TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-Il
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-Il

SOURCE:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1938434,00.html



Also, among America's other allies and neighbors:

- Only 1 in 4 Israelis thinks Bush has the made world "safer"
- The majority of Canadians and Mexicans think he has made the world more dangerous

I wonder if there's a similar poll for the US. That would be interesting to see. Think you could did that up HardTranceProd ?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I wonder if there's a similar poll for the US. That would be interesting to see. Think you could did that up HardTranceProd ?

Shalin, do you seriously think American media would even do such a poll?

God you're un-patriotic. Every American knows that the NK dude is the badest evilest son of a bitch nobody should misunderestimate.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd Shalin, do you seriously think American media would even do such a poll?

It's a very regularly and well polled nation on all sorts of issues, so it wouldn't surprise me. Do I expect it to be published in mainstream papers? Probably not.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd God you're un-patriotic. Every American knows that the NK dude is the badest evilest son of a bitch nobody should misunderestimate.

Where did that come from? Or was that sarcasm ?

Actually Osama is not a world leader.. so in real the poll states that Bush is the biggest threat to world peace this world is facing right now. We all are extinct species if US elects this sad guy back as president for third term.

quote:

Originally posted by Purple I think US is a threat to this world with its WMDs and lunatic Bush at top place in that country. He is no less weird/sad/dangerous guy that Kim Jong. Both are same.. its only media and where one lives, that makes them look different.

Obviously these polled people no NOTHING of NK...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Obviously these polled people no NOTHING of NK...

And NK obviously wouldn't pose any potential threat if Rummy (while on board of directors of ABB) wasn't selling them nuclear technology!

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z And NK obviously wouldn't pose any potential threat if Rummy (while on board of directors of ABB) wasn't selling them nuclear technology!

You of course mean Pakistan...

I feel they had much more to do with it...

This is what Bush thinks of you three idiots.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r You of course mean Pakistan... I feel they had much more to do with it...

The US's yes man.

quote:

Originally posted by Purple We all are extinct species if US elects this sad guy back as president for third term.

you dont seem to know a lot about the american political system.

the poll is disingenuous. you could argue any leader that has fought wars to be a threat to "world peace" even if those wars were completely justified.

and really, the public's perception of the complex political climate is hardly a talking point or of interest to me. for instance, the people that re-elected bush- their votes say more about themselves than they do about their leader. same thing here.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you could argue any leader that has fought wars to be a threat to "world peace" even if those wars were completely justified.

That's a horrible argument. The wars conducted by the Bush Administration are so blatantly unjustifiable and completely unnecessary.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That's a horrible argument. The wars conducted by the Bush Administration are so blatantly unjustifiable and completely unnecessary.

im not arguing iraq here. but whilst we're here, there was nothing wrong with the invasion of afghanistan. completely justified.

im saying that even if someone was conducting a legitimate war, they are, by default, a threat to "peace".

In 20 years you'll all be thanking Bush for putting his foot down...

Just a guess.

quote:

Originally posted by epdarks In 20 years you'll all be thanking Bush for putting his foot down... Just a guess.

+1 on that brotha.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Obviously these polled people no NOTHING of NK...

Yeah i agree. They put NK only 6 points below George Bush, when NK hasnt invaded or threatened anyone lately. While Bush has invaded 2 countries, one country on false evidence & killing thousands in only 5 years.

quote:

Originally posted by epdarks In 20 years you'll all be thanking Bush for putting his foot down... Just a guess.

In 20 years I wanna see Bush behind bars.

quote:

Originally posted by epdarks In 20 years you'll all be thanking Bush for putting his foot down... Just a guess.

Thank you George Bush for unjustifiably invading Iraq resulting in the pointless deaths of thousands of Americans, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and thousands more of coalition members. Thank you George Bush for alienating the United States from the rest of the world. Thank you George Bush for giving the rich tax cuts while thousands of poverty stricken Americans struggle to support their meager existence. Thank you George Bush for destroying the checks and balances of our constitution in the goal of strengthening the weight of the executive branch. Thank you George Bush for creating the largest deficit the United States has ever seen.


But hey, at least he put his foot down, and that's what really matters, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Audigy7 Thank you George Bush for unjustifiably invading Iraq resulting in the pointless deaths of thousands of Americans, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and thousands more of coalition members. Thank you George Bush for alienating the United States from the rest of the world. Thank you George Bush for giving the rich tax cuts while thousands of poverty stricken Americans struggle to support their meager existence. Thank you George Bush for destroying the checks and balances of our constitution in the goal of strengthening the weight of the executive branch. Thank you George Bush for creating the largest deficit the United States has ever seen.

God bless him,history shall always remember him as a hero that saved the world from terrorism.


