PDA

View Full Version : Who is more dangerous?


Clemme w/Stick
03-10-2003, 02:31 PM
NOTE: This has nothing to do with anti-americanism or anything like that.

This is stricktly a question, that popped into my head and I thought it would be fun to get some oppinions.

I wont vote since I cant decide which! But whos more dangerous?

George Bush or Saddam Hussein?

-Clemme

leXX
03-10-2003, 02:36 PM
Where's the 'both are dangerous' option?

Clemme w/Stick
03-10-2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by leXX
Where's the 'both are dangerous' option?

Hmm, I thought about adding that one, but then I knew that everyone would vote for that one...!
I guess I should have added that one as well...! I'll see if I can edit :D!

-Clemme

Mex
03-10-2003, 02:44 PM
George Bush. He wants to start a war with Iraq, which makes him dangerous to them.

swphreak
03-10-2003, 02:45 PM
I voted Saddam, he's the mad man who kills his own citizens.

Boba Rhett
03-10-2003, 02:48 PM
I'm going with Saddam.

Reborn Outcast
03-10-2003, 02:54 PM
I'm going with Saddam.

And Captain Wing, Bush may want to go to war to gain peace and not to kill people but Saddam wants to wipe out all Americans.

Eldritch
03-10-2003, 02:58 PM
I voted for Bush because:

1 - He wields more power than Saddam

2 - He lacks intelligence

3 - He has no insight/foresight, partially due to reason # 2

Kstar__2
03-10-2003, 03:09 PM
both, saddam because he's absolutely mad,

bush because it looks like he wants war with every country that could cause him trouble and because he is power hungry

C'jais
03-10-2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
And Captain Wing, Bush may want to go to war to gain peace and not to kill people but Saddam wants to wipe out all Americans.

Errrr.....

Both are dangerous. Bush doesn't have a tremendous of amount foresight, as Aru-wen pointed out - he has no idea what a war will result in. He cares only for his little WMD.

-C'

-s/<itzo-
03-10-2003, 03:53 PM
definetly saddam.

ckcsaber
03-10-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Aru-Wen

2 - He lacks intelligence



:rolleyes: Too much SNL

Taos
03-10-2003, 04:44 PM
I'd say Saddam simply for the fact that he's a dictator and has total control over things........thankfully it's a power that Bush doesn't have.

Clemme w/Stick
03-10-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Leemu Taos
I'd say Saddam simply for the fact that he's a dictator and has total control over things........thankfully it's a power that Bush doesn't have.

Thats a good point. Also Aru-Wens point was pretty good. Well, lets see how this ends shall we?

-Clemme

Katarn07
03-10-2003, 04:49 PM
Theyboth are.

Saddam killed his own people and despite what he says, wants to bring death and destruction to Israel and their allies (us, the USA).

But thankfully, Bush is in charge of this here country, and this here country has a better army, and even better with the British giving their assistance (better than the French and Germans :mad:)

Breton
03-10-2003, 06:36 PM
I voted for both, but I really think Bush is most dangerous. Saddam hasn't done anything in the past few years, while Bush has acted like a true idiot, constantly warmongering and threatening and bribing other countries to support his cause (he really is). And of course, his naive black-white sight of things, plus the fact that he never thinks about the consequenses of what he does.

But Saddam's still dangerous.

El Sitherino
03-10-2003, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Aru-Wen
I voted for Bush because:

1 - He wields more power than Saddam

2 - He lacks intelligence

3 - He has no insight/foresight, partially due to reason # 2 im with him

Reborn Outcast
03-10-2003, 07:20 PM
Well guys. I'm actually glad that Bush is doing thing this way. Wanna know why?



He

Is

Not

A

Conformist



Yep. :D Many great leaders in the past did what they thought was right and were not trying to be conformist just to please people. Thats what led them to great things. I have a feeling that France, Germany and Russia are just going with the flow to try and please people.

