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

2007-06-09 05:02:06 · 35 answers · asked by morne 1 1 in Politics & Government Politics

35 answers

To talk about how I feel, I would say George W. bush is the evilest..Why? It is because he does all those evil things against innocent people around the world and covers his crimes by saying it is to fight against terrorism!! how rediculous!
I believe the most evilest is who makes his/her crimes under the mandate of good intentions!

Peace!

2007-06-09 05:09:02 · answer #1 · answered by Eve 5 · 1 12

Hitler. He practiced the systematic annihilation of 9 million people. He did so out of hatred. Bush is misguided, but his intentions are not evil. Even though he is largely disliked, he tends to stick to his guns. Hitler was loved because he found excuses and told people what they wanted to hear. There's a huge difference between the two.

For future reference, when comparing two things, use the ending that equates to "-er" or "more". Three or more things can be judged as "most" or "-est". In this case, it would be "more evil" since "eviler" is not a word.

2007-06-09 05:30:41 · answer #2 · answered by seattlefan74 5 · 2 1

Hitler by far. He tried to conquer Europe resulting in 20 million deaths. 6 million who died were not fighting the war, they were people he did not like so he rounded them up and 'deported' them to camps and killed them in gas chambers.

George Bush may be misguided and stubborn, but he is not evil. The unfortunate deaths at his hands are in the low thousands, not tens of millions. Although the war in Iraq has gone badly, the intent of ridding the world of a dangerous, maniacal dictator was noble. Especially compared to the world domination and genocide attempted by Hitler.

2007-06-09 05:20:28 · answer #3 · answered by jehen 7 · 1 0

Evilest isn't a word. And even if it was, I'm sure you would have spelled it wrong.

Comparing our President to Hitler is just another example of how low the delusional and extreme left in America are willing to stoop in order to try to smear the Right.

2007-06-09 05:24:43 · answer #4 · answered by Sleeck 3 · 1 2

Hitler, of course. George has learned some things from him but, thank God, is not there. We have some checks and balances that make it difficult to impossible for Bush to do what Hitler did.

2007-06-09 05:16:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Hitler would be more evil. He did commit genocide trying to wipe out Jewish and undesirable people. It was called the Holocaust.

Bush may have made more than his share of mistakes, but at least he hadn't killed about 8-12 million people.

Although you didn't ask it, Saddam Hussein was more evil than Bush. He massacred Kurds who dared to oppose him in the early 1990s.

I can keep going with the Romanian dictator who was tried for war crimes, Idie Amin, etc, but I'll stop here.

2007-06-09 06:36:16 · answer #6 · answered by BrianC2008 3 · 1 1

Comparing the two is absolutely ridiculous. Hitler alone was responsible for the deaths of TENS OF MILLIONS and leaving 3/4 of Europe in rubble. All that George Bush is guilty of is pisssing off liberals.

2007-06-09 05:08:40 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 7 1

Its a toss up between Hitler and Stalin. Why would ask a question so simple? George Bush is hard at work trying to keep evil minded countries from doing what Hitler and Stalin did. You must have been thinking Hillary Clinton when you asked this because she does fit right in with Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. If you were not mistaken in your question I would suggest going back to school and studying history and economics

2007-06-09 05:12:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

George Bush is the evilest of all. i really thank god tat Hitler is dead today cause if he was alive they both would join hands and the world would be no more.

2007-06-09 05:33:20 · answer #9 · answered by Syed Aleemuddin Noor 4 · 1 2

Foolish question. Hitler killed almost 6 MILLION Jews as a matter of national policy. Hitler and his cronies purposely targeted particular civilian populations in conquered territories and in their own nation for extermination, measured against a twisted ideology.
In Iraq, for example, the US military killed approx. 4,895 to 6,370 Iraqi soldiers between the initial invasion and the collapse of the Baathist government. 7,500 civilians were reported killed during the invasion phase as well. Some estimates state that over 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the conflict, with the majority of these deaths occurring after May 2003. The vast majority of these civilians were killed as a result of terrorist activity, not intentional government policy. The intent of the US is the spread of freedom and democracy, the right to choose for yourself. The intent of terrorists is stopping this as violently as possible. They do not want people to be have freedom of choice, they want the power to DICTATE every aspect of your life, much the same as the Nazis.
The question you should ask is who is more evil: Hitler or Islamic terrorists who think innocent men, women, and children are legitimate targets. I'd say they're both on the same page, and are destined to share the same circle in hell.

2007-06-09 05:33:43 · answer #10 · answered by Justin L 1 · 1 2

As much as I dislike "W", he hasn't attempted to exterminate entire nationalities in a brutal, horrifying manner.... So, I'd say that Hitler, holds the title of "most evilest".

2007-06-09 05:07:09 · answer #11 · answered by nfogey_1981 3 · 7 0

fedest.com, questions and answers