OKAY This is getting ridiculous: Pentagon says Saddam Hussein Worst Ruler in History

[apoppin]

The worst ruler in world history is Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Pentagon said on Monday.

"The Iraqi people will be free of decades and decades and decades of torture and oppression the likes of which I think the world has not ever seen before," Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke told a Pentagon news conference.

Clarke's comment was in line with a mounting stream of comments from Washington that have demonized the Iraqi leader as U.S. and British troops now look as if they may take longer than expected in removing him from power.

Saddam has been condemned for his exceptional brutality against his own people but historians generally agree that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and Soviet leader Josef Stalin were responsible for killing more people than any other dictators in world history.

Notice how the media simply dismissed this propaganda crap as nonsense.

 

[tcsenter]

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.

When...1000 years ago?

The former head of UNICEF testified before the United Nations that chief among those reasons the sanctions were so harsh on the Iraqi people was because the Hussein regime, in order to support the build-up of his military and enrich the Baath Party, had for 20 years neglected virtually all matters of modern infrastructure in Iraq, from its public health system, to education, to waste water treatment, to modernizing and maintaining its sewer system, and agricultural matters. When we bombed Iraq during the Gulf War, we bombed a country that had been in a state of severe neglect since 1979.

Edit: Oops, corrected a 0 to a 9.

 

[Nemesis77]

Worst leader in the known history? Based on what? What about the North Korean leaders? Pol Pot? Stalin? Hitler? Nixon?

 

[HappyGamer2]

nixon? he is better than any bush

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: HappyGamer2
nixon? he is better than any bush

What about the nose?

 

[HappyGamer2]

nixon was a crock, and a little nuts, but he wasn't stupid enough to get us in big mess like the little bush did

 

[Richdog]

Alongside Bush?

 

[exp]

Pentagon says Saddam Hussein Worst Ruler in History

I don't know about that one. I once had a ruler that was English system only (no metric), had no hashmarks below 1-inch intervals and was made of crappy plastic, causing it to eventually break in two in my backpack.

Now THAT was a bad ruler. *rimshot*

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Worse than Attila the Hun? Worse than Vlad the Impaler? Worse thn Genghis Kahn?

Gang his kanh, hahha, funny name...

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: exp

Pentagon says Saddam Hussein Worst Ruler in History

I don't know about that one. I once had a ruler that was English system only (no metric), had no hashmarks below 1-inch intervals and was made of crappy plastic, causing it to eventually break in two in my backpack.

Now THAT was a bad ruler. *rimshot*

No, that's not so bad. A broken ruler doesn't generate nearly as much force when a nun uses it to smack you across the knuckles. Those wooden ones with the metal straight edge hurt like hell and were much worse. Of course, getting your knuckles smashed with a ruler like Ghengis Khan might be even worse, he was a pretty big guy.

 

[Tates]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

No, that's not so bad. A broken ruler doesn't generate nearly as much force when a nun uses it to smack you across the knuckles. Those wooden ones with the metal straight edge hurt like hell and were much worse. Of course, getting your knuckles smashed with a ruler like Ghengis Khan might be even worse, he was a pretty big guy.

Worse than that, how about the metal edged ruler dashed against your shin. Nuns, you gotta luv 'em

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: ManSnake

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Worse than Attila the Hun? Worse than Vlad the Impaler? Worse thn Genghis Kahn?

Gang his kanh, hahha, funny name...

Not that funny if you went back in time and said that to his face in a language he understands.

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: justint
Ahead of Hitler and Stalin?? Someone needs to dial back the propaganda.



From Reuters

*Hogan*
What you gonna do? When the American propaganda runs wild on you! What you gonna do?

 

[Phokus]

Ok, i think the pentagon has lost any shred of credibility it had.

 

[Stark]

I don't know if it's that much of an overstatement. Hitler and Stalin didn't have a fortune of oil in their possession.

Saddam had the opportunity to create as much wealth as he wants by doing very little (the sale of a natural resource). He could have implemented all sorts of grand socialist ideas, but instead he pissed of the rest of the world, hoarded what money he could get for his oil and built himself palaces and made his allies rich while letting the "common iraqi" suffer.

I don't know of any other ruler in history who had control over such a goldmine and squandered it away so badly.

 

[Marshallj]

Athough it's a stretch, I can see what they mean.

While certainly he isn't the "meanest" dictator ever, he has done a pretty bad job of leading his country to prosperity. With the natural resources that his country has, it should be prospering. They are the #2 oil producer in the world. By repeatedly leading his country to wars that they can't win and angering the international community, he ensures that there's always somebody's foot on his head keeping his country down.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

And so we see where all your anti-war posts in the other threads come from. So much for you just being "an unbiased observer of world events"

All 17? He might not be unbiased, but some would argue neither are you...you are just on the other side.

Perhaps that is true....one big difference though....I don't spout off in other threads about how I am just an "unbiased world observer"

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
Athough it's a stretch, I can see what they mean.

While certainly he isn't the "meanest" dictator ever, he has done a pretty bad job of leading his country to prosperity. With the natural resources that his country has, it should be prospering. They are the #2 oil producer in the world. By repeatedly leading his country to wars that they can't win and angering the international community, he ensures that there's always somebody's foot on his head keeping his country down.

