A report in this mornings Guardian states that British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il

Who do you consider to be the biggest threat today and why?

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1938434,00.html)

In my opinion, the biggest threat to world peace is the unjust distribution of goods and the exploitation of the economically weak by the economically powerful. Not the mere income difference enrages people but the way they are treated, which is far from fair and equal. The moment we have fair exchange and exploitation is replaced with good will, things will improve. If this happens at all, that is.

I read the article this morning, and I have to admit I did have a good laugh when I saw the title.

Frankly, my list of people who are a threat to the world is a rather long one, but both Bush and Kim are somewhere at the top, along with that other lovely fellow Ahmadinejad. Now which of the 3 is more a threat... when you're considering such a scale it really doesn't matter.

The biggest threat to world peace: the human race. Competition is in our blood, whether it's the outright aggression of testosterone or the intricate backstabbing of estrogen. (Note: this is NOT a male-female thing. It's more along the lines of what people with those hormones do. A guy with a lot of estrogen will favor the subtle approach, and a female with a lot of testosterone will favor the direct approach.) Humans have an innate need for conflict, and conflict is what we shall always have.

humans. Definately, we're all pretty evil.

It's not about evil, it's about aggression and competition. Evil just makes it easier.

Barnie.

I'll take 'loaded questions' for a thousand, Alex.

Bush, without a doubt, is more dangerous to world peace than Iran, North Korea, Venuzuela or Cuba.

Christopher Walken is quite clearly the greatest threat to world peace this world has known, or ever will. He has already taken the first step towards his ultimate goal. His eeeevil plan for world domination has already begun. http://www.walken2008.com/

It's not George Bush as he only has two years left to make mischief (not to mention the fact that more often than not it's unjustified incrimination that he recieves).

(not to mention the fact that more often than not it's unjustified incrimination that he recieves). You mean he didn't intentionally lie about Iraq having connections to Al-Qaida? (It can be proven he did by reading transcripts of his own speeches which are hosted on his own website) Or that he didn't actually lie to the entire world about WMD in Iraq to use it to perpetrate an unjust war with no plan for exit and no strategy for keeping the peace? (Too many members of the intelligence community have come out now for anyone to deny this one anymore.) I could go on, but I'm tired. The accusations against Bush aren't baseless.

IMO?? Bush and his war mongering administration...

In my opinion its the USA thats the biggest threat, not Bush alone. I mean over 50 percent of the country DID vote for him.....twice. And even if North Korea has nuclear weapons, the US is the only country who has actually used weapons like that on people.

@Rawgrim: True...but then again as I understand, the elections in which Bush won have been some of the dodgiest in the history of the US.

Besides, I didn't have nearly as many issues with the US administration when Clinton was in charge...

Edit: Typos...

Who is the biggest threat to world peace? The president of the most powerful country. Currently that is Bush. If Iran had the power that USA possess I would say Ahmedinejad. But they don't have enough power to attack and invade wherever they want yet. Besides my mom says Ahmedinejad is more handsome than ugly Bush. :lol: I agree with her too. If my country had the military power of USA then president of Turkey would be the greatest threat. :skeptic:

I mean over 50 percent of the country DID vote for him Not at all. Even the statement that "half of the people who voted, voted for him" is wrong. With the way the US electoral system works, you don't need a majority vote to win, you just need to win in certain key states. Which is how Bush won in 2000 (and only because one of those key states he considered as having won, Florida, he didn't win at all. Even the supreme court (most appointed by his father a decade before) admitted there had been a miscount, but they decided not to do anything about it)

The real answer is complicated and nobody is a big threat on his/her own. But if you just want a simple name, it is absolutely Bush.

Interestingly enough, Bush got a higher percentage of votes the second time around after the people had seen what he'd done. I guess it probably is just that his competition was even crappier...

I really think Ahmedinejad is probably the biggest threat to world peace as of now, quite simply because after listening to several interviews of him I've come to the conclusion that... he's crazy. Which is made even worse because he is indeed a very charismatic individual.

In the long term though, I don't think what anyone in power right now is going to have influence that will be notable on the scales of past uses of power.

I guess it probably is just that his competition was even crappier...Not necessarily. There is a substantial percentage (something like 15%) of Americans who always vote for the incumbent.

Good point Ziad. I didn`t think about that one. But still....he got elected twice though. No matter what kind of system is in use.

