NationStates Jolt Archive

So, the Gaurdian says Brits fear Bush more than Kim.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1938434,00.html

How about you?

Myrth.

Bush, because he's the dumbest of the three and more likely to do something stupid and dangerous to all of us.

I said Kim Jong-Il, if for no other reason than this...

...that hair is fucking scary. :eek:

Above all, I fear Carrot Top :(

So, the Gaurdian says Brits fear Bush more than Kim.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1938434,00.html

How about you?
Bush is growing more terrorists than Osama.

Bush has nuklear weapons.

I've had probably a half dozen nightmares about Bush. 0 on Bin Laden, 0 on Kim.

Well, Osama bin Laden has no real power. He is more a symbol, but most terrorists work independently.

Kim-Il Yong is really crazy, and he is playing with nuclear weapons. I think that he is very dangerous.

Bush is a cowboy, and he has cut the freedom in the USA. But luckiliy he is not all powerful - there is still a working democracy in the USA. Not like in North Korea.

So I would say: Kim.

As much as I'd like to say bush, I'll say kim by a whisker because Bush only has so long left.

Kim: building pointless weapons with aid money, while letting your people die in hunger. Scary that such a maniac can be the head of a country.

Hmmm, tough choice. I do wonder why we let ourselves be led by such a classy selection of tools though.

I voted bush. Merely because of what he's doing for personal freedoms. Kim is a bit more of a threat, but bush just scares me. And if he ever gets out of power, the next person wont be able to read I'm betting.

American policies kill more people than Mini-Ill. American governments are much more likely to use military might against others than Mini-Ill.

Sure, Mini-Ill is by far the more fucked up character, but Bush causes a hell of a lot more harm, and has much greater potential for causing increased harm.

It's a bit like comparing poison ivy to a great white shark.

kim jong-il,but only slightly more then GWB.

Went with Osama, but what I mean by that is Al-Quida (since it is possible that Osama is dead)

Kim. al-Qaeda is getting hammered, and Bush is a lame duck - Congress won't let him get away with much these next two years. Only Kim is in a position to put my country into yet another war.

As much as I'd like to say bush, I'll say kim by a whisker because Bush only has so long left.

Ok, first I'll concede that I'm still in the Bush-has-always-been-an-illegitimate-president camp; I don't think that we, American people, really elected him (on account of political tampering in Florida in 2000 and Diebold's receiptless electronic voting machines used in the swing states during elections since 2002, among other reasons), but even if we leave those as by-gones, we'll still have the same propoganda machine propelling Jeb Bush in 2008, with the same cast of the PNAC (Project for a New American Century, who, more recently, also constitute Bush's cabinet) running the show; I mean, making policies that affect the lives of most people in the world. This "junta" is not interested in losing their tightening grip on the trillion-annual tax dollars they harvest from the public. We could use the word "mafia", too; if you'll concede that the war-profiteering (by the Bush and Bin Laden familes, through their investments in the Carlyle group which owns United Defense, makers of mechanized infantry vehicles, et al), or deliberate dissemination of misinformation to the public as justification for beginning a war, constitutes crimes by an organized group. What we really should be reading are the published agenda essays by the PNAC--if anyone has a link for this, please post it.

Kim is really a gangster. I mean, check out how he dresses. If it were fictious, it would be safely hilarious. Seeing how much trouble China goes through to maintain its hegemony, he is somewhat justifiably paranoid about losing his. Beyond this, though, I think he's mostly a luxury-loving mafioso; it's worth seeing the book by his former personal chef to get an idea about Kim's obsessiveness. Defects aside, he still has an unshakable hold on his country; more even, maybe, than Hu Jin-tao has on the PRC (if it's even conceivable to make comparisons across such scales). According to "legend", Kim was born atop the sacred mountains in the north, and upon this occasion, a double rainbow enfolded the sky. Nevermind that he may actually have been born in Russia, tell me he doesn't have a stranglehold.. When Kim is replaced, then there may be greater instability because there is due to be a succession struggle among Kim's three sons. With all of this though, we're dealing with a small-time street thug, relative to Hu and Bush.

Nevermind Iran, either.. I mean, I wish we'd just leave them the f- alone! It's only because they are a self-sufficent nation that has no reliance on America, that they fall outside the PNAC's scope of influence, and that makes them an enemy, regardless of their religion, economic strength, power generation, or even military. Really, it should required reading to understand the agenda of America's leaders. The PNAC is a thinktank established in the 1990s, and its mission, in words of the same substance, is to devise a comprehensive methodology for the projection of America's dominance globally in the 21st century. It's Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al. It's not a complicated conspiracy or even a covert agenda; it's all been published over the last ten years.

May god have mercy on our souls and buddha have mercy in our lives. ;-)

Ruffy

This thread makes me weep.

This thread makes me weep.

I make strong men cry. :cool:

This thread makes me weep.

Like you do everytime you watch Beaches? :p

Osama's a paper tiger at this point. He can't create another terrorist attack, certainly not on the scale of 9/11. Maybe another terrorist can, but he can't.

Bush is frightening, and so is Kim. One thing separates the two in terms of scariness - Bush has access to nukes and it's a pretty safe bet he won't use them. If Kim gets access to nukes, who knows? Given a functioning nuke, Kim is far more likely to turn Seoul into a smoldering crater than Bush is to do the same to Tehran.

My vote? Kim Jong Il.

Myrth.

In Soviet General, Myrth fears you!

The questions 'who do you fear most' and 'who poses the greatest threat to World Peace' are not exactly analagous.

Many leaders have often made their populations feel safer beneath them by creating the persona of a strong military leader, often by waging war. Likewise, George W. Bush, (or any other American president), are always engaged in some military action or other, but that doesn't make them necessarily feared.

The question also makes the flawed assumption that 'World Peace' is a good thing, which I would argue it is not, not in this world's current situation.

Bush: scary and stupid

Kim: scary and nuts

Osama: scary

Take your pick.

All of the above... haha.

So, the Gaurdian says Brits fear Bush more than Kim.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1938434,00.html

How about you?

Thats fucking retarded. I fear the Brits. A little.

Thats fucking retarded. I fear the Brits. A little.

Yes.

A stiff upper lip doesn't make for good head.

*nods*

Of course we do. Kim Il Sung might just be able to scrape together the odd spear if he was lucky, but Bush is a prize moron, and one that happens to have his finger over a hell of a lot of red buttons. The man is evidence of why democracy does not work.

Of course we do. Kim Il Sung might just be able to scrape together the odd spear if he was lucky, but Bush is a prize moron, and one that happens to have his finger over a hell of a lot of red buttons. The man is evidence of why democracy does not work.


*Warning! Threadjack in progress! Please remain calm*


Only when the population is ignorant? Or doesn't work full stop? It seems to me that unless you have a pretty cool system that manages to choose some benevolent dictator what alternative is there?

Dubya is the only one out of the three who has the power and has demonstrated the will to erode America's freedom and mortgage our economic future, so I say he's the one to be feared.

The other two are enemies of the USA, but fairly weak and incompetent enemies. Their incompetence makes them less of a threat. Bush's incompetence caused the Iraq war.

Bush's incompetence caused the Iraq war.

And he also made the dinosaurs go extinct, and he sunk atlantis too.

Here's a modification: Kimmy selling his weapons to Osama. That's what I fear. I have no reason to fear the President because he's gone, come January 2009.

Here's a modification: Kimmy selling his weapons to Osama. That's what I fear. I have no reason to fear the President because he's gone, come January 2009.



Naw, by then we'll realize he is the messiah, and we'll elect him as Supreme Chancellor of the Galatic Republic, in which point he will cause the 100 yrs war, and become tzar of the solar system!

Naw, by then we'll realize he is the messiah, and we'll elect him as Supreme Chancellor of the Galatic Republic, in which point he will cause the 100 yrs war, and become tzar of the solar system!

I'd only go along with that if he appointed me Sith Lord and gave me a lightsaber and bitchin' Force powers.

I'd only go along with that if he appointed me Sith Lord and gave me a lightsaber and bitchin' Force powers.

Unfortunatly, due to economic stagnation, and budget cut backs, all you get it this (http://www.funfolly.com/g/ac/awcl2rud.gif). Yes, a plastic meat cleaver.

Unfortunatly, due to economic stagnation, and budget cut backs, all you get it this (http://www.funfolly.com/g/ac/awcl2rud.gif). Yes, a plastic meat cleaver.

:(

// I'll take it! //

I worry more about humanity in general than any particular human.

Well, as already said, George'll be gone in January 2009, except if he is able to change laws so he can stay longer (which is very unlikely).
But Osama and Kim won't be gone so soon, except if they're killed or caught, which won't happen very soon I think. So I'd say they're a bit more dangerous than little Georgie.

I however think that the next president of the USA will be the most dangerours person on the whole earth, because that one will, probably, have eight years of control over the largest amount of weapons of mass destruction, and over the best army in the world.

Kim: building pointless weapons with tax money, while letting your people die in hunger. Scary that such a maniac can be the head of a country.
And no-one in Bush's country dies of hunger?
I doubt North Korea gets much aid money, so i made an adjustment in italics. Bush is also guilty of building weapons with tax money.

I'm a bad snipper.
God will understand.

And no-one in Bush's country dies of hunger?

No. They don't.

definitely GWB. or at least his little power clique. i reckon they have greater potential to fuck the world up. and unlike the other two, they've already made significant strides to that end.

Bush, because he's the dumbest of the three and more likely to do something stupid and dangerous to all of us.

Really?
As opposed to the insane midget who thinks he's God?

Really. The OP should know better than to put 'Bush' as an option in a poll. Half the people who vote dont bother to read anything.

*feels left out for voting for Osama*
Bush is the most dangerous, but I don't fear him because, frankly, he's an incompetent idiot, as most of you will understand. Kim won't find MAD particularly attractive, but Osama, although he has no nukes, presumably has no such reservations.

