Ghengis Khan, Alaric, Tamerlane, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Hilter, and Stalin did not have laser beams that could cut your car from space, nor did they stockpile anthrax, smallpox, nukes and sarin gas, which are weapons of genocide; which nation in the history of the world (and under what leader) do you think is the most dangerous?

[I would have included in the poll..but it is limited to seven options only]

Who is Hilter?

I  think she means Hilter Skilter from Manson.

IMHO Hitler, for sheer numbers of dead, is probably the worst.  He started WWII in Europe.

Paradoxically speaking, he is responsible for most people being alive today.  At least in Europe and N. America perhaps even north africa.

I have to agree that it would be Hitler.  The scope of his weapons development programs was huge... if he hadn't died when he did, who knows what he would have come up with.  Plus, many of the weapons of mass destruction that are around today are here thanks to the r&d he did.  While the others were intent on conquering other nations, I don't think they took the genocide thing as seriously as Hitler did.  And even though Bush has the potential to destroy everything a few times over, I don't believe the intent is there, even if he could get it past congresss.

You didn't vote you jerk!

Aha, but the wording of the question isn't "Who killed the most people", it's "Who is the most dangerous?"  Bears are dangerous for their POTENTIAL to kill, not just because they have killed.  Their history just reinforces their lethal potential.

I think the intentions are extremely important to the danger level.  A police officer carries a handgun, but I wouldn't consider him to be more dangerous than Dahmer, Bernardo, even though I would consider a gun to be exponentially more dangerous than the weapons they used.

By the same token, I think Bin Laden is more dangerous than Bush, because he doesn't operate under the same constraints.  I picked Hitler because of the same reasoning.

Quoted from Diddly

Aha, but the wording of the question isn't "Who killed the most people", it's "Who is the most dangerous?"  Bears are dangerous for their POTENTIAL to kill, not just because they have killed.  Their history just reinforces their lethal potential.

Are you seriously arguing semantics here?  If that's the case than the question does not match most of the choices as the present tense is used and most, save Bush, are all dead.  The answer then really should be Bush... because he's the only one alive and present today.  Perhaps the choices should have been Bush, Sadr, Bin Ladin, Kim Jong, Iyatollah, Putin, and Harper.

Your comparison with a bear is also quite a stretch.  The original choices listed proved themselves to be dangerous.

Bush is dead.

Just joking

Harper...? only out of his shear dumbness, maybe a dangerous person but not even close to the other minor leaguers you have mentioned Sadr, Bin Ladin, Kim Jong, Putin...

I don't know... one who fires the national nuclear agency's top scrutinizer and then restarts an ancient nuclear reactor over calls for it to be shut down?  Could that not be considered dangerous?  I was groping for a 7th name to add to the list...