That's probably the most retarded interpretation i've read yet. I'm pretty sure the pentagon was alluding to the comparison on human rights/foreign policy, etc. etc. You think the pentagon is say, 'hey, we're invading iraq because saddam doesn't know how to take care of his finances!'?

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Marshallj
Athough it's a stretch, I can see what they mean.

While certainly he isn't the "meanest" dictator ever, he has done a pretty bad job of leading his country to prosperity. With the natural resources that his country has, it should be prospering. They are the #2 oil producer in the world. By repeatedly leading his country to wars that they can't win and angering the international community, he ensures that there's always somebody's foot on his head keeping his country down.

That's probably the most retarded interpretation i've read yet. I'm pretty sure the pentagon was alluding to the comparison on human rights/foreign policy, etc. etc. You think the pentagon is say, 'hey, we're invading iraq because saddam doesn't know how to take care of his finances!'?

i would think that amnesty international would complain about human rights.

maybe the pentagon is talking about his military... a subject they would know something about.
considering that hitler and stalin kicked much @ss with their troops, Saddam is pretty pathetic by comparison... especially for someone who wears military uniforms every chance he gets.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Stark


maybe the pentagon is talking about his military... a subject they would know something about.
considering that hitler and stalin kicked much @ss with their troops, Saddam is pretty pathetic by comparison... especially for someone who wears military uniforms every chance he gets.

Hell, the Pentagon could be talking about almost everything. Saddam has used a blank check and still built an inept military. Saddam has billions at his disposal yet cannot feed his people. Saddam has been unable to provide jobs or education for his starving masses. Saddam has been unable to have friendly relations with any neighboring country. Saddam has been unable to provide a single minutes peace when Iraq was not at war with somebody. Saddam has been 100% ineffective at all aspects of leadership and has failed at every task necessary to ruling a country. All Saddam is good at is mass murder. The Pentagon hit the nail right on the head. Even a drug lord is a better ruler than Saddam, at least they can generate a positive cash flow. Saddam is a failure. He has taken a country with huge resources and pissed them away while doing nothing to help the country for even a single second.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Stark
I don't know if it's that much of an overstatement. Hitler and Stalin didn't have a fortune of oil in their possession.

Saddam had the opportunity to create as much wealth as he wants by doing very little (the sale of a natural resource). He could have implemented all sorts of grand socialist ideas, but instead he pissed of the rest of the world, hoarded what money he could get for his oil and built himself palaces and made his allies rich while letting the "common iraqi" suffer.

I don't know of any other ruler in history who had control over such a goldmine and squandered it away so badly.

Yes it's a HUGE overstatement.

Especially Stalin lived in Grandeur while his people starved. He actually DID starve to death at least 10 million people at least once. Russia has always been unbelievable wealthy in natural resources and they also have oil.

Saddaim is a Mini-Hitler - both had small countries to ruin (they also both loved to watch videos/films over dinner of their political opponents in agony being tortured to death).

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
Athough it's a stretch, I can see what they mean.

While certainly he isn't the "meanest" dictator ever, he has done a pretty bad job of leading his country to prosperity. With the natural resources that his country has, it should be prospering. They are the #2 oil producer in the world. By repeatedly leading his country to wars that they can't win and angering the international community, he ensures that there's always somebody's foot on his head keeping his country down.

Haha, sounds like you are talking about that guy in White House.

Leading the country from the one of the best boom to one of the worst time, and pi$$ed off everybody in the world. At least Saddam has 20 years to do it, and that big guy from Texas did it in three.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Marshallj
Athough it's a stretch, I can see what they mean.

While certainly he isn't the "meanest" dictator ever, he has done a pretty bad job of leading his country to prosperity. With the natural resources that his country has, it should be prospering. They are the #2 oil producer in the world. By repeatedly leading his country to wars that they can't win and angering the international community, he ensures that there's always somebody's foot on his head keeping his country down.

Haha, sounds like you are talking about that guy in White House.

Leading the country from the one of the best boom to one of the worst time, and pi$$ed off everybody in the world. At least Saddam has 20 years to do it, and that big guy from Texas did it in three.

 

[jasonja]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Marshallj
Athough it's a stretch, I can see what they mean.

While certainly he isn't the "meanest" dictator ever, he has done a pretty bad job of leading his country to prosperity. With the natural resources that his country has, it should be prospering. They are the #2 oil producer in the world. By repeatedly leading his country to wars that they can't win and angering the international community, he ensures that there's always somebody's foot on his head keeping his country down.

Haha, sounds like you are talking about that guy in White House.

Leading the country from the one of the best boom to one of the worst time, and pi$$ed off everybody in the world. At least Saddam has 20 years to do it, and that big guy from Texas did it in three.

Yes, because we all know that it's Bush's fault that every www.stupidcrapyoudon'tneed.com and www.badbuisnessplan.com went under. Dumbass.

 

[ub4me]

Sadam was one of our best friends before he invaded Kuweit.
We gave him money and weapons during Iran-Iraq war.
Now, he is the worst man ever. What an irony!

p.s. Actually there were some more dictators (including notorious dictator Manuel Noriega) who were our best friends, but later they were removed from their throne because of their rebellions against us.