Who has killed more people: Saddam Hussein or McDonalds network worldwide?
I ask that seriously and would like to obtain some estimations about deaths, longevity of torture, geographical scope of influence, ethnician and religions affected and so on.
sorry for mistake: ethnicities
For burgdude2006: is killing through eating of something tasty a lesser crime than other thing? You do not provide email, but it is a good poit for further discussions. How to abuse for people did not resist it and even pay for it.
For clever girl: so if to follow your logic, Saddam was better if he would establish one restaurant in a village he wanted to exterminate; not to establish, trully, just to issue a licence for certain businessmen...
For "The Answerer": you do not use email as well... Your answer is a perfect illustration about consequences of foods for brain.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
People who eat mcdonalds at least got something tasty. Being tortured...they probably made you eat your own fecal matter or something.
Edit - There really is no room for arguement.
Like the other people said, no one forces anyone to eat mcdonalds or any other fast food resturants food. If they want to eat french fries and a big mac, they know its not the healthiest choice they could make.
Its the same thing with tobacco and alcohol. No one forces you to drink or smoke, but both can lead to cancer and other negative health effects.
Its in the persons own hands to smoke that cigarette, drink that beer, or eat that extra side of supersize fries.
And the thing you say about comparing the other girls answer to saddam opening a resturant....again, like its been stated before, if people dont want to eat there, they wont. no one is forcing them.
- 1 decade ago
McDonald's? Whatever. I remember in the good old days when people were actually responsible for shoveling fatty foods in their mouth and then getting a fat a** and they couldn't sue said resturant. Ah...those were the days. I think people CHOOSE to stop at Mickey D's, the victims of Saddam didn't have choice. I think it's a tad disrepectful to compare the two, even if it is for "research".
Details: Ugh...if you had read my answer, I obviously didn't answer you because I found your comparison tasteless and demeaning to the millions of lives lost under Saddam's regime. They should not be compared. If you wish to do so, go for it. I, on the other hand, would rather value human life than analyze overindulging nitwits that can't stop cramming fries in their mouths for "research".
- snashrafLv 51 decade ago
Saddam has been executed for death punishment due to conspiracy on his life. Number given is 182. Number of deaths in unwanted wars is horrible.
In Rwanda's 1994 genocide 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were butchered by Hutu militants in 100 days. Nuns and Priests also played active role.
Human life has no value for selfish and cruel persons. You go to McDonald and keep enjoying.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
McDonald does not force anyone to eat their tasty snacks; It's a clear choice of freewill. We're going to die even if we only eat Jack In the Box's delicious salad. Smoking is addictive, so is stupidity! Saddam choices of killing, torture, and war had sealed his fate.Source(s): LIFE
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- KarenLv 44 years ago
Because Bush and Abdullah are good friends. Also, Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. If the US invaded Saudi Arabia it would be full scale holy war, not just terrorism like it is now.
- missmayzieLv 71 decade ago
The mentality in this question shows where your sentiments are . One has nothing to do with the other -but clearly , yours' is not a serious "question" -except to score points for terrorism . Liberal , I presume ?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Both of them have killed many people.