http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061103/pl_nm/security_bush_poll_dc_1
Shit. Our closest allies think we’re among the worst threats to peace! Is this warranted or justified?
Are we really the bad guys?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061103/pl_nm/security_bush_poll_dc_1
Shit. Our closest allies think we’re among the worst threats to peace! Is this warranted or justified?
Are we really the bad guys?
Yes, the US are the “bad guys” – in the sense of actually doing things that endanger world peace. North Korea would like to invade and conquer South Korea, but they know that realistically they can’t. On the other hand, when the US decides to invade Iraq, no other country can stop them making a mess of it.
shrug I’m thinking someone needs a bit of a reality break. Sorry, but I have a hard time taking stuff like this seriously. If folks in other countries REALLY think that Bush ranks with lil Kimmy, Osama and Ahmadinejad then IMHO they have a serious perspective problem.
If they want to say that Iraq was a huge mistake…fine by me, I agree. I’d say that the majority of American’s now believe this as well. But that the US is a greater danger to world peace than North Korea? Iran? Sorry…I try not to listen when the anti-US hysteria is rolling through The World™ and coloring their view point.
Always. Where have you been for the last few decades? Mexico? Europe? Not exactly hotbeds of pro-US sentiment (with some justification in Mexico IMHO…the Euro’s haven’t a fucking leg to stand on, again IMHO).
-XT
Eh. Typical overreaction. Iraq war = bad, therefore Bush = Osama. I think they missed a few steps there. Ask them this: who would you rather have as president of the US-- Bush or Osama?
It’s a stupid comparison that makes a great, sensationalist headline.
The Guardian is a very left-wing broadsheet, and thus intrinsicly anti-American. At one time it tended to the loony left (q.v. ‘Pol Gott’). Once you know this bias, you can read the article and translate appropriately.
but that’s not the comparison at all.
The comparison is–
Bush, as head of the US, is more dangerous to world peace than: a) Osama, as head of a loose terrorist network; b) KJL, as autocrat of a surrounded-by-enemies failing state; and, c) anyone else. A toddler is more dangerous behind the wheel of a moving car than an adult drunk is. But given the respective availability of automobiles to drunks and toddlers, the drunk would-be driver is a bigger danger to motorists.
They were not asked who would be better as President of the US, and they did say that Osama was worse than Bush as a threat to world peace:
So Kim, as President of North Korea, is seen as less dangerous than Bush, as President of the US. It’s not because Bush is worse than Kim, but because Bush has more effective means at his disposal to affect world peace. However Osame is more dangerous, because he has effective means, too – the disaffected Muslims who are willing to commit suicide for his fanatical cause.
So, any generic president will always be more dangerous than ObL or KJI. Pfffft.
No – to be dangerous, you must both have the means to be dangerous, and use it in a dangerous way. So Bush is not dangerous just because he commands more military power than any other leader, but because he has used that power to make the situation in the Middle East worse than it was when he started.
Man, sometimes I really hate this two party system!
Don’t blame me - I voted for Kodos!
Whose decisions have killed the most innocent people abroad?
Clearly, it’s George Bush. Kim wins the award for total slayings because he’s killed so many of his OWN people, from from the perspective of “Who’s done the worst internationally,” by any objective standard, Bush is the worst. For all Ahmadinejad’s bluster, Iran hasn’t invaded anyone, and as evil as bin Laden is his body count of innocents is way back of Bush’s.
If you can try for a moment to be objective, which country’s the greatest threat; the one that recently invaded and occupied a foreign country based on a flimsy and dishonest pretext and has since killed tens of thousands of its civilians, or the ones that haven’t done anything of the sort?
Well, I hear Kim will be running on a 3rd party platform, so it’s not as bad as you think.
It’s the Guardian so take it with a pinch of salt. Rational people do not think America is “more evil” than North Korea et al. Again, it’s the Guardian who are Sun-esque in their anti-American hysteria.
Where are you getting this evil thing from? It wasn’t in the poll.
If you like your fallacies raw & crisp, then that’s the way to go. Here’s the original poll…note that on ICM’s home page, the current ‘latest polls’ include ones for the the Telegraph and Express.
Well the Guardian’s blasting headline says it all really. To suggest the Guardian doesn’t have a profoundly left wing agenda is fairly naive.
I don’t see this as a ‘blasting’ headline. It’s a report of the results of the survey. That you don’t like the survey doesn’t invalidate it, nor does it demonstrate a bias in the reporting.
The mindset of the present administration seems to be to use military force. The only thing that restrains them now, I think, is that adequate military force isn’t available to them. It’s all tied up in Iraq.
In that sense, i.e. a desire to use force restrained only by not having the force available, I consider GW and the rest to be very dangerous to peace and to the US welfare.
I would not have believed, six years ago, that there would ever be an official of the US government who would argue for the use of torture under any circumstances. I don’t see how anyone can listen to what Gonzales, Rummy, GW, and the rest say and not be both ashamed and worried.