"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
I've said it. The common reply was that Bush is worse.
Indeed, he is the epitome of all of them reincarnated.
Stupidity expands to fill the available volume.
"So, you would vote for Hitler or Stalin if they had run opposite Bush " ?????
Here's your answer
http://letters-rejected.blogspot.com/2006/04/better-if-saddam-still-in-power.html
April 8, 2006
better if Saddam still in power
The Sydney Morning Herald
Sydney
Tony Blair asked when addressing the Australian parliament, ‘Would the world be better off if Saddam was still in power?’
The only possible answer is ‘yes!’
Iraq would not be reduced to rubble, art and artifacts of world significance would still be housed and in the care of the Iraqis, infrastructure, as run down and neglected as it might be would still exist, hospitals, although stocked with minimal medicines and up to date equipment, due mainly to the embargos would still be staffed and functioning, as would the electricity, water and sewage.
Some hundred thousand Iraqis, slaughtered by, or as a result of the invasion would still be alive.
Yes, Saddam is a low life. He invaded a neighbouring country because he thought it would increase his security, or he coveted their oil reserves, or whatever.
He had people arrested, tortured, killed, without reason and without trial. His retaliation to attack was beyond all proportion and he skimmed all the wealth he could from the Iraqi people for himself or his cronies.
He lied about his countries affairs and his intentions to both his people and the world at large.
Yes, there is no doubt he is a low life! No different to Bush and the US - lead coalition, really.