Just my $0.02

nova_wolf
03-10-2003, 07:52 PM
No offense, but I believe the question should be whos the dumbest....

Im fed up of the whole thing, and just hope what ever happens happens. FULL STOP. PERIOD. END OF PLAY. FIN. EXIT STAGE LEFT. THE END. NO ENCORE TONIGHT. FINALE. ENDING SEQUENCE. GAME OVER.

Capische? :cool:

Toonces
03-11-2003, 01:15 AM
Resorting to personal attacks to disparage somebodys point of view that you happen to dissagree with is rather unfortunate. Base your arguments with fact, not your personal bias and feelings.

The Swamp is not a place to share your political ideology. This thread belongs in the Senate.

BigTeddyPaul
03-11-2003, 03:25 AM
I knew when we voted Bush in office we were going to attack Iraq. I KNEW IT. His history and politics lead you to believe this. If he had emergency powers he would be sending missles and men there right now. I take that back. If he used his emergency powers right now he could do whatever he wanted for 30 days (or is it 90)?

Sadam however has already used biological weapons against his people, killed his family members, uses torture against people regularly, and lies to foreign states about his weapon capabilities.

Does it strick anyone else as being weird that Bush still wants to go to war against Iraq even though EVERYOTHER COUNTRY says they don't and would vote no in attacking him?

BigTeddyPaul

ShockV1.89
03-11-2003, 04:40 AM
They're both pretty dangerous, but since the question asked who was more dangerous, I'd say Saddam. Mostly because Bush will, in time, get voted out of office, and become powerless. Saddam can stay as long as he wants.

nova_wolf
03-11-2003, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Toonces
Resorting to personal attacks to disparage somebodys point of view that you happen to dissagree with is rather unfortunate. Base your arguments with fact, not your personal bias and feelings.

But laot of this IS feelings.

Any way, the fact is that US has been gunning for Iraq for a while, but have now been given the opportunity to deal with them.

As said previously, when he was voted in, me and my friends here in England KNEW it was gonna happen, although we could not have predicted the horrendous circumstances through which it came about.

I am worried that this could get out of hand, but hope that it fizzles out. I think that Saddam is seriously worried now - he knows what happened last time, and is aware that there will be no holding back.
Its all very well having mass destruction Inc. supplies but the Americans won't give him the chance.

He needs to be ousted, but for the good of the planet, I think perhaps Bush should be also.

Two FRESH leaders - no strings, no history. Thats ideally, and I know thats not possible, but the closer we get to it, the sooner we can get on with the world peace and the happiness and yey hay hay!

Breton
03-11-2003, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by BigTeddyPaul

Sadam however has already used biological weapons against his people

They were rebelling, after all.

killed his family members,

Prove it.

uses torture against people regularly

Prove it.

and lies to foreign states about his weapon capabilities.

Prove it.

Does it strick anyone else as being weird that Bush still wants to go to war against Iraq even though EVERYOTHER COUNTRY says they don't and would vote no in attacking him?

Not totally right. Serveral countries has said they are going to vote yes (mostly because they get $10 billion for it, but anyway). And anyway, acting against the general opinion just shows how dumb he is.

griff38
03-11-2003, 09:55 AM
Well this 1 is very important.

Bush is by far more dangerous. He is an appointed offical of the most powerful force to exist yet in the world. We used to be a democratic nation, but bush was handed his presidency by a court of appointed officals. The majority rule was ignored. He has no respect for anyone who does not submit to his will.

The legislative branch of our goverment was created to "check" the executive branch, but they signed away this power forever
( FOREVER!!) right after 911.

This country has had antihuman powermonger leaders before but their power was limited by our checks & balances. Bush has more power than any other human who has ever lived in the history of the Earth.

Bush will be remembered as a tyrant long after history forgets about Sadam.

Sadam is a joke.

