Who's the most dangerous man alive?

<font color=plum>Impossible to answer.

Professional assasins rarely reveal their real identity - even to clients. They would use codenames and middle men to maintain several degrees of seperation.

Every major city in the U.S. has a proliferation of gang members who will kill you for looking at them the wrong way (literally). That's pretty dangerous in itself, but then consider these gang members usually follow a leader that had to earn the respect (and fear) of the gang members because he is even more ruthless and deadly than they are. These guys don't have to do anytning more than point at somebody and their "homeboys" will happily blow them away.

Then there is the Mob or Mafia. Even more dangerous than gang members because these fellows have been at it a lot longer and - as their name suggests - they are "Organized" about their crime. Crossing a mafia boss for any reason is an automatic death sentence - one that is usually carried out in a very sadistic and brutal fashion. As with gang members, mafia bosses can literally have somebody killed with a snap of their fingers.

Then there are the Columbian drug lords and their private armies. These fellows make HUGE money off the drugs they sell and they protect their way of life ruthlessly.

Then, on the side of the "good guys", you have military specialists that are trained to infiltrate an enemy zone and take out a target (or targets) and get back out - all with little or no backup. They get the best and most intense training available along with access to some heavy duty artillery.

In thier own ways, every one of these men would be extremely dangerous if you were their target - so it is impossible to narrow it down to just one.</font>

Cerek is just trying to be nice and doesn't want to point fingers.

I think we all know, that I, Ronn_Bman, am the most dangerous man alive.

[ 09-04-2004, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

You mean there really are assassins? There I was, thinking that it was all just a movie thing. How can so many people seriously want someone dead (and are willing to pay a fee) that an assassin can make a living?

[ 09-04-2004, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Assassin ]

A certain individual known only as Morpheus.

Yah. Only after ya eat BEANS! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

I thought Morpheus was a P2P Software program.. wow, Morpheus turned into an actual person? Whoa.... ;)

[ 09-05-2004, 06:04 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

Of course there are. Why wouldn't this kinda thing happen? Remember WW1 and the attempted assasination of the pope?

Of course there are. Why wouldn't this kinda thing happen? Remember WW1 and the attempted assasination of the pope? </font>[/QUOTE]I always thought assassinations were carried out by people who have the motve and are suddenly placed in a situation where they can actually do the deed.

[ 09-05-2004, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: Assassin ]

Or the actual assassination of that Franz Ferdinand guy that supposedly started WWI...

... but I'd say the most dangerous man in the world, at any given time, is the President of the United States.

Yah. Only after ya eat BEANS! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Pinto Beans, good for your heart.... [img]smile.gif[/img]

I think we all know who the most dangerous person alive is.... [img]graemlins/choc.gif[/img] :D

I thought Morpheus was a P2P Software program.. wow, Morpheus turned into an actual person? Whoa.... ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, well the devil's biggest trick was convincing people he doesn't exist [img]smile.gif[/img]

The guy with the username assasin didn't beleive in assasins...

Sorry I found that Ironic [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color=lime>My one year old named, Seth. ;) </font>

Most professional assassins nowadays just work for the military; there aren't very many "freelance" or "mercenary" assassins out there. So, Assassin, you were correct in one respect.

Well there are dangerous men. Those who kill for the Mafia and so on. Actually everyone can be the most dangerous man alive. It depends on the situation. If you were caught by a thief he could be MDMA (most dangeours man alive) at the moment.

You mean the most dangerous man alive is Keyser Söze? :D

[ 09-05-2004, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: dplax ]

George W. :D

Oh please, I'd find him more dangerous if he could actually pronounce words right [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Who knows who the most dangerous man alive is? Not someone any person with a regular daily life would know.

Me. One sound from me can send a man into hiding. ;)

I agree with this, mostly because I agree with Aleph... Few men have the chance to do as much damage at any given moment than the US President. They might not be actively dangerous, but they have the potential to do a hell of a lot of damage.

Man? Or women? [img]tongue.gif[/img] There is nothing quite as powerful as a women to a man.

Well yeah, when I hear you farting, I'll damn well hide from the smell. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 09-05-2004, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Vaskez ]

I dunno man... I guess for me it's a toss-up between George Bush and the Pillsbury Dough boy.

<font color=lime>You guys are not reading me here. My son, Seth, is the most dangerous. I'm telling you from experience here, ok? </font>

<font color=lime> [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] Good one... [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] </font>

[ 09-05-2004, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: LordKathen ]

Oh ok, no one is allowed to post in this thread any more since LK has the definitive answer to the question posed. Please move onto another topic. [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

<font color=lime>Thank you kind sir.
You people can move on now, the show is over... :D </font>

I have seen documented evidence that Stay Puft is much more dangerous :D

Well yeah, when I hear you farting, I'll damn well hide from the smell. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Use a gas mask next time. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

You don't say? I take it he's like Stewie from Family Guy that has a gun hidden in his sandwich? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color=lime>Bingo! You get the golden cookie!.............*cookie?* :rolleyes: </font>

I agree with this, mostly because I agree with Aleph... Few men have the chance to do as much damage at any given moment than the US President. They might not be actively dangerous, but they have the potential to do a hell of a lot of damage.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>Which is why our government system has a series of "checks and balances" to prevent that from happening - or to at least control it. The President can NOT go to war without the approval of Congress. That's one thing all the Bush-Bashers need to keep in mind - is that Congress allowed him to invade Iraq. Now, I doubt that would have happened if the WTC attacks had never occurred. So - despite the bullying, "cowboy" image George W. has been painted with - chances are that he would NOT have recieved the "OK" from Congress to go after Saddam Hussein if we had not had such a heinous and unprovoked attack to use as leverage.

Whether you agree with George W. Bush and the War in Iraq or not - there are two important factors to keep in mind.

