Who is worse?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Definately the Saudi Royals. At least Saddam gave women basically equal rights under the law and allowed Christians to practice their religion.

[Jake]

Yeah, but the Saudi Royals didn't masacare their people the way Saddam did. Or, for that matter, invade a sovereign nation and kill many of its people.

[dazzleman]

Saddam is worse than the Saudi royals.  The Saudi royals are hardly a force for good in the world, but they are a much lesser evil than Saddam.

The level of brutality in Saudi Arabia is much lower than it was in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and Saudi Arabia has not initiated military aggression against its neighbors.

The government is effectively encouraging terrorism, or at the very least creating the conditions that lead to terrorism, but even that is a lesser evil than direct sponsorship, as Iraq under Saddam Hussein was involved in.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd much rather live in Saddam's Iraq than Saudi Arabia.

[dazzleman]

I'd much rather live in Saddam's Iraq than Saudi Arabia.

Saddam's Iraq doesn't exist anymore, so that's a safe choice.  I think you need to live in a country like that for a while.  It may cure you of some of your cockeyed ideas.

[Jake]

Good for you, but why is Saddam better than the Saudis again?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd much rather live in Saddam's Iraq than Saudi Arabia.

Saddam's Iraq doesn't exist anymore, so that's a safe choice.  I think you need to live in a country like that for a while.  It may cure you of some of your cockeyed ideas.

my cockeyed ideas? I'm not a Ba'athist, so I have no clue what you're talking about.

I never said I'd enjoy Saddam's Iraq, but at least I could buy alcohol and wouldn't be arrested for practicing my religion. And while I could get in major trouble for just criticizing Saddam, the same is true in Saudi Arabia, so there are no advantages.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Good for you, but why is Saddam better than the Saudis again?

He didn't persecute Christians.

[PBrunsel]

Saddam gave men and women the same rights all right. He would kill them both at the same time with the same type of poison gas.

We should have hung Saddam by a sour apple tree the day we found him cowering in that spider hole.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Saddam gave men and women the same rights all right. He would kill them both at the same time with the same type of poison gas.

yes, and the Saudis respect their citizens so much.

We should have hung Saddam by a sour apple tree the day we found him cowering in that spider hole.

I wouldn't have minded that. We should've also given Abdullah the same treatment.

[DanielX]

Good for you, but why is Saddam better than the Saudis again?

He didn't persecute Christians.

So? He persecuted Kurds and Shiah instead. Also, Saudi Arabia, at least in theory, hasn't invaded any other country in more than 70 years (when the Saudis took over Hejaz). Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991.

However, both are disgusting.

[Alcon]

Saddam, although not by way too much.

[opebo]

Saddam was much, much better. 

[dazzleman]

I'd much rather live in Saddam's Iraq than Saudi Arabia.

Saddam's Iraq doesn't exist anymore, so that's a safe choice.  I think you need to live in a country like that for a while.  It may cure you of some of your cockeyed ideas.

my cockeyed ideas? I'm not a Ba'athist, so I have no clue what you're talking about.

I never meant to say you were a Ba'athist.  But your take on a lot of issues is a little off from the average person's.  "Unique perspective" is a better term than cockeyed.

[Jake]

Good for you, but why is Saddam better than the Saudis again?

He didn't persecute Christians.

He just persecuted everyone other than the Sunnis.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd much rather live in Saddam's Iraq than Saudi Arabia.

Saddam's Iraq doesn't exist anymore, so that's a safe choice.  I think you need to live in a country like that for a while.  It may cure you of some of your cockeyed ideas.

my cockeyed ideas? I'm not a Ba'athist, so I have no clue what you're talking about.

I never meant to say you were a Ba'athist.  But your take on a lot of issues is a little off from the average person's.  "Unique perspective" is a better term than cockeyed.

well what you're basically saying is I would not enjoy living in Saddam's Iraq. well, gee, duh. I wouldn't enjoy living in Saudi Arabia either. If forced to choose though, I'd take Saddam, as would anyone Christian or person who enjoys alcohol, or any woman.

[dazzleman]

I'd much rather live in Saddam's Iraq than Saudi Arabia.

Saddam's Iraq doesn't exist anymore, so that's a safe choice.  I think you need to live in a country like that for a while.  It may cure you of some of your cockeyed ideas.

my cockeyed ideas? I'm not a Ba'athist, so I have no clue what you're talking about.

I never meant to say you were a Ba'athist.  But your take on a lot of issues is a little off from the average person's.  "Unique perspective" is a better term than cockeyed.

well what you're basically saying is I would not enjoy living in Saddam's Iraq. well, gee, duh. I wouldn't enjoy living in Saudi Arabia either. If forced to choose though, I'd take Saddam, as would anyone Christian or person who enjoys alcohol, or any woman.

Saddam's regime was more lethal in other ways.  I think you view is simplistic.  I don't really care where you'd want to live.  I just think you should be very grateful that you live where you do live.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd still rather live in a much more free country, such as the Netherlands, the freest country on earth.

[dazzleman]

I'd still rather live in a much more free country, such as the Netherlands, the freest country on earth.

Are the Dutch issuing visas for Americans to immigrate there?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't know but it wouldn't be a bad idea. If they're going to let the Muslims in they should let freedom lovers in.

[MasterJedi]

Saddam is definitly worse than the Saudi Royals!

[opebo]

I'd still rather live in a much more free country, such as the Netherlands, the freest country on earth.

Are the Dutch issuing visas for Americans to immigrate there?

I wish!

[David S]

BRTD That fake picture of Bush in your signature is really revolting. Regardless of the political nature of it, a picture of two men like that is not something I want to see before lunch. No I don't want to see it after lunch either, smarty pants.

[PBrunsel]

Saddam gave men and women the same rights all right. He would kill them both at the same time with the same type of poison gas.

yes, and the Saudis respect their citizens so much.

You are very good at twisting what people say. I am not standing up for either. I would love a pro-Democracy Revolution to start in Saudi Arabia and overthrow the Royal Family, but I must admit they are better then Saddam Hussein (who was a mad man).

[dazzleman]

I don't know but it wouldn't be a bad idea. If they're going to let the Muslims in they should let freedom lovers in.

What do you have to offer them?  Probably nothing.  And because you're a white male, you're less than a zero on the politically correct scale.  At least when they take in troublesome muslims, they can claim they're helping oppressed people of color, or some such nonsense.  Maybe they'll let you in if you become a muslim, and start advocating violence against the west.