David Hasslehoff.

David Hasslehoff Why? He was my hero when I was a kid, Knight Rider was being shown here in 80s. Why do some people hate him? Don't hassle the Hoff.

Ahmedinejad isn't the biggest threat,just because his country tries to have nuclear weapons doesn't make him more dangerous...Israel and some other countries in Middle East already have them...But what's more important is how he uses his power...Unlike Bush he hasn't started invading countries and while i don't have much info on him,i can say that he's against Israel killing innocent people...

The most dangerous people on earth are the people who control US economy....

The US and Israel. This is because of their general existance. Just by being around, they give people around the world a "just" cause to rally against them and wage shadow wars.

However, if it weren't them, it would be other states, so it doesn't really matter anymore.

I guess it probably is just that his competition was even crappier One word: Kerry :shake:

Ahmedinejad isn't the biggest threat,just because his country tries to have nuclear weapons doesn't make him more dangerous...Israel and some other countries in Middle East already have them Oh yeah, add Ehud Olmert to my above little list. He's almost as mad as Ahmadinejad anyway (not as much I think - hard to compete with that one)

I really am surprised no one has suggested North Korea as an actual threat. Maybe it's because I think Kim Il Jong is scarier and more dangerous than Bush. Perhaps if we could follow Kim Il Jong's every political, but we can only speculate.

December 1941, probably later on the 7th, Admiral Yamamoto (I think that was his name) of Japan was quoted as saying "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve."

The biggest threat to world peace are the idiots who keep poking the US with a sharp stick and laughing their asses off starting from Bin Laden, going through Saddam Hussein, Al Zarkawi, this guy in Iran and Kim Jong Il. As long as nations or groups seek to provoke the wrath of the US, there will be no peace.

In other words the ROI should bend over for the US.

As long as nations or groups seek to provoke the wrath of the US, there will be no peace. So you say don't anger daddy and be a good child. Maybe US is provoking the wrath of others?

Of course not, they are only looking out for the good of the world. They invade selflessly bear the costs.

Peter Hain should ask Bush to help out on the next 12th July, ie bomb Belfast to save us from the Orange March :D

So you say don't anger daddy and be a good child. Maybe US is provoking the wrath of others?Who hijacked planes and flew them into the WTC on 9/11? These other nations also seek to humiliate the US publicly and don't support any campaign to eliminate terrorist organizations continue to provoke them.

a countryless terrorist organisation hijacked the planes. not iraq or afghanistan.

with its current foreign politics I would say US is the biggest threat to world peace.

the whole your either with us or against us policy a long with constantly provoking other nation by fighting unjust wars and not punishing its own war-criminals, does nothing but damage the US image and provoke people around the world.
the picture you get of US today is a self-centeret bully, who think he can justify anything through strenght of arms and threats.

Hopefully you guys and girls over there will elect a smarter leader next time :)

Gnarf - As we know Iraq had nothing to do with 11 September, however the only building that will be completed on time will be the largest embassy ever - a super hotel for Americans, while Iraqis still don't have enough electricty or clean drinking water.

the whole your either with us or against us policy a long with constantly provoking other nation by fighting unjust wars and not punishing its own war-criminals, does nothing but damage the US image and provoke people around the world.
You know what Blind Guardian says about US in Battalions of Fear: "Be by my side or you have to die."

The ones with the biggest guns are the biggest threat to world peace. Come on, if you had a massive gun, you'd use it too!

I don't think Kim Jong Il is taken as much of a threat because he is just this short crazy guy who wears platform shoes and puffs his hair up to make himself look taller. He can barely feed his people, barely keep them occupied in the workforce due to extreme shortages of materials to work with. He is just this big joke. He has just got that small dog syndrome thing. His bark is worse than his bite.

The opposite can be said for the US government, regardless if it is democrat or republican, as they are pretty much the same in the end. The democrat party is rightwing yet compared to the republican party its leftwing because the republican party is so far right that its almost fascist. No matter who they have running the place, they will be a threat to world peace because they can pretty much do anything they please. If the UN says "Hey, give us good evidence for you to invade Iraq", the US just goes ahead and ignores the UN and does as it pleases. However, because it's the "land of the free" *cough-yeah right-cough*, it can and will and does get away with doing anything it feels like doing.

I can't take Kim Jong Il seriously ever since Rove "interviewed" him a few weeks ago, and he kept wanting to do crazy things so he could get on the "What the ?!" segment.

Bottom line, you've got a big pitbull sleaping peacefully in his yard. Some idiot pokes him with a sharp stick, he's going to be pissed off, and come out snapping and growling. The more some nations keep taunting them, the more they will continue striking out. If the rest of the world will just learn when to lay low and let things simmer down, then we may have a chance at world peace for a brief while.

The only two nations that taunted the US were Germany in WW1, which lead to the US awakening from its isolationist period, and then the Japanese in WW2 with Pearl Harbour. Every other 'provocation' has been the US interfering in other peoples affairs, sticking their noses where they don't belong.

and then the Japanese in WW2 with Pearl Harbour Which only happened after Roosevelt goated the Japanese into attacking America by cutting off their oil supply. FDR wanted the Japanese to attack so he'd have an excuse for entering World War II to deflect attention from the failure of his "New Deal" policy.

If America had remained isolationist in 1917, it would have benefited themselves first of all - and Europe second. World War I would probably have ended in a settlement, Germany wouldn't have been humiliated in Versailles, which means Hitler wouldn't have had a political platform and would have died in obscurity. Plus, the Germans wouldn't have had time or reason to dig up Lenin and send him to Russia to start the Bolchevick revolution.

This may be far-fetched, but if America had not entered WWI, there's every chance that Lenin, Stalin and Hitler had never risen to power, and that WWII wouldn't have happened. Of course Woodrow Wilson didn't know this in 1917 - and that's the point!!

Back on topic: The greatest threat to the human race is politics. Without political demagoguery, people have enough sense not to go to war.

I totally agree with you there, Montresor. America has started so many useless wars and interfered in so many useless wars too. The policy of its government is the greatest threat to world peace.

Bottom line, you've got a big pitbull sleaping peacefully in his yard. Some idiot pokes him with a sharp stick, You mean that Chile electing a socialist is like threatening the US? Still the Chileans got what they deserved - widespread rape and torture.

If the rest of the world will just learn when to lay low and let things simmer down, then we may have a chance at world peace for a brief while. No wonder the US is not exactly popular, even with its allies.

I think Felinoid, Iwelyk, and Dengo are the most intelligent posters here so far.

What is the most dangerous factor to world peace today? Human evil (have to side with evil on this one Fel). Even if we weren't competitive, we would still be evil and that inevitably leads to violent conflicts of some kind. If we were only competitive and not evil, however, violent conflicts would not be guaranteed, only likely.

What one person is the greaterst threat to world peace today? Well, that's the most unstable person with the most power. I think that puts it somewhere between the CEOs of Wal-Mart, Bill Gates, and Kim Jong-il.

This may be far-fetched, but if America had not entered WWI, there's every chance that Lenin, Stalin and Hitler had never risen to power, Then US did a good thing by rising Lenin to power.

Bottom line, you've got a big pitbull sleaping peacefully in his yard. Some idiot pokes him with a sharp stick, he's going to be pissed off, and come out snapping and growling. The more some nations keep taunting them, the more they will continue striking out. If the rest of the world will just learn when to lay low and let things simmer down, then we may have a chance at world peace for a brief while. Maybe you didn't intended to do so, but it is a good simile. US is like a pitbull. Very aggresive and a total damage to everybody.

Still the Chileans got what they deserved - widespread rape and torture.Yes, those were all Americans raping and torturing the Chileans... no wait, it was Chileans raping and torturing other Chileans... must have been some US mind-control device then...

This may be far-fetched, but if America had not entered WWI, there's every chance that Lenin, Stalin and Hitler had never risen to powerAbsolutely, if the US hadn't entered WWI then the French and English wouldn't have been forced to humiliate the Germans (US mind control device again) leading to WWII. And Europe would have remained the model of peace on earth for the rest of the 20th C it was in the 19th C, the 18th C, the 17th C, the 16th C...

Not really to defend the US of course, but it's not like we're talking about some perfect world that the US came in and despoiled now, are we?

I think Felinoid, Iwelyk, and Dengo are the most intelligent posters here so far.

What is the most dangerous factor to world peace today? Human evil (have to side with evil on this one Fel). Even if we weren't competitive, we would still be evil and that inevitably leads to violent conflicts of some kind. If we were only competitive and not evil, however, violent conflicts would not be guaranteed, only likely.

What one person is the greaterst threat to world peace today? Well, that's the most unstable person with the most power. I think that puts it somewhere between the CEOs of Wal-Mart, Bill Gates, and Kim Jong-il.I think it's a tautology to say that humans are responsible for (human) world peace. What else would threaten it? Even if you've got a natural disaster or an outbreak of avian flu, it doesn't mean that nations will go to war because the decision to maintain peace rests solely on humans.

Without humans world peace as we speak of it wouldn't exist, since there would be no nations or governments or civilization to speak of. When you say that humans are the greatest threat to world peace, you also imply that world peace -- a human construct -- can be improved by getting rid of humans.

It's true in a very, very general sense. It's also very, very unuseful in talking about, um, world peace.

Absolutely, if the US hadn't entered WWI then the French and English wouldn't have been forced to humiliate the Germans (US mind control device again) leading to WWII. And Europe would have remained the model of peace on earth for the rest of the 20th C it was in the 19th C, the 18th C, the 17th C, the 16th C...

Not really to defend the US of course, but it's not like we're talking about some perfect world that the US came in and despoiled now, are we? You've said it. To say that solely (or even primarily) the US can be blamed for all the ickiness in the world is, in my mind, an easy and terrible overstatement.

Bion, you know damn well that I didn't say the Americans raped and tortured the Chileans. However the US was happy with Pinochet in charge (they did help him overthrow Chiles democratically elected leader after all).

I think we need to achieve world peace first. Only then we can talk about who's going do destroy it.

I agree US foreign policy has been reprehensible lots of times (Chile, Cambodia, East Timor, etc etc etc). And not just militarily, also economically, like investors so interested in stability and monetary return that they overlook the deeply problematic behavior of those they're dealing with.

But this is, I think, pretty different from a charge that the US had orchestrated the chaos in the first place. For example, politicians of Central and South America, both left and right, often use the US as a bogeyman for all sorts of domestic problems (and indeed, given that the US is a huge economic and political force there, its not to hard to find examples of US meddling). But this often becomes a way to hide their own responsibilities: many Central and South American countries maintain a huge, patrician class disparity between the wealthy and poor, often along racial lines, with the decendants of plantation owning conquistadors on top and the decendants of Native Americans on the bottom. This affected all levels of culture, from notorious cronyism in business culture to soap operas where all the actors have European features. Roads in Venezuela, for example, were built from the coast into the interior without worrying about connecting the interior because the aim wasn't to "settle" Venezuela, integrating with the local population, but rather to exploit natural resources, get them to the coast and ship them to Spain asap...

So this is all kinda off topic, but just to say that structural, economic, political, etc etc problems are usually present in countries before the US steps in to muck things up further...

So this is all kinda off topic, but just to say that structural, economic, political, etc etc problems are usually present in countries before the US steps in to muck things up further... There are no Utopian societies present on the planet. All have their domestic conflicts. I dont quite understand how this is supposed to serve as an excuse for the US installing and/or supporting terror regimes. Iraq, Iran, Israel (which once again saw need to kill women and children - perhaps things were calming down too much?)

Considering the consequences for countless lifes, the US being perceived as a threat should come as no surprise.

So who is guilty? Those who oppress their populations or those who provide said oppressors with financial support? Who is the killer? The man who pulled the trigger or the peson who gave the gun to the trigger puller?

Due to the United States' power and influence there's very little that happens that the States didn't have a hand in. So many things can be traced back to them but more often than not they're not the active party involved.

Gnaff has the right idea about not pissing off the big guy. Some country will do something that affects the States in a negative manner, the States does something to prevent the negative actions from taking place. Basically the pattern is something along the lines of... Country A: Push -> USA: Shove -> Country A: Shove -> USA: Shove -> Country A: Punch -> USA: Bang! You can't expect to piss off America and get away with it. They are the top dog or at least one of the major super-powers that dwarves so many countries it's insane.

The dog analogy is also pretty accurate. You'd have to be asking for trouble to poke it with a stick. You might as well jump off a cliff and then act surprised when you hit the bottom. The question is, who is at fault? The States does just as any other country would in their situation: do their best to provide the best for their country.

As for who is the greatest threat? Depends entirely on what you mean by world peace. Because I doubt the world has EVER been at peace. There's always a war going on somewhere. If you mean world peace as in a lack of WORLD wars (World War I & II for example) I'd dare say it's impossible to tell. World wars only occur when one super-power attacks another super-power and they each drag their respective allies into it.

At the moment I see the next world war, if there is one, between China and the States when oil runs out, but that is only if things continue as they are and there are no technological advancements that will reduce the value of oil.

So who is guilty? Those who oppress their populations or those who provide said oppressors with financial support? Who is the killer? The man who pulled the trigger or the peson who gave the gun to the trigger puller?Despite the way you're presenting it, it is not a binary choice; everyone you mention is guilty. They're all 'the killer'.

This may be far-fetched, but if America had not entered WWI, there's every chance that Lenin, Stalin and Hitler had never risen to power, and that WWII wouldn't have happened. Of course Woodrow Wilson didn't know this in 1917 - and that's the point!! The Russian revolution begun in march a month before the United States entered the war so they would not have hindered the developments in Russia. The Russian revolution was for some nations such as Finland, Poland and the baltic states a good thing, they gained independence from the empire which had tried to russianize them for some time.

Also the US intervention might very well have hindered a total destruction of the European infrastructure and even further expansion of the Russian revolution. I doubt that the European states would have come to a settlement, there was way too much hate and bad blood between France and Germany. Germany had humiliated France in the Franco-Preussian war and France was not about to give in without a proper revenge. Germany was isolated from the world trade anyway by Britain and France and would have been worn out eventually and then the German army might not have been able to stop the communist uprisings that emerged after the war.

Which only happened after Roosevelt goated the Japanese into attacking America by cutting off their oil supply. FDR wanted the Japanese to attack so he'd have an excuse for entering World War II to deflect attention from the failure of his "New Deal" policy. I think that proclaiming the US to have been the provoking side in the Japanese entrance into WWII is largely inaccurate. The United States had every right to be concerned about the expansionist policies of Japan in the early stages of WWII. The Sino-Japanese war and the occupation of French Indochina were more than enough to to signal the expansionist intentions of the Japanese government. There was little choice but to implement sanctions in order to hinder the Japanese expansions.

[ November 10, 2006, 02:14: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

The US is the biggest threat because it has to interfere with everything. Take a look at this. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6135066.stm)

Seriously both Clintons caused enough trouble the first time round.

You've said it. To say that solely (or even primarily) the US can be blamed for all the ickiness in the world is, in my mind, an easy and terrible overstatement. I don't believe I've said that. But I will say - and maintain - that America is not serving her own interests, and most probably not those of the locals, by interfering in other peoples' conflicts.

Your founding fathers got it right: Friendly relations with all, permanent alliances with none, and don't interfere in the ancient strifes of Europe and Asia. America should listen more to Paine, Jefferson and Franklin, and less to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The Russian revolution begun in march a month before the United States entered the war The Bolchevick revolution, known as the October revolution, took place in November 1917. It ran opposite to the March revolution.

Also the US intervention might very well have hindered a total destruction of the European infrastructure and even further expansion of the Russian revolution. A settled peace in early 1917, which both the Germans and the English and French were considering, would have saved us from such a scenario. With America's entry into the war, the Western allies eyed the opportunity to force Germany to an unconditional surrender.

Plus, the worst outcome of America's entry into WWI was that later American administrations came to see it as legitimate, and even (in their own demagoguery) as a duty, to enter foreign conflicts in defense of one or the other side, for whichever "humanitarian" reason they could think up.

Without America babysitting and nursing us, maybe we would have to finally grow up and act our age. Or blow ourselves up, but that would hardly be America's problem!

[ November 10, 2006, 17:45: Message edited by: Montresor ]

The Bolchevick revolution, known as the October revolution, took place in November 1917. It ran opposite to the March revolution. The point being that the revolution was allready well underway and american entry to the war did not influence the future outcome, unless you think that the war would have ended before November and the Central Powers and Entente would have aided Russia against the communist threat together, both accounts I find seriously doubtful.

A settled peace in early 1917, which both the Germans and the English and French were considering, would have saved us from such a scenario. I have difficulties to fathom a mutually satisfying peace solution in 1917 and I doubt there was enough political will to make much concessions on either side. In any case all of this is quite worthless speculation since it's practically impossible to predict an alternative ending and to know what it would have led to today.