NationStates Jolt Archive

George Bush the imperialist war profiteering head of a superpower or the helpless 100% disarmed Saddam Hussein who was universally hated even by Islamic terrorists in the arab world?

The question mark suggests that this is meant to be a question, but I can't make head nor tail of what it is meant to be asking.

George Bush the imperialist war profiteering head of a superpower or the helpless 100% disarmed Saddam Hussein who was universally hated even by Islamic terrorists in the arab world?
Helpless little Saddam... he only killed 400,000 kurds.

Well considering that Saddam is moldering in a prison somewhere, that only leaves Bush.

You may as well ask "Who represent a great threat to world peace;
Bush
Gengis Kahn"

I think that asteroid collisions pose a greater threat to global stability (you did provide an "other" option). If it has to be a person, then probably someone else, but I don't know who it would be.

The question mark suggests that this is meant to be a question, but I can't make head nor tail of what it is meant to be asking.
Im askin who was the bigger threat to global security but the title got messed up --Im fixing it now

Helpless little Saddam... he only killed 400,000 kurds.
Which is small fry compared to the British.

The question mark suggests that this is meant to be a question, but I can't make head nor tail of what it is meant to be asking.

Ah, it makes somewhat more sense with the poll now attached.

Why is there an other option?

Helpless little Saddam... he only killed 400,000 kurds.
with the blessings of Bushs father

Why is there an other option?
For those of us that do not wish to flame on party lines.

I think that asteroid collisions pose a greater threat to global stability (you did provide an "other" option). If it has to be a person, then probably someone else, but I don't know who it would be.
you can always write in Ariel Sharon or someone else I guess-I shoulda had a write in option thats a good idea

Which is small fry compared to the British.

Indeed, we invented the whole 'gas the Kurds' malarky.

Why is there an other option?
for write-in nominees

I cant edit the title of the thread

The Christian headcase. AKA Doubya. And his secret lover Ariel Sharon.

This thread is just designed to start flame wars, like all your threads, MKULTRA.

The Christian headcase. AKA Doubya. And his secret lover Ariel Sharon.
LOL

This thread is just designed to start flame wars, like all your threads, MKULTRA.
its only thru flamewars that people say what they really think. Its better for people to air those feelings so that they can be addressed then to suppress them and beat around the Bush--also what thread doesnt turn into a flamewar anyway around here?Your Mary Cheney thread was flamebait ;)

It could be Vladimir Putin.

I'm more than a little worried about the current state of affairs in Russia; the current government is beginning to lean further and further toward nationalistic autocracy, and, despite the shambles that their economy remains, they still have vast natural resources.

Not to mention those stockpiles of fissile material.

Or maybe I'm just being alarmist.

It could be Vladimir Putin.

I'm more than a little worried about the current state of affairs in Russia; the current government is beginning to lean further and further toward nationalistic autocracy, and, despite the shambles that their economy remains, they still have vast natural resources.

Not to mention those stockpiles of fissile material.

Or maybe I'm just being alarmist.
I dont excuse those terrorists for taking over that school but I also believe that Putin just stormed it-he deals with all hostage situations the same way. I dont believe those stories about those explosions accidentally going off at all

I dont excuse those terrorists for taking over that school but I also believe that Putin just stormed it-he deals with all hostage situations the same way. I dont believe those stories about those explosions accidentally going off at all

Of course, you can't negotiate with terrorists, or it'll encourages more terrorism.

I dont excuse those terrorists for taking over that school but I also believe that Putin just stormed it-he deals with all hostage situations the same way. I dont believe those stories about those explosions accidentally going off at all

Yeah, I should add that I am in no way condoning the actions of the Chechen terrorists. Thanks.

Of course, you can't negotiate with terrorists, or it'll encourages more terrorism.

...cough... ...Northern Ireland?... ...cough...

Indeed, we invented the whole 'gas the Kurds' malarky.
how so?

this is a easy question...Pokemon

Lets see the biggest threat

The current leader of a country or the current leader of a prison mattress. Kind of a lob sided poll don’t you think Red?
:rolleyes:

Of course, you can't negotiate with terrorists, or it'll encourages more terrorism.
I wish someone woulda told that to Reagan

Lets see the biggest threat

The current leader of a country or the current leader of a prison mattress. Kind of a lob sided poll don’t you think Red?
:rolleyes:
imagine Saddam when he was still in power complying with the weapons inspectors

imagine Saddam when he was still in power complying with the weapons inspectors
Actually he was being a pain in the ass to inspectors by not allowing them immediate access. He was always giving them the runaround.

