um ahmadinnajad because he is the only one in that list that doesnt kill large amounts of people who dont agree
2007-01-21 16:11:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
None of them are US citizens. They're already disqualified on this basis alone. Never been, nor will ever be, an option. Besides, Saddam Hussein is no longer among the living.
2007-01-22 00:13:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by JADE 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Ridiculous
2007-01-22 00:11:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by crusty old fart 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Number 1.
He was pretty funny in Team America!!
2007-01-22 00:11:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think 2 would be the easiest to revolt against because he would not have the support of his radical cronies to help him.
2007-01-22 00:13:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by GloryDays49ers 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'll write in Mickey Mouse
2007-01-22 00:12:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
3- Saddam huessien
At least we know that he can't cause any damage.
2007-01-22 00:15:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
# 4 none of the above
2007-01-22 00:11:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
3 - He's dead. He couldn't do any worse than Clinton in that state.
2007-01-22 00:11:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
kim Jong il... why? um well all would suck... but he hasn't tried to commit any super serious genocide and he hasn't killed AS MANY people. so yea and i would hope our congress and courts would keep him in check long enough....
2007-01-22 00:12:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by me, myself and I 3
·
0⤊
2⤋