NationStates Jolt Archive

History has shown that individuals can cause all sorts of damage. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong were all but men who turned their nations and the world upside-down. Can the same be applied in the present? In today's world, who do you think poses the most serious threat to peace?

NOTE: Poll is forthcoming. I'm putting Bush in there but PLEASE seriously think about it before just arbitrarally clicking on it 'cause you don't like the guy.

Kim Jong ill hes an arse.

I do not know.

Kim Jong Il.

Never trust a man in platforms.

My old science teacher used to wear platformed shoes, and he was a creep.

We all know that the Bush haters are going to vote for him, which makes the entire poll invalid. You might as well have made the questions "Who makes the worst tacos"... the results would be the same. :(

Me! Me!

No seriously, I´m not sure... Laden and his homies have been calm for quite some time, so I wouldn´t be surprised if something should happen on his orders... But the platforms are threatening...

We all know that the Bush haters are going to vote for him, which makes the entire poll invalid. You might as well have made the questions "Who makes the worst tacos"... the results would be the same. :(

Thank God someone said this, cause I was going to.
Though I think Putin possibly is a threat in the making. I like the whole democratic Russia, but he's been appointing some Communists again and it is weirding me out.

Kim Jong Il. Bush isn't a threat right now because he's noticed that the military is stretched thin. Any breach of peace is going to require provocative action from "them". Kim Jong Il is probably more paranoid than anyone else on that list.

Where's Donald Rumsfeld? :p

Thank God someone said this, cause I was going to.
Though I think Putin possibly is a threat in the making. I like the whole democratic Russia, but he's been appointing some Communists again and it is weirding me out.
And he's making sure he isn't voted out.

Though another dude who weirds me out is Allen Greenspan. I mean the guy can blink and the American market falls. He could seriously do some damage to the world.

Kim Jong Il behid China.

If I had to pick a nation it would be China

We all know that the Bush haters are going to vote for him, which makes the entire poll invalid. You might as well have made the questions "Who makes the worst tacos"... the results would be the same. :(Hey! I voted for Kim Jong Il! :mad:

Hey! I voted for Kim Jong Il! :mad:

Me too!

I mean seriously!! Platform shoes!

I put Hu Jintao, but I'm torn between him and Kim Jong Il. it depends whether North korea tries to nuke South Korea and / or the US first, or China decides it's time it had Taiwan back... They seem to be amassing a rather large force just across the straits.

Hey! I voted for Kim Jong Il! :mad:

I'm impressed! Here you go...

http://www.terrysgourmetcookies.com/ProductImages/CHOCTRIN.jpg

:D

Its Bush.

Hes far more likely to invade another nation like syria, or Iran, than any other of these men.

Its Bush.

Hes far more likely to invade another nation like syria, or Iran, than any other of these men.


Really?

You have anything to back this up?

Thank God someone said this, cause I was going to.
Though I think Putin possibly is a threat in the making. I like the whole democratic Russia, but he's been appointing some Communists again and it is weirding me out.

Don't laugh. He's on our flank when the US, UK, Russia, Poland and Japan invade NK in 2009...

Its Bush.

Hes far more likely to invade another nation like syria, or Iran, than any other of these men.

And he would want to attempt nationbuilding in a third Middle Eastern country at this time... why?

We all know that the Bush haters are going to vote for him, which makes the entire poll invalid. You might as well have made the questions "Who makes the worst tacos"... the results would be the same. :(

Sadly, I have to agree.

Jong Il. He got them nukes. Nukes always make the game level. It ain't about supirior army anymore.

Really?

You have anything to back this up?

I'd tend to agree that out of all the men listed, Bush is the most likely to invade Syria or Iran.

I'm impressed! Here you go...

<snipped image of a cookie>

:D
That is soooo going on my list of positive quotes :D

Really?

You have anything to back this up?


Since when do I need to back up my own opinion?

Hmm..well..hows this:

If we take a look at the number of nations that each of them has taken over, and successfully invaded...
It would seem that Bush beats them by two nations.

Therefore, logically it would be a safe assumption that out of those names provided..Bush would be the favorite choice to pick, when asked who would be likely to invade another nation.

Hes done it more than any of them.

That doesnt mean I think that he WILL..or that he should, certainly...

And he would want to attempt nationbuilding in a third Middle Eastern country at this time... why?


Good point.

Hes not doing very well at it right now is he?

Those peace-crazed hippie activists. God damn hippies!

Those peace-crazed hippie activists. God damn hippies! :confused:

Good point.

Hes not doing very well at it right now is he?

Graci.

No, I doubt it's going to happen. The man has 3 years left in the White House... he wants to solidify on what he's done already, make sure the tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, Iraq/Afghanistan and so on are seen as being at least limited successes, and ensure his legacy.

Graci.

No, I doubt it's going to happen. The man has 3 years left in the White House... he wants to solidify on what he's done already, make sure the tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, Iraq/Afghanistan and so on are seen as being at least limited successes, and ensure his legacy.


In all honesty, I doubt it as well.

Support for the conflict we are already engaged in wanes every day, and surely, as we had no exit strategy, withdraw is difficult.
Another prolonged military occupation is out of the question, especially one like Iran, wich would put up even more resistance than Iraq.

In all honesty, I doubt it as well.

Support for the conflict we are already engaged in wanes every day, and surely, as we had no exit strategy, withdraw is difficult.
Another prolonged military occupation is out of the question, especially one like Iran, wich would put up even more resistance than Iraq.

I don't think it's so much that there is no exit strategy: there most certainly is. The conditions in which we can withdraw, however, have yet to materialize. And, personally, I don't think they will for at least another year or two. Iraq needs to have a Constitution and more time to have it's own army gain some experience, first.

Exactly.

We all know that the Bush haters are going to vote for him, which makes the entire poll invalid. You might as well have made the questions "Who makes the worst tacos"... the results would be the same. :(

Did you not notice that I put a note...?

Did you not notice that I put a note...?

Yep. I'm just railing against it anyway. :D

I realize that there are going to be some people who voted "Bush" just out of spite, but there are those who genuinely believe him to be a threat, and that is why I included him.

Personally, I think Kim Jong-Ill is a bigger threat.

Osama or Zaqawri

Why?

Both look for self preservation, but do so through violent acts that involve others that may or may not have been responsilbe for the problems they see in thier view of the world.

The rest are debateable on what thier future actions may be, but one thing on most of the rest of the list, they are at least willing to keep some kind of peace.

I realize that there are going to be some people who voted "Bush" just out of spite, but there are those who genuinely believe him to be a threat, and that is why I included him.

Personally, I think Kim Jong-Ill is a bigger threat.

Right now Kim & George are *tied*. I think that proves that even with the enjoinder that folks are going to vote out of spite.

I'd reckon that the number of people whom would GENUINELY count Bush or Blair as a threat to peace is a very small percentage of those that just vote becaue they don't like them...

Khomeni is probably safe, considering he's been dead for something like 15 years.

Thank God someone said this, cause I was going to.
Though I think Putin possibly is a threat in the making. I like the whole democratic Russia, but he's been appointing some Communists again and it is weirding me out.
Appointing Communists? To where? I haven't heard of some recent promotions of members of the Communist party.

I voted other. Because this isn't about who is most likely to start a war. It's about the biggest threat to peace.

http://www.godzillatemple.com/photos/gzilla2.jpg

Since when was there peace around here in the first place?

Kim jong mentally ill

I voted Bush. Before too many people go for me I'd like to say in my defence that he is the common thread to any of that list causing trouble (with the possible exception of Kim Jong Il).

None of them are likely to go to war without outside pressure but Bush is the one tangled up in the most crises with the potential to lead to war.

Khomeni is probably safe, considering he's been dead for something like 15 years.

Khamenei is the poll option... he's alive and running Iran...

Khamenei is the poll option... he's alive and running Iran...
oh, my mistake.

I voted other because you didn't have Phil Collins in the list.

Appointing Communists? To where? I haven't heard of some recent promotions of members of the Communist party.

I think he means *ex* "communists", but anyone with any governmental experience in Russia is going to be one of them, at least for a good long while.

I voted Bush. Before too many people go for me I'd like to say in my defence that he is the common thread to any of that list causing trouble (with the possible exception of Kim Jong Il).

None of them are likely to go to war without outside pressure but Bush is the one tangled up in the most crises with the potential to lead to war.

Erm kinda the reason I voted for Osama. Look Georgie-boy would'nt have had an excuse to throw a war if it were'nt for Osoma. Beleive it or not Bush has an electorate and a legislature to answer to Osama does'nt. And ol 'ain't Bin Laden years' seems more than willing to start a fight with England and Spain. When it comes down to possibilities Bush could'nt start anoother war if he wanted to. There is'nt the popular support or the troops to do it and there's no way he'd ever get a draft passed.

Bin Laden can stir up far more trouble than Bush. Bush. whatever you may think of him, wants (in the end) peace and prosperity. The more peace and prosperity there is, the more he thrives politically. On the other hand, Bin Laden's political survival depends on his ability to stir up trouble.

Last time I checked Kim Jong Il hasn't killed anyone outside his country.

Isn't a definition of "threat to peace" someone who crosses his border and kills people?

So I voted for the guy with the highest death toll.

I have no idea if he makes good tacos and I really don't care.

I think he means *ex* "communists", but anyone with any governmental experience in Russia is going to be one of them, at least for a good long while.
That's true. It's rather misleading to classify them as Communists--nobody, I think, called Chancellor of West Germany Kiesinger or Adenauer's aide Globke Nazis.

whatever you may think of him, wants (in the end) peace and prosperity. .
What is your basis for saying that? This is a man who's administration who has drawn up plans for launching "pre emptive" nuclear strikes against 7 different countries. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_04/nprapril02.asp

This is from an administration which refuses to abandon its plans of building permanent bases in Iraq or leaving that country despite the hellish carnage the US occupation is causing while simultaneously beating the war drums against Iran and Syria blaming them for allowing foreign fighters and weapons into Iraq (as if the US can control the mexican boarder).

Do you really think a man who prances around in a flight suit while boasting that he is a war president really wants peace?

Vladimir Putin.

George Bush is nothing more than a figurehead; if you had said "the American ruling class" I would probably have voted for that.

Most of the others are pretty evil, but don't have enough power on the world scene to be a large threat to peace.

You forgot to include Noam Chomsky.