I just have a question for you MK and i just was wondering

Do you hate all Republicans and Conservatives or anyone against your beliefs?

Actually he was being a pain in the ass to inspectors by not allowing them immediate access. He was always giving them the runaround.
well he was being harassed-the real question is why didnt the US reach out to him and make him a useful ally insted?

I just have a question for you MK and i just was wondering

Do you hate all Republicans and Conservatives or anyone against your beliefs?
really just the rightwing/"christian" fundie wing and NEO-conservatives--Im not so much against moderate repubs and true conservatives. Just the face of the GOP under the evil and out of control Bush regime

I have a question for you, mkultra - how old are you?

well he was being harassed-the real question is why didnt the US reach out to him and make him a useful ally insted?
I don't think he liked us very much anyways.

I don't think he liked us very much anyways.
thanks to the excesses and betrayals of Poppa Bush

I have a question for you, mkultra - how old are you?
old enuf to know when Im being lied to

old enuf to know when Im being lied to

That's what I thought...just a damn kid...

blood pressure...lowering...

Kim Jong Il, definantly, even if Saddam was still in power he was stable enough to know not to attack the US.

well he was being harassed-the real question is why didnt the US reach out to him and make him a useful ally insted?

Because allying with someone who has so little respect for human rights would be quite bad for the US's popularity

how so?
It used to be a British possession and the government in London had no qualms about gassing the Kurds.

There's a really good Churchill quote somewhere.

There's a really good Churchill quote somewhere.
"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes ... to spread a lively terror "

how so?

"I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."

- Winston Churchill

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html

Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. In the event, gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect* though gas shells were not dropped from aircraft because of practical difficulties [.....]

Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains commented, seventy years after the event: *They were bombing here in the Kaniya Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times a day.* Wing Commander Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often *one would get a signal that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed...*, the RAF pilots being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein, Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were doing something they ought not be doing then you shot them.*

Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: *If the Kurds hadn't learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns.

Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.* It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and air-to-ground missiles:

Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan.

really just the rightwing/"christian" fundie wing and NEO-conservatives--Im not so much against moderate repubs and true conservatives. Just the face of the GOP under the evil and out of control Bush regime

another question, do you hate me.

I'm a conservative, not far right wing, im more middle of it and sometimes I tend to be more liberal in my views than most conservatives. And also I'm a Christian as well.

I just want to see where you stand.

"I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes ... to spread a lively terror "


Can you give me a source for that quote?

Wasn't he pretty brutal to the Irish as well?

That's what I thought...just a damn kid...

blood pressure...lowering...
but now mines raising :headbang:

Can you give me a source for that quote?

Wasn't he pretty brutal to the Irish as well?
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6966147&postcount=43

Not quite sure about the Irish though. I think that the Free State was declared just before or around the time he became home secretary. Although his family background would suggest a certain antipathy towards the Irish (a strain in the English psyche that only really dissapeared quite recently)

hmmm good choices :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: not






AHHH MOTHERLAND!!!!!!!!!!!

i think dick cheney is a bigger threat to the world, bush is just doing what dick's 'axis of evil' pamphlet says

Because allying with someone who has so little respect for human rights would be quite bad for the US's popularity
but we have a long history of doing it--we can use one enemy to fight another enemy

Can you give me a source for that quote?


Is wikipedia reliable enough for our purposes here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill

another question, do you hate me.

I'm a conservative, not far right wing, im more middle of it and sometimes I tend to be more liberal in my views than most conservatives. And also I'm a Christian as well.

I just want to see where you stand.
from your description of yourself you do not fall under the classification of enemy combatant

from your description of yourself you do not fall under the classification of enemy combatant

lol so i take it not so
thanks :)

i was just intrested

hmmm good choices :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: not






AHHH MOTHERLAND!!!!!!!!!!!
then write someone in--are you nominating Motherland as your choice?

Is wikipedia reliable enough for our purposes here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill

Yup, thanks...

"...The moral effects should be good..."

