2006-10-26 06:43:07 · 14 answers · asked by Chris M 2 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
Osama Bin Laden. At least Saddam kept other bad boys in line.
2006-10-26 06:44:18 · answer #1 · answered by tiger_lilly33186 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clearly Osama, given that Saddam is locked up and that hasn't put an end to either the war in Iraq, or terrorist attacks.
2006-10-26 13:44:57 · answer #2 · answered by Marie 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Osama
2006-10-26 13:44:34 · answer #3 · answered by DiRTy D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Osama of course.
Saddam is already out of commission.
He's gonna be convicted, period.
His trial is a formality.
At it's climax, he will be hung.
(He asked for a firing squad instead but the court refused.)
Remember, his trial is not in California, and Saddam is not O.J..
2006-10-26 13:59:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bin laden for sure...Saddam was good at keeping the Iranian's(shiites) in check.
2006-10-26 13:46:01 · answer #5 · answered by ŚţΰāŔţ ● Ŧ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both are extremely evil.
Why would you want to chose one over the other? You don't have enough faith that we can fight more then 1 battle at a time?
We have yet to utilize our troops to their fullest potential.
2006-10-26 13:49:26 · answer #6 · answered by texassupertech007 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As it stands now, Osama.
2006-10-26 13:46:36 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both, but we have to get them one at a time.
2006-10-26 13:50:50 · answer #8 · answered by momcat 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither of them affect my life, so I don't care. If they want to rule their little piles of dirt, what the helll should I care?
2006-10-26 13:44:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush!
2006-10-26 13:50:15 · answer #10 · answered by Jon C 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