I hope he burns in hell really.

quote:

Originally posted by Audigy7 Thank you George Bush for unjustifiably invading Iraq resulting in the pointless deaths of thousands of Americans, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and thousands more of coalition members.

quote:

SADDAM Hussein's conviction for the massacre of 148 Shiites in 1982 in the Iraqi village of Dujail was the first in an expected series of such trials. It was also only one small episode from the former Iraqi tyrant's blood-soaked years. In his 1989 book Republic of Fear, the Iraqi exile Kanan Makiya told anyone prepared to listen about the depraved regime of the Iraqi Baath party under Saddam. Makiya's Iraq Memory Foundation documents the multiple crimes and personal stories of Saddam's victims, their relatives and friends (www.iraqmemory.org). Iraq's democratically elected President Jalal Talabani recently reminded us that Saddam's Baathist Iraq was the longest lived fascist regime in history. It has rightly been described by Christopher Hitchens as a "charnel house above ground and mass grave below". The most comprehensive work on Saddam's crimes, the French Le Livre Noir de Saddam Hussein (The Black Book of Saddam Hussein), has yet to be translated into English. But those with the desire to know have had the means, through Makiya and others, to appreciate if not comprehend the scale of Saddam's atrocities. Just last month, two Kurdish witnesses at Saddam's trial for the massacre at Anfal, in Iraqi Kurdistan, gave harrowing accounts of surviving killing fields where guards executed hundreds of detainees at a time. Saddam's henchman and cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid � the gruesome "Chemical Ali" � was asked in 1998 how he would deal with the Kurds. He said: "I will kill them all with chemical weapons. Who is going to say anything? The international community? F-- them!" He did as he threatened, and the international community did nothing. Saddam and his genocidal family had it nailed. The odds were well and truly on their side. Just ask the people of Darfur. From February to September 1988, 100,000 to 180,000 Iraqi Kurds died or disappeared. Saddam's Baathist tyranny used chemical weapons at least 60 times against Kurdish villages during the Anfal campaign. Of course, the Kurds were not Saddam's only victims. Saadoun Kassab, a Shiite engineer who in 1957 helped build Abu Ghraib (designed to hold 4000 prisoners), himself became an inmate. Mr Kassab told the editor of The Black Book: "When I was imprisoned in Abu Ghraib in 1985, there were 48,500 prisoners. I was imprisoned for eight months in a space 1mx1.5m, a box. All that because I said hello to (the son of a former Shiite prime minister from the time of the monarchy)." Because of periodic overcrowding, Saddam and his sons decided to execute a proportion of the inmates at random, just to cull the population. Next the warders visited the families of the prisoners, asking how much it would be worth to keep their loved ones off the list. The English novelist Ian McEwan observed that there were, in relation to Iraq, two kinds of people: those who recognised the words Abu Ghraib before 2004 and those who only did so afterwards. Another of the numerous examples of Saddam's genocidal gestures was the ethnic cleansing between 1991 and 2003 of the Marsh Arabs, who have lived since ancient times in the marshlands of Mesopotamia. About 400,000 Arabs lived in the marshes of southern Iraq 30 years ago; today there are only about 83,000. Thousands were murdered by Saddam's soldiers, who drained the marshes on his orders; many more fled. Reflect on this and imagine for a moment what Saddam's Iraq would have looked like in 2006 had he been left in place. By now the corruption-ridden sanctions would have been abandoned and the French and Russians would have been finding new excuses for a complete return to impunity for the dictator. Iran's nuclear ambitions would be met by Saddam's nuclear plans (which, as we learned last weekend, were still intact in late 2002) and a new arms race would have commenced as each sought either the other's nuclear destruction or to become the undisputed regional kingpin by the annihilation of Israel. And if Saddam had been laid low, all this would have been handed down to his deranged sons. All those "realist" proponents of "stability" should chew on this. Bernard Kouchner, the French leftist activist and politician, said Saddam himself was "the first weapon of mass destruction. Preserving the memory of the arbitrary arrests that Saddam's police conducted every morning, the horrible and humiliating torture, the organised rapes, the arbitrary executions and the prisons full of innocent people is not just a duty. Without that, one cannot understand either what Saddam's dictatorship was or the urgent necessity to remove him." Of course, the pious hand-wringing among significant parts of the Western Left about the war curiously and conveniently passes over the fact that their ideological brethren in Iraq � represented principally, but not exclusively, by the Kurds � were the subject of this most ruthless repression. In July 2003, the Iraqi Communist Party renewed its call for the UN Human Rights Commission and international human rights organisations to support efforts aimed at revealing the fate of tens of thousands of disappeared Iraqis who were victims of Saddam's anti-leftist repression. As if deaf to this history, only minutes after the announcement of Saddam's death sentence there were tendentious blogs that called for the trial and sentencing of those other "war criminals" George W. Bush and Tony Blair, confirming yet again, if confirmation were needed, that new depths of moral obtuseness not seen since the Hitler-Stalin pact are resurgent. The critics of the removal of Saddam should recall George Orwell's message to his contemporaries in another, not unrelated, context: "The truth, it is felt, becomes untruth when your enemy utters it... There was even a tendency to feel that the Nanking atrocities had become, as it were, retrospectively untrue because the British government now drew attention to them." Reminding his appeasement-minded comrades of the atrocities in pre-war Europe, Orwell said: "These things really happened, that is the thing to keep one's eye on. They happened even though Lord Halifax said they happened." And so it was for Saddam, for whom the words genocidal butcher and tyrant have real meaning. It's just a shame that so many so-called progressives discreetly and eagerly look the other way.

