for Iraq and Iraqis didn't want democracy or whatever the hell else they tell us to vilify the invasion, that President would go down in history as the world's greatest monster. But if those things were really true he'd have done nothing wrong.
    1
  13. I don't think Khomeini or Castro are nearly in league with these guys.
    1
  14. That's because you blame Bush for the crimes of his mortal enemies but don't do that for Saddam. As you probably know, about 90% of Iraqi civilians were killed by the insurgents/militia/terrorists US soldiers were there to kill and capture. But you blame us because we "brought them there." But if you were logically consistent then the same way America is responsible for the atrocities of the insurgents, Saddam should be responsible for the atrocities of America.
    1
  15. The fact that even 20 years of the US military in Afghanistan couldn't remove the Mujahadeen's stranglehold on Afghan society means their rise to power could have no been so tenuous that it wouldn't have happened without foreign funding. If America had caused this problem so easily, we would have been able to fix it easily. But I think Afghanistan was headed this way no matter what.
    1