El Sitherino
03-11-2003, 12:20 PM
america has never been a democratic government! people stop saying it is! bush is no worse than some of the other airheads that have been elected. true he has publicly released his decleration of war but many presidents have declared small terroristical wars such as carter who sent navy soldiers into african nations to "keep peace" meaning to kill innocent civilians. My uncle was one of the navy men who had to go in and do this.

C'jais
03-11-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by griff38
Bush will be remembered as a tyrant long after history forgets about Sadam.

That's pretty interesting.

I'm thinking that the only thing history will remember from this conflict, is how Bush infuriated the entire middle east by poking his nose too far. The motives of the war, while noble, are very near sighted.

This is not about disarming Hussein - this is about giving plenty of good reasons for hating USA, furthering global terrorism, and destabilizing the arab region.

Believe me, I want Hussein removed as much as the next guy, but I think war is not the preferable choice here. Especially not considering USA is pushing for war so viciously - are they fearing a terror attack from Hussein in March? To push for war as madly as they are is completely ridiculous - it's like they're trying to hit some tight time schedule (the 4 year presidential term, maybe?).

And then we can all sit back and wonder why Bush didn't do anything to remove Mugabe, the Chinese domination over Tibet, solve the Israel-Palestine conflict or wrestle with Il Jong, who's the only dictator capable of hitting US soil.

All this talk about Hussein being connected to terror groups and actively wanting to hurt USA is not relevant. Even if he was cooperating with terrorist factions, what do you think will happen once he is removed? Those factions will be even more decentralized, as they don't even have to worry about ruling a country. Those factions hate USA with an even greater passion. Those factions are going to hit Israel and Kuwait, and they are going to be supported by other arab nations fearing and loathing USA.

griff38
03-11-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
america has never been a democratic government! people stop saying it is!


Not sure if you know what your talking about. If from your denial you mean to imply we are a republic why not say it so people have a clue what your talking about?

Technically we are a republic, but then again so is any political order that is not a monarchy. We are a democratic nation per the constitution.

Generally speaking the U.S. is a republic. Specifically speaking the U.S. is a democracy.
Up untill bush jr. was given the presidency,
The UNITED STATES was a Democratic goverment!!!

El Sitherino
03-11-2003, 03:45 PM
once again it was never democratic. we always voted for representatives to make decisions on what to do about things. if it was a democracy every citizen could have a part it what becomes law and what doesnt. every citizen would have part in how the budget of america is divided. we dont have a say in it at all, the senators do. we have discussed this before. if anything america is a democratic republic inwhich we elect officials to "speak" for us.(even though they only speak for the rich)

BigTeddyPaul
03-11-2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
They were rebelling, after all
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.


And why were they rebelling? Because Saddam is evil!

Torture ummm okay how about when our pilots were shot down and were TORTURED into confessing on Iraqi TV. If you also hear stories of refugees and other people who have lived they will give you some very vividd accounts and even more vivid pictures.

We just found some weapons in Iraq the other day. Iraq says we planted the weapons there so I will ask you who do you believe?

Prove he killed his family members okay THEY ARE DEAD and didn't die naturally because he was afraid they wanted power. Even his own physician was cut up and put in a box and sent to his wife (account from the wife). The reason was because he asked to be sent home when Saddam needed him so Saddam said he could go home. He just neglected the pieces he would be in and the box.

The main countries (Russia, China, GB, etc) have said they woud vote to search longer for the weapons.

BigTeddyPaul

Breton
03-11-2003, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by BigTeddyPaul
And why were they rebelling? Because Saddam is evil!


No, it was because USA convinced them into doing it. And btw, evil people does not excist.

Torture ummm okay how about when our pilots were shot down and were TORTURED into confessing on Iraqi TV.

What were the pilots doing there anyway?

Prove he killed his family members okay THEY ARE DEAD

No they aren't. Dunno who's made you belive that, but he does have family (alive).

. Even his own physician was cut up and put in a box and sent to his wife (account from the wife).

I can say it like this: That is excactly what Bush& friends want you to belive.

The main countries (Russia, China, GB, etc) have said they woud vote to search longer for the weapons.