link

The fact that Saddam's regime resulted in more deaths than the invasion and occupation by the coalition doesn't justify the invasion. Are the people of Iraq better of now than they were before the invasion? Probably so. But they still have to live in terror. They still live in a country where they could be blown up at any time. They still live in a country where they are unsafe to do as they will. They still live in a country where one can be killed for simply being a member of a certain party or a follower of a certain religious affiliation.

Does the fact that their lives been marginally improved justify the use of military force? I don't think so. If there had actually been weapons of mass destruction, it would have been justifiable. If there had actually been al-Qaida in Iraq, it would have been justifiable. If any of the reasons we were told we were going to Iraq because of were true, it would have been at least somewhat justifiable. As of right now, our only justification for the use of military action is that we marginally improved the lives of a large number of Iraqi's and I don't think that that alone is enough of a justification.

quote:

Originally posted by Purple We all are extinct species if US elects this sad guy back as president for third term.

Ok just added to the Ignore list for that one,

quote:

Originally posted by Audigy7 The fact that Saddam's regime resulted in more deaths than the invasion and occupation by the coalition doesn't justify the invasion. Are the people of Iraq better of now than they were before the invasion? Probably so. But they still have to live in terror. They still live in a country where they could be blown up at any time. They still live in a country where they are unsafe to do as they will. They still live in a country where one can be killed for simply being a member of a certain party or a follower of a certain religious affiliation. Does the fact that their lives been marginally improved justify the use of military force? I don't think so. If there had actually been weapons of mass destruction, it would have been justifiable. If there had actually been al-Qaida in Iraq, it would have been justifiable. If any of the reasons we were told we were going to Iraq because of were true, it would have been at least somewhat justifiable. As of right now, our only justification for the use of military action is that we marginally improved the lives of a large number of Iraqi's and I don't think that that alone is enough of a justification.

my dad works in Iraq, trust me its not better. Poeple are dieing everyday from the civ war between the north and south. Man theys no power scarce water. And the feer of going out. My Dads an eletriction trying to fix the power problems there have, and when he goes out he has to have armed solders where ever he goes.

Bush is not going to admit it, and the US media is not. But he failed. Killed tens of thosends made life harder for them, and what for? Who has come out the better becoue of this war(apart from the US oil companys)?

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Ok just added to the Ignore list for that one,

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Why god yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?????????!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Audigy7 Are the people of Iraq better of now than they were before the invasion? Probably so. But they still have to live in terror. They still live in a country where they could be blown up at any time. They still live in a country where they are unsafe to do as they will. They still live in a country where one can be killed for simply being a member of a certain party or a follower of a certain religious affiliation.

...but isn't that a referendum on the mentality and menace of fascist Islam as a whole? if this is what can happen in the cradle of Arab civilization when peaceful people can't take a dump without wondering whether their entire families could be vaporized for fear of a religion or a murderous secular dictator then what the hell are other moderate countries willing to do about it? what the hell are you willing to do about it? they can't do anything about it if they don't have the strength and resolve to do it. it's the same with any difficult situation.

the funny thing is you never hear anything from the leaders of the other big Arab players like the Saudis for one or Jordan or Egypt or Kuwait or UAE say too much about the alleged "illegitimacy" of the Iraq war. they, of course, realize the stakes at hand all too well and youd think they would be the first to stand up and say "Bush and his illegitamate war for oil and power" if they stood to lose any of it.
it's usually either the the "enlightened" rabble from free, liberal Western democracies, or the countries or persons that foster Islamic terror and kill enlightened rabble from Western Democracies like Iran and Syria.

quote:

Does the fact that their lives been marginally improved justify the use of military force?

no. the fact that they've now been given the potential to be one of the greatest success stories in the history moderate Arab democracy, maybe all democracies justifies the use of military force. thats nothing new given the entire last century of new democracies.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.