Cortez vs Bush

Cortez invaded Mexico, destroyed the Aztecs and Mayans while introducing his religion. He destroyed their religious texts and artifacts. He took slaves, killed children, abused and ridiculed the populace.

Bush* invaded Iraq, is destroying the Iraqi while introducing his religion. He's destroying their religious texts and artifacts. He's abused and ridiculed the populace and has killed children (handcuffed 'em too.) He hasn't taken slaves, as yet we know of... but anything approaching the definition of slavery wouldn't surprise me.

The difference: Cortez was from 550 years ago. Bush is a happenin' dude now, man. Bush even goes on TV and pretends to apologize for the horrors his army has done, but then turns around and praises the people in charge of the entire atrocity.

Who is worse, who shows humanity at its more evolved period (Cortez gets my vote, at least he wasn't a two-faced vermin. He just conquered. He didn't have to lie or pretend about anything):

pass Hitler and Stalin for the record of most people slaughtered.

On the one hand Cortez had smallpox and such, and he was on the
whole an even bigger asshole than Bush, I think. Read up on
it.

On the other hand, he didn't have AC130s and depleted Uranium
and the sheer scope of ability to destroy shit.

Time will tell.