English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

31 answers

Hitler looks as the obvious answer, but he is not. Its Statlin. Stalin killed more people in his country then Hitler did. In fact during World War II Hitler was scared of only 1 person, Stalin.

2006-08-19 04:13:09 · answer #1 · answered by Jason 3 · 0 2

You could make a case for either Hitler and Stalin recently. People have said Stalin killed a lot more people then Hitler, but remember Hitler died much sooner. If Germany would have won World War II, is there any doubt that Hitler would have gone on to exterminate many more millions of people.

Course, these men both had the advantage of having technology - there are probably a lot of leaders from the past that would have been just as vicious if they had the same abilities to wipe out the masses as quickly.

2006-08-19 04:18:07 · answer #2 · answered by James R 5 · 0 1

The man is delusional

Bush met with his national security and economic teams during the week after returning from his vacation at his Texas ranch. In his address, the president reported on his week and vowed to stay the course on the economy and terrorism.
"We will defeat the terrorists and expand freedom across the world, we'll protect the American homeland and work tirelessly to prevent attacks on our country, and we will continue to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of America and build a more prosperous future for all our citizens," Bush said.
The speech comes as the political season moves into high gear ahead of the November mid-term congressional elections. Polls show the Democrats have a good chance of regaining control of the House for the first time since 1994 and have an outside chance of regaining the Senate. Bush's own poll numbers remain weak, with most voters saying the country is moving in the wrong direction.
A majority of voters think the Iraq War has been a failure.
Bush fought back in his radio speech, saying that "the way forward will be difficult, and it will require sacrifice and resolve."
"But America's security depends on liberty's advance in this troubled region, and we can be confident of the outcome because we know the unstoppable power of freedom," Bush continued.
On the economy, Bush promised to keep the momentum going. "We will keep taxes low, restrain federal spending, open new markets for American products, invest in new energy technologies, and help American workers develop the skills they need to compete for high wage jobs," Bush said

2006-08-19 04:23:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Actually, if you go by per capita atrocity, it would be Pol Pot. Pol Pot exterminated nearly 24% of the population of Cambodia in the early to mid 70's. (Considering that human atrocity as the reason.)

It is true that Stalin massacered MORE people but not nearly the percentage numbers that Pol Pot and the Khmere Rouge did in the killing fields.

Nobody can dispute that Hitler was a madman, demon possesed and completely insane. However, neither by percentage capita or sheer numbers would he compete against Stalin or Pol Pot.

2006-08-19 04:51:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Woodrow Wilson. He sent American troops to Europe and tipped the balance in favour on the Allies when both sides were nearly exhausted. If the Americans had stayed home, the various combatants would have had to arrange a peace treaty that was fair to all sides. While it's true that Wilson objected to much of the Treaty of Versailles, his sending US troops contributed greatly to it being as harsh and punitive as it was. This was a direct cause of WWII.

2006-08-19 04:26:40 · answer #5 · answered by canucklehead1951 4 · 0 0

Depends on whether you are talking about being successful or being a scumbag. Hitler and Stalin were both very nearly successful in achieving their goals (world domination) - but they were horrible, horrible creatures that caused untold damage to the world. Some more benign recent figures are just plain lousy leaders.

2006-08-19 04:14:35 · answer #6 · answered by Skeff 6 · 0 1

porter goss the head of the cia who let 3 people suspected of terrorist plotting around march 2000 and tried to find them only 3 months before september 11 to no avail and then 3 months later those 3 people were mostly responsible for driving the planes into the buildings.

2006-08-19 04:49:02 · answer #7 · answered by buypepsinotcoke 2 · 0 0

President George W. Bush. Hands down, the WORST leader ever. He sets a bad example of how to deal with problems and how to work together. He expanded a cultural gap that has pitted our own people against eachother. He began his presidency with an apathetic attitude toward world affairs and the well being of the planet on which we reside.

2006-08-19 04:11:25 · answer #8 · answered by shawnybaby82 2 · 2 3

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2006-08-19 04:28:21 · answer #9 · answered by Bawney 6 · 0 1

George W. Bush! You know all of his miserable poilices and questionable decision-making. He is an incompetent leader, the world's worst! _Far_ worse than Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Pinochet, and a whole host of undesirables combined!

2006-08-19 04:24:27 · answer #10 · answered by brian 2010 7 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers