But here's my question:
Was he worse than Hitler? Ever since WWII, Hitler's name has become synonymous with evil. He's a symbol for the worst that humanity can do to humanity. He didn't just wage war; he was attempting genocide.
But. Since so many of Saddam Hussein's atrocities have come to light after the war, I'm wondering if he makes Hitler seem like a humanitarian in comparison. We have uncovered mass graves, some that contained children who were buried alive, clutching their toys. We had at least a couple prisons dedicated solely to the incarceration of children (some of whom had been in prison for 5 years before being liberated). We have gruesome tales of some of the worse kinds of torture imaginable--tongues cut off, high-voltage applied to the genitals, women hung upsidedown while they were menstruating, and things I simply cannot type. There are thousands of people who simply disappeared.
Does evil need a new name? Does Hitler pale in comparison? Will Saddam Hussein become the new hallmark of ultimate evil?
Or does someone want to name another candidate?
Edited by Drew, 28 June 2003 - 06:22 AM.