STOP STOP STOP!
Everyone has become so fucking polarized, that everyone has forgot the main question.
For the OP’s author’s sake, I will restate the question.
“Is GW a bigger threat to world piece that Sadam?”
A simple question. You should be able to answer it without your emotional ties swaying you. No one is asking you who you like more. They are asking which nation’s actions are causing more loss of stability.
I feel I can throw out an un-biased enough post so the two sides can chew on it and mangle it and such. For the record, I support Bush. Now on with the OP:
Is GW a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam?
I would say that you could twist evidence in any which way so that it seems like one is worse than the other. People take different things with more or less weight than others. It seems as though through these posts, the Bush supporters are using evidence of Saddam torturing his people as a threat to world peace. However, this does not entirely threaten world peace. It may show that Saddam is crazy enough to launch a few nukes, but he hasn’t launched them yet.
The Anti-Bush posters seem to be posting because of grudges and emotional biases against GW himself, and also are using evidence of U.S. action previous to when GW took the helm. Specifically, the UN sanctions against Iraq (Please note: UN UN UN UN UN UN sanctions). This does not accurately show how Bush threatens world peace, because Bush didn’t instigate all of that.
Now, There isn’t much world peace stuff predicated on Saddam because there are only 3 things that he can do:
A. Torture his people
B. Funding/aidng terrorism
C. Launch off a ton of nukes
Item (A) will always be in affect, but as mentioned before, it carries little to no weight in threatening world peace. Item (B) is claimed to be totally bunk by Anti-Bush people because the US lied about evidence of things of this sort. However, Iraq itself is the home of many terrorists and I believe that it has been found true that Saddam does fund the widows and relatives of terrorists, or aids them somehow. This can only encourage terrorists, who I think are the #1 threat to world peace. Item © has not happened, but it isn’t completely unfounded. Sometime in the 1980’s (I think 1981) Isreal attacked and destroyed Nuclear plant in Iraq (I don’t know very much about this, but I know it happened, but not very specific details) that recieved a shipment of nuclear materials. This is evidence that Saddam does want the capability of Nuclear Weapons.
Now, Bush is a little more complicated because he has more power at his hands. I’ll list some of the points here:
A. He has Nuclear weapons already
B. He runs the most powerful country in the world
C. He is starting a war
D. He is not making very many allies via diplomacy
Point (A) is easily refutable in that because of many back up systems like congress shudder and all, he will not use nukes unless provoked to do so. It seems, however, that it doesn’t take much to provoke Bush in the first place. Sure, maybe Saddam hasn’t been cooperating with the UN for twelve years (You call that progress with inspections?) but you don’t really have to go to war about it, do you? Point (B) kind of speaks for itself. Because he runs the most powerful country, he has a lot of influence and a lot of military might at his hands. Point © a big point. War does not necessarily promote world peace PER SE! However, in some cases it does take war to gain peace. A prime example is the Civil war. The United States COULD NOT have continued while divided by North and South. It took many lives and much bloodshed to join the two together, and I’m very happy that they are. On the other hand, war does not ALWAYS end up being peaceful. WWI only fueled Hitler’s hatred of the rest of the world, which, among MANY other things, lead to WWII. Also, being in control of the OIL OIL OIL in Iraq could help to stabalize the oil economy and this could lead to happier people. There are many who get rather upset about oil prices. Point (D) is another big point. It seems as though diplomacy is being heavy handed about everything. Everyone knows about the bribes that the US used to persuade people to join their side, but it only seems that the two sides become more polarized. Polarization does not stimulate world peace. Plus many of Bush’s recent actions have fueled many protests (protests are so dumb, the accomplish nothing).
So, who is a bigger threat to world peace? I would say that Saddam is, but a lot of the questions will be answered after this war.