OKAY This is getting ridiculous: Pentagon says Saddam Hussein Worst Ruler in History
- Thread starter justint
- Start date
Saddum must be continually demonized or this war will go nowhere. He's no angel but the most vile and ruthless evildoer of all time? No way. That title goes to Lex Luthor, arch enemy of Superman and brilliantly played by Gene Hackman in the movies I might add.
Well since this thread is already OT . . . that episode was a stretch even for Stone and Parker.
Spicedaddy
Platinum Member
- Apr 18, 2002
- 2,305
- 75
- 91
That Clark woman, she kisses up big time to Bushy. Notice how she tries to imitate his 'dumb eagle' stare and scowl?
Mao of China killed more people than Hitler or Stalin when his shift from farming to industrialization didn'tgo as planned. He totally forgot that people needed to eat
.
Mao of China killed more people than Hitler or Stalin when his shift from farming to industrialization didn'tgo as planned. He totally forgot that people needed to eat
.All 17? He might not be unbiased, but some would argue neither are you...you are just on the other side.
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
- Apr 19, 2001
- 25,297
- 2,000
- 126
Let's see, you have one homicidal megalomaniac versus another homicidal megalomaniac. Let's call that a wash.
Hitler killed 6 million jews - Saddam, far less than 6 million, although still with genocidal leanings. In that regard, Hitler wins hands down. He's worse as a human being, although it's not exactly a fair fight. We did learn our lessons from Hitler and and have managed to keep Saddam from traveling the same road. Unopposed, he might have turned out as bad or even worse.
But as a ruler, things take a different turn. Despite not having the good fortune to be sitting atop a sea of oil to fund his war machine, Hitler did manage to run a functioning, prosperous country. Germany in that era was both an economic power and a military giant. The people had jobs, were educated and were well fed. The science programs were world class and their manufacturing might was second only to the USA. The military was the worlds best, it was only American industrial might that won that war. But Saddam? Trillions in oil revenue and a starving populace. A blank check in building his military, yet it's a paper tiger that has met defeat after defeat. No economy to speak of other than selling oil. No industry, no manufacturing, no agriculture, no social reform, no chance of things ever getting better for anyone other than Saddam and his cronies.
Say what you want about the relative sickness of the two minds involved and the atrocities of the acts commited, but Hitler was a better ruler. He ran a prosperous, modern country. Saddam could not rule a lemonade stand.
Hitler killed 6 million jews - Saddam, far less than 6 million, although still with genocidal leanings. In that regard, Hitler wins hands down. He's worse as a human being, although it's not exactly a fair fight. We did learn our lessons from Hitler and and have managed to keep Saddam from traveling the same road. Unopposed, he might have turned out as bad or even worse.
But as a ruler, things take a different turn. Despite not having the good fortune to be sitting atop a sea of oil to fund his war machine, Hitler did manage to run a functioning, prosperous country. Germany in that era was both an economic power and a military giant. The people had jobs, were educated and were well fed. The science programs were world class and their manufacturing might was second only to the USA. The military was the worlds best, it was only American industrial might that won that war. But Saddam? Trillions in oil revenue and a starving populace. A blank check in building his military, yet it's a paper tiger that has met defeat after defeat. No economy to speak of other than selling oil. No industry, no manufacturing, no agriculture, no social reform, no chance of things ever getting better for anyone other than Saddam and his cronies.
Say what you want about the relative sickness of the two minds involved and the atrocities of the acts commited, but Hitler was a better ruler. He ran a prosperous, modern country. Saddam could not rule a lemonade stand.
It all depends on what your definition of worst is.
I would say that Saddam is a worse ruler than either Hitler or Stalin. But when I say that I mean it in refererence to which was most successful personally.
Of the three Stalin would have been the most sucessful since he lived till he died of natural causes (or maybe he was assassinated like some conspiracy theorists think), next would be Hitler, he committed suicide but atleast he had his moment, Saddam would obviously be last since he will likely be killed and he never really had any moment of greatness as a conqueror.
Now if you are talking about which ruler was the worst in terms of causing human suffering for thier people, of all time. I would think it would be a toss up between Mao and Stalin, probably leaning more to Mao.
Do you think UN sanctions had something to do with that? Baghdad was the richest city in the middle east and put other oil rich cities to shame.
Did you LIVE in Iraq from 1980 to 1991? LMAO at the no industry - you are mistaking that for Kuwait.
Unlike Kuwait, Iraq isn't a desert and its GDP isn't soley based on oil. There was a lot of oil so its dirt cheap there but Baghdad was one of the best cities to live in in the Middle East when it came to health care (Free...and paid for by oil revenues), Santation, Medicine, and whatnot. Sanctions are MUCH more destructive than people think.
Unlike Kuwait, Iraq isn't a desert and its GDP isn't soley based on oil. There was a lot of oil so its dirt cheap there but Baghdad was one of the best cities to live in in the Middle East when it came to health care (Free...and paid for by oil revenues), Santation, Medicine, and whatnot. Sanctions are MUCH more destructive than people think.
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
- Apr 19, 2001
- 25,297
- 2,000
- 126
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
- Apr 19, 2001
- 25,297
- 2,000
- 126
Uhhh, yeah, I lived in 1980 to 1991, did you? Did you pick up a newspaper in that time?
1979 - Saddam seizes power and executes the former ruling party.
1980 - Saddam invades Iran leading to a long, bloody war which rapes the economy of both countries and bleeds the citizens dry.
1988 - War ends. Saddam turns to a nuclear weapons program and mass slaughter of the Kurds.
1990 - Saddam invades Kuwait. Gets his ass kicked.
1991 - Saddam gets his ass kicked. Sanctions begin.
1991-2002 - Saddam ignores sanctions that are killing his people. Almost all oil revenue goes to illegally rebuilding his military, funding terrorism and pursuing WMDs.
Go ahead, please point out the periods of peace, economic and industrial growth and benefit to Iraq in that timeline. I dare you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter