...assumption that Saddam is not as big a threat as Hitler.

There is a lot of undertones to the discussions about Saddam that I have with liberals that basically imply a "white male megalomaniac" is more dangerous than a "swarthy male megalomaniac."

That somehow Saddam is too dimwitted to be evil on a large scale enough to be compared to Hitler or that his people are too dimwitted to be as effective a weapon as the Germans were.

This is a totally mistaken assumption. Saddam invaded another sovereign nation, successfully - until we forced him out. WMD even the playing field dramatically. Any dictator with a few nukes can wield more power than a well trained army without one.

I truly believe Saddam IS more sadistic than Hitler, that he enjoys watching and inflicting suffering far more than Hitler ever did. Hitler loved power, thought he had been annointed by God, but visiting torture chambers was beneath him and not with his temperament. Hitler was the snivelling type of megalomaniac not the hands on type megalomaniac Saddam is.

In my eyes Saddam and Hitler would both use nuclear weapons in an instant.

If you want to worry about something, worry about the Germans, French or Russians having already helped him acquire a bomb or two behind the world's, and of course the UN's, back.

That's what I worry about.

SDAI-Tech1