GB, Spain and Bulgaria are those who intends to vote with US. Russia, China, France, Germany, and one other are those who are going to vote no. So 6 countries have yet not decided, and US need totally 9 votes to manage to get it through. But they won't make it anyway, as both Russia and France have said they will use veto against it.

BigTeddyPaul
03-11-2003, 05:43 PM
Do you not watch TV? Do you not read or hear the reports of refugees fleeing his country? Do you not hear the sworn testimony of some of his peeps (bodyguards, aids, officials)?

The men were bombing. Fine. Shoot them down kill them that is fine. It is war. You do not however torture prisoners of war. That is a faux pas.

You choose not to believe these thousands of reports from existing non-American sources then go ahead. I cannot convince you otherwise.

Evil people do exist. People who go out and kill for no apparent good reason (self defense/self preservation), are evil. Evil is a state of mind but it is also an adjective.

BigTeddyPaul

Breton
03-11-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by BigTeddyPaul
Do you not watch TV?

I do. And luckily, it's TV that's not taking sides. I'm afraid it seems you weren't that lucky.

Do you not read or hear the reports of refugees fleeing his country?

Far from all of them make such reports about how horrible Saddam is. And refugees can be made into saying anything.

The men were bombing. Fine. Shoot them down kill them that is fine. It is war.

Is it? If so, I may inform you that if US have started war already, they have broken about 100 UN rules.

You choose not to believe these thousands of reports from existing non-American sources then go ahead. I cannot convince you otherwise.

In such matters, I choose not to put too much trust into any of the two sides. I do not belive one side is good and one side is evil, since evil doesn't excist anyway. You may say that there's two grey sides instead of one black and one white.

Evil people do exist.

Evil is not in human nature, whatever religion have made you belive. Just think about it for a second. Take Osama bin Laden for instance. Why does he want to kill off Americans? Because he belives they are evil and the world is better off without them. Thus, he is beliving he is doing the right thing, meaning he isn't evil.

People who go out and kill for no apparent good reason (self defense/self preservation), are evil.

Saddam doesn't kill for no apparent good reason. Actually, the only ones who fit to your description of evil is people killing because they enjoy it. But this is always caused by a mental disease, so they are sick, not evil.

Evil is a state of mind but it is also an adjective.

Evil is nothing but a product of naive black-white vision on things. Evil does not excist, it's just an extremely simplified view belonging to those who does not manage to see things from another's point of view.

C'jais
03-11-2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by BigTeddyPaul
You do not however torture prisoners of war. That is a faux pas.

Actually, have you heard the latest news about two afghan prisoners getting tortured to death during interrogations at camp delta?

And just what exactly are you two arguing about here?

We all know Saddam is a bad guy. He is a dictator. However, there's no need to believe all the hype about him ripping people's hearts out and eating family members for breakfast. While a mad person, he's not that mad.

EDIT: Mi kan no spel gut tunait.

BigTeddyPaul
03-11-2003, 06:13 PM
I didn't hear about those prsoners at all. I believe it could happen.

I am not going to get into a philosophical dispute with you about evil. To me he is evil plain and simple. I never said he ate someone's heart. As I said earlier I belive the reports and have made up my mind. Unless Powell comes out and says they are all lies and Iwill probably continue to see it this way. We jsut have differing opionions on how EVIL (mwhaha) Saddam is.

BigTeddyPaul

I was just joking about the heart bit, y'know (: -C'

SkinWalker
03-12-2003, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
once again it was never democratic. we always voted for representatives to make decisions on what to do about things. if it was a democracy every citizen could have a part it what becomes law and what doesnt. every citizen would have part in how the budget of america is divided. we dont have a say in it at all, the senators do. we have discussed this before. if anything america is a democratic republic inwhich we elect officials to "speak" for us.(even though they only speak for the rich)

Every citizen old enough to vote does have a say in what does/doesn't become law, the national budget, etc. True, we often vote for representatives to make the decisions, but if not for that proceedure, our lives would center around governing our country instead of living our lives. We vote for those that think the most like us. In many cases, we vote directly for issues and propositions at the polls along with officials.