Wow, scary stuff

i think dick cheney is a bigger threat to the world, bush is just doing what dick's 'axis of evil' pamphlet says
true but hopefully Cheneys electronic heart will wear out soon..

lol so i take it not so
thanks :)

i was just intrested
do you hate me?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6966147&postcount=43

Not quite sure about the Irish though. I think that the Free State was declared just before or around the time he became home secretary. Although his family background would suggest a certain antipathy towards the Irish (a strain in the English psyche that only really dissapeared quite recently)


To be honest, my only source for that was the movie, "Michael Collins." Pretty good flick.

To be honest, my only source for that was the movie, "Michael Collins." Pretty good flick.

Not a good source of historical facts.

Not a good source of historical facts.

Well, they had it written on screen that Churchill had been put in charge of the Irish problem...I have no reason to believe that they would make it up - it wasn't a moore film.

ah that's right, the black and tans...ask an irishman about them, espeically after a few beers...

http://www.ireland-information.com/articles/michaelcollins.htm

I don't think he liked us very much anyways.

Of course, considering that the U.S. Ambassador essentially gave him the green light to invade Kuwait, and then we attacked him for doing so, I can say that I somewhat understand the hostility.

Saddam: Evil murderer, or victim of compulsive genocide syndrome?

Anyway, I would say that Kim-Jong Il is a WAY bigger threat that any other national leader. Consider that he is nearly as crazy as Saddam, and has nukes, possbily ICBMs.
I feel sorry for Japan.

ah that's right, the black and tans...ask an irishman about them, espeically after a few beers...

Ah, yes, the reason why people shouting "black bastards" in Ireland aren't necessarily being racist.

Saddam: Evil murderer, or victim of compulsive genocide syndrome?

Anyway, I would say that Kim-Jong Il is a WAY bigger threat that any other national leader. Consider that he is nearly as crazy as Saddam, and has nukes, possbily ICBMs.
I feel sorry for Japan.

nearly as crazy as Saddam??? Are you serious, Kim-Jong Il has no concept of reality.

Yes, but he hasnt attacked any of his neighbors so far, he shows some grip on reality and the fact that the US will kick his arse all the way back across the 38th paralel, and further if China doesnt help him again.

The greatest threat to world stability is Jiang Zemin, who still retains the position of the Commander-in-Chief of China's armed forces. No, he's not malicious like the nutcase dictators out there, but he has an important responsibility. If he orders an invasion of Taiwan, it's one of the few scenarios left that could spark nuclear war, level cities across Asia and the US, and create a nuclear winter. That is, if he chooses to invade. But it's extremely unlikely that he will.

ralph nader

The greatest threat to world stability is Jiang Zemin, who still retains the position of the Commander-in-Chief of China's armed forces. No, he's not malicious like the nutcase dictators out there, but he has an important responsibility. If he orders an invasion of Taiwan, it's one of the few scenarios left that could spark nuclear war, level cities across Asia and the US, and create a nuclear winter. That is, if he chooses to invade. But it's extremely unlikely that he will.
If the status quo holds, China and Jiang would lose everything, the least of which is 30 years of capitalist economic protress, if the PRC invades. The one and only reason mainland China would invade Taiwan is if Taiwan declares independence. Which would make President Chen Shui-Bian of Taiwan, and whether he makes Taiwan an independent nation, the most critical fulcrum in history for at least the next decade. Chen's vocal pro-independence views are a threat to world stability. Mainland China is completely fine with the ambiguous current situation, and Taiwan is already operating as a prosperous de facto independent state, why risk WWIII by formally declaring independence?

If the status quo holds, China and Jiang would lose everything, the least of which is 30 years of capitalist economic protress, if the PRC invades. The one and only reason mainland China would invade Taiwan is if Taiwan declares independence. Which would make President Chen Shui-Bian of Taiwan, and whether he makes Taiwan an independent nation, the most critical fulcrum in history for at least the next decade. Chen's vocal pro-independence views are a threat to world stability. Mainland China is completely fine with the ambiguous current situation, and Taiwan is already operating as a prosperous de facto independent state, why risk WWIII by formally declaring independence?
I think the whole thing is starting to get stupid, personally. China is pursuing Taiwan largely because of Mao Zedong's goals from the early days of the PRC. Technically, China is the world's last remaining empire, as it controlls not only the Han Chinese of the east, but nearly all of the Mongols in the north, the Tibetians to the Southwest, and many Turkic tribes in the Northwest. Taiwan had a link to China, which made China angry. I think I would be if I were Mao Zedong, as it is a staging area for the West to attack.
But here's the thing Beijing can't seem to get: the Cold War is over. Taiwan would be nice to have, but why bother trying to want it? It's impracticalities far outweigh any nationalistic pride that may accompany it. Do the Chinese preffer two China's, or one China united violently, leaving Shanghai and Beijing as giant craters?

