I'm going to say equal.  Osama's a terrorist who assaults other countries so he can obtain glory whereas Saddam is a psycho who's killed hundreds of thousands. 

Not a big fan of either - bit like saying what'dya fancy death by impaling on a spike or death by burning at the stake.... hmmmm, difficult choice. As to whose worse off it has to be Saddam as he's in the clink under lock and key while Osama's probably on a beach somewhere in Californie learning to surf having had a bit of plastic nip and tuck courtesy of his rich relatives.

Hang Ten, surfer terrorist dude !!! :D

Both.

Haven't voted yet, because the question is so nebulous.  Worse how?  Worse in general?  the more power one has, the worse one can be.  Worse in terms of people killed? Also a direct relationship to power.  Worse in terms of effect on the US?  That becomes a question of reach.

Obviously, both are bad dudes who no sane western secularist could support.  I guess I just don't think much of the question.

Haven't voted yet, because the question is so nebulous.  Worse how?  Worse in general?  the more power one has, the worse one can be.  Worse in terms of people killed? Also a direct relationship to power.  Worse in terms of effect on the US?  That becomes a question of reach.

Obviously, both are bad dudes who no sane western secularist could support.  I guess I just don't think much of the question.


I guess bad in how corrupt and dangerous you think they are to the world/their country.

and what is osama's country?

and what is osama's country?


Saudi Arabia I guess.

I say equal.

Too hard to quantify.

For sheer human misery, persecution, torture, and body count, Saddam is the clear winner!!!

However, Saddam poses no threat to us.

Osama is still out there.
:o

And something tells me if Osama got to run his own country, he'd get up to the same abuses as Saddam, with a whole other reason for persecution, religiosity.  Not to mention he would be happy to have me killed!  However, that's all speculative.

So all told, I would have to say they are, uh, equally worse!
:D

I say Osama is worse. And the reason why is his motivations are religious, and so he would severly restrict women's rights if he ran a country(at least Saddam didn't do that). Also, I would not be allowed to live if I was in a country he ran, for I am non-religious. If I had been unfortunate enough to been an Iraqi under Hussein's regime, I'd have been ok as long as I didn't go up against the regime. What I mean is, I don't think Saddam has any problem with atheists. I never heard of him conducting any religious persecution of that nature anyway.

They both remind me of Hitler, wanting to get rid of the "bad" people (in their opinion) and have a perfect race.

All are horrible

They both remind me of Hitler, wanting to get rid of the "bad" people (in their opinion) and have a perfect race.

All are horrible


Hussein is a pan-Arabist, and has committed genocide. But bin Laden has no racial motivations.

Saddam was worse skin. And his beard, when he was captured, left a lot to be desired. Osama has good skin, and keeps his beard tidy. This might seem flippant, but I can't separate them along the lines other people have, as I do not share the same strength of feeling against them. I would say Osama is more of a danger to the US currently, but then Saddam wasn't a danger to the US in the first place.

Hussein is a pan-Arabist, and has committed genocide. But bin Laden has no racial motivations.



What I meant about Bin Laden was that he is convinced that people on this side of the world are all sinners and need to be wiped out.