start everything....Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin...I say let put all these blood thirsty leaders together in a ring and let them fight their aggressiveness out instead of let other people fight their war for them. If this happen who would win in these match ups assuming they was in their prime.
1. Napoleon vs Yasser Arafat
2. Adolf Hitler vs Fidel Castro
3. Stalin vs Idi Amin
4. Chairman Mao vs Noriega
5. Bin Laden vs The North Korea President
6. George W. Bush vs The current President of Iran
2007-09-24 19:47:56 · 9 answers · asked by gannoway 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
an interesting guess game here...let me see...assuming it is not the physical strength that decides it's entirely possible that Arafat should outplay Napoleon, for he was a real weasel, while Napoleon was a soldier...Hitler and Castro ? Mhm...I guess they'd never meet in real life, but in as much as the intelligence is concerned Castro would be a winner...Stalin and Amin...they were illiterate brutes, both of them, cruel and perverse, I guess they would rather fraternize than fight each other... and I guess Mao would charm out Noriega...Bin Laden vs Kim Jong Ill, now that one is interesting ! They are both lunatics, except the North Korean is greedy for power, while Bin Laden is a fanatic...I guess fanaticism outplays greed...Now the actual Iranian president is a smart ***, while Bush is considered a moron...the outcome is therefore obvious !
2007-09-24 20:24:36 · answer #1 · answered by javornik1270 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Stalin, He was big, and would probably find a way to have his opponents put in a labor camp... you've left several people off your list though, for example all of the murderous regime leaders in African, South America, and Eastern Europe. You might also want to add Lincoln who decided war was better than allowing the states of the union to have free will, and Robert E. Lee... because he chose separation over peace. The Americans that fought in our independence, and the English crown that choose to try to stop them. Anyway, there have been a lot of wars over the years where pointless death occurred its not an isolated incident.
2007-09-24 20:21:33 · answer #2 · answered by scorch_22 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Most people are peaceful"
You have grown up in a blissful, middle class haze of peacefulness. Unfortunately, except for not wanting to get hit first, most people readily take up arms (or fists, or clubs) when they feel that they have been wronged.
You need to listen to the anger that people express and wonder how you avoided that.
Your combats are silly - How about Palestinians against French Resistance, SS vs KGB,
2007-09-24 19:54:33 · answer #3 · answered by Mike1942f 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
1.
2007-09-24 19:50:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
George W.Bush is Hitler but in a so called Democratic way...
2007-09-24 20:12:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only a handful? Yea right. Humans are violent, and our human history is proof that we are violent.
2007-09-24 20:09:32 · answer #6 · answered by Adolf Schmichael 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Westerners = Only Agreesors & Source of Violence, Disease, Terrorism of Earth's History, worse than any War Criminal of History of Earth.
2007-09-24 19:54:57 · answer #7 · answered by tubgaff 1 · 0⤊ 4⤋
It will never happen in our lifetime but love your ideal.
2007-09-24 20:03:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
THATS TRUE
AND IT WOULD BE FUNNY AS HELL TOO!
OUR AMERICAN FOREFATHERS FOUGHT ALONG SIDE OR AMONGST THEIR SOLDIERS IN BATTLE.
THEY DIDN'T COWARD BEHIND THE DESK.
A REAL MAN IN OFFICE OR HELL A REAL WOMAN EVEN?
2007-09-24 19:53:22 · answer #9 · answered by CEYISHA S 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