I think the whole thing is starting to get stupid, personally. China is pursuing Taiwan largely because of Mao Zedong's goals from the early days of the PRC. Technically, China is the world's last remaining empire, as it controlls not only the Han Chinese of the east, but nearly all of the Mongols in the north, the Tibetians to the Southwest, and many Turkic tribes in the Northwest. Taiwan had a link to China, which made China angry. I think I would be if I were Mao Zedong, as it is a staging area for the West to attack.
You cannot objectively say that mainland China's pursuit of Taiwan is rational or irrational. The reluctance of any nation to let go of even the smallest territory is totally natural and there is nothing stupid about it, because any country is always after power and respect. To nearly every nation in history war has been worth national unity. (although as I will explain national unity to the PRC does not mean control of Taiwan and thus does not mean going to war) Most nations in the world including the United States have had infrastructure, population, and cities devastated for the sake of putting down what they perceive as illegal rebellion.

True, the whole mindset of Chinese culture has always valued national unity more so than most other societies. There have been many missed opportunities for reunification in the 1980s due to the communist party's stubbornness. However the blame can also be put on Chiang Kai-shek who was just as inflexible as Mao... when PRC joined the United Nations, Chiang voluntarily and willingly left the UN since he thought that the communists were illegitimate rebels, saying "Han and villains cannot sit together." In fact the "period of Communist rebellion" did not officially end in the Republic of China until the 1990s. The ROC still to this day claims rule of China, and Mongolia, for that matter.

But here's the thing Beijing can't seem to get: the Cold War is over. Taiwan would be nice to have, but why bother trying to want it? It's impracticalities far outweigh any nationalistic pride that may accompany it. Do the Chinese preffer two China's, or one China united violently, leaving Shanghai and Beijing as giant craters?
However mainland China does not insist on having total control of Taiwan. This current ambiguous situation in which there is officially one China, but two governments, is completely satisfactory to Beijing. In this status quo, mainland China loses no face, and Taiwan still gets to run its own affairs. Its a win-win situation, and the communist party has indicated that the status quo can be tolerated forever, as long as there is no formal independence.

Trilateral Commission is my puppet nation btw

0
True, the whole mindset of Chinese culture has always valued national unity more so than most other societies. There have been many missed opportunities for reunification in the 1980s due to the communist party's stubbornness. However the blame can also be put on Chiang Kai-shek who was just as inflexible as Mao... when PRC joined the United Nations, Chiang voluntarily and willingly left the UN since he thought that the communists were illegitimate rebels, saying "Han and villains cannot sit together." In fact the "period of Communist rebellion" did not officially end in the Republic of China until the 1990s. The ROC still to this day claims rule of China, and Mongolia, for that matter.
I agree he had a big part in it, but that was then. Today, the ROC does not claim control of all of China, but rather is seeking to be in the "one nation, two systems" formula that has worked with many areas in China.

However mainland China does not insist on having total control of Taiwan. This current ambiguous situation in which there is officially one China, but two governments, is completely satisfactory to Beijing. In this status quo, mainland China loses no face, and Taiwan still gets to run its own affairs. Its a win-win situation, and the communist party has indicated that the status quo can be tolerated forever, as long as there is no formal independence.
Well then, it was a misdiagnosis. The president of Taiwan has the most potential to cause WWIII. I'd prefer a president who sought more intergration with China, not independence.
Trilateral Commission is my puppet nation btw
Thanks for verifying.

George Bush the imperialist war profiteering head of a superpower or the helpless 100% disarmed Saddam Hussein who was universally hated even by Islamic terrorists in the arab world?
Bush really is more of a threat, especially since Hussein is in American custody.

I agree he had a big part in it, but that was then. Today, the ROC does not claim control of all of China, but rather is seeking to be in the "one nation, two systems" formula that has worked with many areas in China.
Actually it is the PRC that supports the "one nation, two systems" method as a possible way to reunify the country. Taiwanese politicians are not satisfied with that and want total independence. Chen Shui-bian isn't even satisified with the "two de facto mutually exclusive nations, two completely sovereign governments" that is the status quo right now. Before 1984 China has always insisted on one China, one system - the communist system and the communist government - for all the Chinese lands. But then China accepted the one nation, two systems doctrine in order to get Hong Kong back and that set a precedent many people, including the Chinese communist party, think will work for Taiwan. (The Republic of China officially rules over one unified China, one Republican system, but individual Taiwanese politicians want to create a "Republic of Taiwan" and end all connections with China.)