And no-one in Bush's country dies of hunger?
I doubt North Korea gets much aid money, so i made an adjustment in italics. Bush is also guilty of building weapons with tax money.

There are occasionally incidents where abusive and neglectful parents starve their kids to death, but hunger isn't generally a problem in the USA. In fact, the poorer you are the more empty calories you're likely to consume. Cheap food is usually fatty and sugary.

I think Kim is the most frightening... at least Bush's days are numbered.

It's silly to put bin Laden at the top. He has too little power, really. Ahemajidad is not really a danger to the west either.

Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to 34% against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004.
Why do the people of Israel support this shit?

Bush has the most potential* danger, i.e., if he went off the deep end, he could kill us all. But that's rather unlikely, and there are checks to make sure that never happens. Bin Laden just releases videos and spends his days looking like a dieseased rodent. Kim jong-IL is sufficiently nuts, has enough power projection capabilities and has enough deadly weapons to actually scare me.

Kim is the winner.

Oh, and going by the original poll, you Brits are fucktards. Give up on the random shouting of polemics and get your asses into actually understanding the world.

I think Bush sucks balls, crappiest President we've had in a long time, but your fear of him is totally irrational. He's not going to go off the deep end and invade the UK.

I think Kim is the most frightening... at least Bush's days are numbered.

It's silly to put bin Laden at the top. He has too little power, really. Ahemajidad is not really a danger to the west either.


Why do the people of Israel support this shit?

They remember the fact that Saddam Hussein provided money to Palestinian terrorists, they remember that Saddam Hussein shot rockets at them in 1991.

There are occasionally incidents where abusive and neglectful parents starve their kids to death, but hunger isn't generally a problem in the USA. In fact, the poorer you are the more empty calories you're likely to consume. Cheap food is usually fatty and sugary.
In Ireland the poor are more likely to be fat than the rich, ironically.

They remember the fact that Saddam Hussein provided money to Palestinian terrorists, they remember that Saddam Hussein shot rockets at them in 1991.
Oh right, I didn't think of that.

Trilby63;11896926']*Warning! Threadjack in progress! Please remain calm*


Only when the population is ignorant? Or doesn't work full stop? It seems to me that unless you have a pretty cool system that manages to choose some benevolent dictator what alternative is there?

I can appreciate that, however the simple fact is that the general populace is to ignorant to write a history essay, let alone genuinely discern the correct rukers of their country. That we perpetuate such a moronocracy is outrageous.

I would say Bush because his "war against terrorism" is strating to remind too much you-know-whose "lebensraum". The next one would be Kim because he has nuclear weapons, but if he launches a one, his country is doomed. Osama might not be so great threath for now, but (if he is alive) everything is possible.

Bush isn't the brightest tool in the shed, but he won't be around for too much longer. Kim Jong-Il, however, he'll be in charge until the day he dies comfortably in bed.

Hmm…

Osama is, more or less, completely out of the picture. He got lucky and then got stomped. Terrorism is only dangerous because we fear it.

Kim is a certified nutcase who may, or may not, have a nuke. But he has no means of delivering said nuke, if he even has it, beyond his immediate surroundings. And while he might be a nutcase, I don’t think he’s suicidal. If he nukes Soul or Tokyo, he, along with the rest of North Korea, will be flattened by Nato and / or Chinese forces.

Bush has turned America into a hollow image of what it should be. Personal freedoms are long gone, and American troops are currently occupying several countries, all the while bets are being made on who’s next for a dose of “American freedom”.


Of the three, I fear Bush the most. He has the greatest capability to influence the world, and he’s shown himself willing to do so.
That being said though, I don’t really “fear” them as such. Bush’s actions might be deplorable, but I don’t think that it’ll bring about World War 3 or anything like that. But it has changed the world – and not for the better…

Kim, because there is no system to keep him in check. Also he is going to be around much longer.

"Pancake" should be an option on the poll :eek:

Osama is a terrorist. One attack, and that all you can do really. Well, large scale attacks.

Bush is destroying the world. Let's look at Iraq. It didn't have a completely psychotic dictator. The region was partially stable, and I personally classify him as a terrorist. He puts fear in the minds of millions of people. I sure hope we get a change in out American government. The US Constitution, a very old document, needs to be rewritten. He and the rest of his family have a high chance of destroying our world. If not through military action, it's by his views on global warming.

Mr. Il though. He is a psychotic dictator. He has nuclear technology, and hopefully, he learns how to use it for good. Try getting a power system through all of your country, and if you have energy that can be sold to neighboring countries, you have made your country richer. Unfortunately, he is too narrow minded to do anything.

I applaud the Iranian leader for building nuclear power plants. I don't think them bad any way possible right now. I think that people should stop talking about terrorists, and this include politicians. From what I can tell, the terrorists have won. They have accomplished there goal. If the president, and the news were to shut-up about terrorists, we might actually have a safer place to live. I hate the Scare-Tactics Bush uses.

Thus, I believe that Bush is the most threatening to the world.