Insane, you're a cool dude (and a homie), but don't think that you can say "America is not a democracy" and it'll be so. Being a Republic and a Democracy are not mutually exclusive.

Oh... just being registered to vote makes a difference. It means that your demographic has to be considered. Care to guess how many 18 - 27 year olds are registered to vote versus 28 - 37 or 38 - 50 year old demographics? Which do you think candidates attempt to please when discussing their platforms? I give you a hint: think of the last candidate that enjoyed Britany Spears and pledged to lower the drinking age, fight for lower insurance rates for young drivers, and defend skateboarding as a potential olympic sport.

SkinWalker

SkinWalker
03-12-2003, 12:56 AM
My vote is....... [DrumRoll.mid]....... Dubya!


Damn... don't tell anyone I voted for George W. Bush! :p They might not understand the context!

Bush is, in my opinion is the more dangerous. He appears willing to go to extremes to obtain as much power as he can. He usually has a very condescending tone in his voice when addressing the public. In a recent speech, I distinctly heard him say "my government" along with several other phrases that indicated his "power" over the people.

Bush is a tyrant. Bush has betrayed the trust of the American people. We trusted him to deal with the terrorism problem. Instead, he squandered the good will our country received from the world in the aftermath of 9/11 on his unilateral push for war with Iraq. Bin Laden goes free. Al Quada is functioning in regions such as Columbia, Indonisia, and Africa. The "axis of evil" statement sparked the nuclear reaction of N. Korea. The U.S. economy is tanking, jobless rate is up, and the Kyoto protocol goes by unnoticed and uncared for.

Those who betray their countrymen are called traitors in other circumstances.

Who's the more dangerous? If saddam had an armed nuclear weapon and launched it at anyone in range... he still wouldn't be the more dangerous. Saddam is an enemy we know and an enemy the world is watching. If he were to do the things he did in the past, the world would like nothing better than an excuse to flush it's toilet of his filth. That's what makes him safe. He knows this.

Our danger lies within... lurking in the dark recesses of this building (http://www.deviantart.com/view/1395403), plotting and planning to take away our freedoms. Compensating for his ego by exercising power over the masses.

SkinWalker

Luc Solar
03-12-2003, 05:11 AM
I just saw on the news that you Americans are SHOCKED and FURIOUS about the fact that the price of gas has gone SKY HIGH!

Did you now that I had to pay 80 (...85 $?) when I filled up my tank the other day! :swear:

That's 1,25 per litre! Now you Yankees are bitching about having to pay, what.. 0,30 per litre?! (I'd use "gallons", but I have no idea how much that is. The ratio is still the same so who cares.)

You pay 0,30 and I pay 1,25. That means you get more than FOUR gallons whereas I get ONE!

Think about that for a moment.

Think about that every time you feel like life sucks or is unfair in one way or another. Think about that when your gf dumps you after you got fired and noticed you have chlamydia.

And to those who are wondering what the hell this post has to do with the topic: Let me ask you this; would you prefer if I started a new thread about it, huh?!

Now if you excuse me I have to go and sell my DVD-player in order to get enough money to buy gas for my damn petrol wasting car so that I can get to work tomorrow and earn enough money for the gas it takes to get me back home. :mad:

BigTeddyPaul
03-12-2003, 05:20 AM
I remember we always used to take the bus (double stacker or something like that), the subway (I believe it is called the tube or something), or walk when I lived in Wales. Used to walk 2.2 kilometers to the nearest arcade to play Golden Axe one a week and then walk back. I miss being 7 and living with a castle no less than a mile from my house.

We were too poor to have a car but it didn't matter. School right around the corner, shops on almost every street, a tavern every 3rd house (JK about that one but where I lived there were a lot of pubs), and a mall just a bus stop away.

BigTeddyPaul