Well then, it was a misdiagnosis. The president of Taiwan has the most potential to cause WWIII. I'd prefer a president who sought more intergration with China, not independence.

Integration into China and independence from China are opposite but both undesirable scenarios in my opinion. Taiwanese independence will no doubt start a major war but immediate further integration will result in the erosion of economic opportunities and political rights as Hong Kong has seen. Taiwan will definitely be hurt if it reunified with China, given the state that CHina is in today. Mainland China is suffering from catastrophic government corruption and widespread economic hardship. There is serious class tension because the rich buy the law with their money. And under a heavyhanded one party government there is nothing to prevent Beijing from interfering in local affairs, "one country, two systems" be damned. Beijing has already interfered with and mismanaged many policies in Hong Kong including trying to coverup the SARS crisis in Hong Kong.

Over the next decade by improving the quality of mainland society and making government more democratic China can create very good reasons for Taiwan to fully reunify. The PRC also has a large responsibility in making reunification work. Taiwan should wait it out for the reforms to happen so that it can rejoin China knowing its rights will not be trampled on and any social chaos in the mainland won't spill over. It is a positive sign that there are more than 1000 spontaneous large scale demonstrations each year in mainland CHina protesting government corruption and abuse. Mainland Chinese society is currently unstable and the large scale grassroots movement in China to force government and social reforms shows that unchecked one-party rule cannot survive in China, and almost all people in mainland China acknowledge this fact (though not publicly). But right now the limbo-like status quo in the China-Taiwan situation is quite comfortable for both sides and gives plenty of time for both to work out internal problems before time for reunification.

Integration into China and independence from China are opposite but both undesirable scenarios in my opinion. Taiwanese independence will no doubt start a major war but immediate further integration will result in the erosion of economic opportunities and political rights as Hong Kong has seen. Taiwan will definitely be hurt if it reunified with China, given the state that CHina is in today. Mainland China is suffering from catastrophic government corruption and widespread economic hardship. There is serious class tension because the rich buy the law with their money. And under a heavyhanded one party government there is nothing to prevent Beijing from interfering in local affairs, "one country, two systems" be damned. Beijing has already interfered with and mismanaged many policies in Hong Kong including trying to coverup the SARS crisis in Hong Kong.

Over the next decade by improving the quality of mainland society and making government more democratic China can create very good reasons for Taiwan to fully reunify. The PRC also has a large responsibility in making reunification work. Taiwan should wait it out for the reforms to happen so that it can rejoin China knowing its rights will not be trampled on and any social chaos in the mainland won't spill over. It is a positive sign that there are more than 1000 spontaneous large scale demonstrations each year in mainland CHina protesting government corruption and abuse. Mainland Chinese society is currently unstable and the large scale grassroots movement in China to force government and social reforms shows that unchecked one-party rule cannot survive in China, and almost all people in mainland China acknowledge this fact (though not publicly). But right now the limbo-like status quo in the China-Taiwan situation is quite comfortable for both sides and gives plenty of time for both to work out internal problems before time for reunification.
The signs all point to China being a democracy within a generation. Economic freedom, of course, is firmly established, but so are other institutions. The rule of law is replacing the rule of fiat. The only major worry I have is that the current economic crisis in China may lead to a depression in that country, and damage democracy's future. But even if that happens, China has enough infrastructure left over to begin rebuilding their economy (though it may take years to do).

Despite all the news we hear about CHina's booming economy in reality almost all the wealth is concentrated in a dozen or so coastal cities, leaving the heartland still dirt-poor but at least there are opportunities for rural folk to get jobs in the cities... any major economic slowdown and decrease in employment opportunities though would probably cause huge bread riots and insurrections in the countryside and cause the government to collapse. At which point we are all fucked as we stare down into the huge power vacuum in East Asia. This year's fuel shortage has a potential to weaken the economy a little bit but as long as the world keeps up its demand for cheap Chinese manufactures then China should still be on the right track and continue to evolve political and economic opportunities.

I think your forgetting something Saddam is in prison. He's not much of threat anymore and wasn't after the first Gulf war.