Yep, those Brits back then were exactly the equivalent to Saddam's thirty year terror reign on the Iraqi people as he filled up the mass graves, the torture chambers and the rape rooms.
WHy, if a Colonist back then so much as uttered a word against the King, of course his tongue was cut out of his throat, he was hung on a pike in the town square in front of all the people, and he gurgled to his death choking on his own blood. But first he had to watch his wife and daughters raped and tortured, and his sons dragged away to the King's army.
Another way of saying...shame on you.
"Another way of saying...shame on you."
For what - telling the truth?
The American colonialists did far more to earn their freedom than the Iraqis have to date.
Your 'point' that Saddam's brutality hindered the Iraqis only underlines the American colonials.
The American patriots revolted for many reasons, namely taxation without representation and disgust at the British monarchy. It's not a huge assumption that they would've been even less tolerant of a brutal George III (and his predecessors), had that been the case.
Finally, I don't exactly see any Ben Franklins or Thomas Jeffersons in the Iraqi gov't at the moment either. I do, however, see a lot of power-hungry opportunists who left Iraq long ago and are only returning when it's safe and fashionable to do so.