Who qualifies as the most despicable world leader in recent history?

Mao wasn't as brutal as a ton of other people. I mean at least he wasn't brutal enough to sack Rome and rape all the Nuns and slaughter the Swiss Guard and kill all the clerics brutally and shit. What I'm trying to say, at least he isn't that dick Charles V who is currently burning in Hell.

Anyway, Pol Pot and shit would compete their nations just weren't big enough. So Mao was a penis he's win because he's simply so huge, not because he was skillful in anyway like Pol Pot.

He also stole children from villages from during the civil war and touched them, I don't remember Charles V or Pol Pot doing that.

He also ruled longer, and fucked up twice.

Ya, but compared to mass genocide that's more like a drop of water to a stream.

Oh, I forgot, the Chinese aren't people and millions of dead Chinese is like sprained angle in "the big picture"

Key difference between Mao and Pol Pot is this: Believe it or not China during Mao's rule did actually improve a shit ton. They had more schools, hospitals, proper infrastructure, and all that jazz (although mostly in spite of Mao's stupidity rather than because of it I might add).

You can't say the same about Cambodia under Pol Pot. In fact he was quite specifically aiming for the precise opposite, so... Yeah. But like others have said, Mao eclipses Pol Pot for the simple reason that he was more powerful. It's like during the war - the Croatian nazis, the Ustasha were probably far more deranged and cruel than even the real Nazis were (look them up if you must, but it's incredibly gruesome), however they were never in a position of any significant power.

I would have said Mao, but the fourth option was so enticing.

I heard that Ron Paul and Obama go out on sunday nights to kidnap young children from orphanages, force them to pee on their faces, and turn them into child soldiers. That being said, there is absolutely no evidence to back up said claim, so despite the convince it would pose in an argument, I'm not going to spout it. Now, where exactly is the evidence regarding your claim?

I think he was referring to the Great Cultural Revolution, where 14 and 15 year olds were forced to join the Red Guard. You know, "the lost generation".

@ComradeLer, you can't defend Mao or Lenin or Stalin. Unfortunately, dictators and authoritarian figures have tried to use the pretext of communism or socialism to create an authoritarian government, which is why communism and socialism are hated so much. People tend to think socialists are all a freedom hating pack of authoritarian fools because of the way historic "communist" countries have gone.

I think Lenin is a far more complicated figure than Stalin or Mao. Mainly because he wasn't really the quintissential "red emperor" that the other two represent. By which I mean the Bolshevik government in his time wasn't unified under the rule of a single individial. Sure he was the party leader, but there was constant squabbling and factionalism which meant that you need to really attribute many aspects of the so-called red terror to key individuals rather than one figurehead due to its entirely chaotic nature. Any other approach is just oversimplification. You will of course have noticed how when Lenin is featured in a documentary or a news report he's usually referred to as "a very controversial figure", whereas the likes of Stalin or Mao are usually simply labelled dictators and tyrants.

No, I'm talking about the 10 year old girls Mao had sex with.

Read "The Private Life of Chairman Mao" by Li Zhisui, Mao's personal physician.

And apparently, according to Li, Mao had multiple STDs, many of which came from the children.
He refused to treat the diseases because the doctor claimed that Mao said, “young women were proud to be infected”, “the illness transmitted by Mao, was a badge of honor, testimony to their close relationship with Mao”

I can't find a comprehensive list, but I like to think that syphilis was on it.

I think I'll go with Mao here. Other than that, anything that I would argue for it, has already been stated.

What about Hitler?

Hitler was the world's best communist, I know this because Fox News told me.

No, they didn't.

What really I thought Fox News was a bunch of anti-communist fascist telling propaganda about the greatness of america and why all communist are like Hitler.

What's next.

why is there only communist alternatives?
and why is lenin even an option?

They typically think they're the same thing.