1) The invasion of Iraq could not have taken place without the approval from the Senate and Congress.
2) As bad as the situation is right now, it could have been a heckuva lot worse.

You say that the President of the U.S. has the potential to do the most damage. Maybe, maybe not. But show me an actual example of ANY President exercising this "potential" to the fullest extent. The U.S. Army could have just LEVELED every town in Iraq from the air, but we didn't...because we wanted to keep civilian casualties down to a minimum. We did our absolute best to ONLY attack military targets and enemies. So even though Bush may have the "potential" to cause a lot of damage, he showed that - even in a war - he is willing to use only the amount of force deemed necessary to accomplish the objective.

Since we've now moved to what I felt was the real intention of this thread from the beginning, here are my actual candidates for "most dangerous man alive".

1) Osama Bin Laden - Without a doubt. He has proven that he is willing to kill thousands of innocent civilians in order to "strike" at whoever he considers to be his enemy. To Osama bin Laden, ANY American is a legitimate target - and civilians are far more preferable, since they have no capability to fight back. I'm sure someone else could provide better figures, but between the attacks on military bases, the U.S.S. Cole, and WTC - Osama is responsible for roughly 5,000 - 7,000 American casualties. Other countries may feel it is just "America's problem" - but how can they be sure Osama won't decide THEIR countrymen are next on his list. For sheer, ruthless, cold-blooded murder of innocents...few others can top Osama bin Laden.

2) Kim (leader of North Korea) - Here is another "world-threat wannabe" dictator. The problem is that Kim actually has nuclear capabilities AND could strike the U.S. and/or China if the mood struck him too. And UNLIKE the President of the United States, Kim has NOBODY he has to answer to that could prevent him from launching a nuclear attack. He has threatened to "accidentally" hit the U.S. with nuclear missiles several times in the past. In each case, what he really wanted was a government "loan" (which he had no intention of repaying) of several million dollars. Clinton complied, but Bush balked. And that's when Kim started rattling his nuclear saber. The only problem is, you never know when this lunatic might actually decide to show the U.S. he isn't bluffing. So he could launch a strike against the U.S. We would retaliate - and China would have to decide who it was going to side with. If it chooses to back North Korea, we could "potentially" have WWIII on our hands. Bush may have the potential to do a lot of damage - but he (and any other U.S. President) is very UN-likely to take any action that would actually lead to a global nuclear war.

3) China. Don't know who the current leader is, but he has JUST as much "potential" as the U.S. President does. And again, like North Korea, there are NO "checks and balances" in the Chinese Government. NOBODY in those countries DARES "question" the decisions of their leader. And China is moving ever closer to becoming a "superpower". So there is every bit as much "potential" for the leader of China to be as dangerous (and perhaps even moreso) than the President of the U.S.</font>

Excellent post Cerek.

I would throw into the mix Aslan Maskhadov, he is the Chechen Rebel leader that has invoked the latest wave of terror in Russia. He also has nobody to check with, and his loyalist have already proven they are ready and willing. I'm unsure of their funding, but they have enough seized Russian hardware to remain a threat, and the potential is not yet fully understood.

<font color=lime>Your still not listening! You will be sorry... :( </font>

<font color=lime>Sorry, running my little joke to far. Back on topic now... :D </font>

Cerek, there are things that a president can do besides going to war. And I wasn't talking about George W. The POTUS at any given time is arguably the most powerful person alive, right? If they're that powerful, are they not also dangerous?

<font color=plum>I realize you were talking about the position rather than the person, <font color=white>Illumina</font>. I should have "lightened" my tone and left out the term "Bush-bashers". My apologies for that.

The point I was making is that George W. (more than any other recent President) has been classified as being "gung ho for war". For the sake of this argument, we will assume that is a correct assessment. Even though Bush may have been "chomping at the bit" to invade Iraq, he STILL had to convince Congress and the Senate to go along with the plan.

I would agree that the POTUS is arguably the most powerful person alive - with the ability to literally affect the global economy and the daily lives of people in other countries. I do not agree, though, that this makes the POTUS the most dangerous man also. Mainly because of the system of checks and balances the POTUS has to face. IF the President ever DID decide to unleash the full potential of his job and wreak world-wide havoc, he would be thrown out of office as quickly as possible and perhaps even find himself imprisoned.

George W. Bush has come out and basically said "You're either with me or against me" - and that is a frightening prospect, since other countries may be our friends even though they oppose some of the Presidents policies. Still, even that diplomatic nightmare did little more than polarize our former allies against Bush - but not the American people in general. It also led to a HUGE drop in Bush's popularity and the very real possibility that he will not be in office after January of next year.

Yes, I realize Bush could have tried to go farther and inflict economic sanctions against our former allies in order to weaken their economy and government. But if Bush HAD pursued such policies, his popularity would have dropped even faster and the general public would have been crying out for his impeachment.

That's why I say the POTUS may be the most powerful position available, but it is not necessarily the most dangerous. Richard M.Nixon used his power for blatantly criminal activities - and he got booted out of the White House for it. And that was just for action taken against the opposing political party! Had it been against another country, the reaction would have been the same (and perhaps even swifter), since the ramifications of his actions would have been far more widespread.

That's why I say Osama, Kim, and the head of China's government are FAR more dangerous...because of the 3....China is the ONLY one that seems the least bit worried about how other countries will view their actions. Yet they have a population large enough to assemble one of the most massive armies ever seen. They are more or less "playing by the rules" right now...but I would say the potential for global danger is FAR GREATER with these 3 men. Because - UNLIKE the POTUS - THEY don't have anybody they have to answer to should the mood strike them to unleash the full potential THEY have for devastation.

Of course, I'm limiting my definition of "dangerous" to mean conflict, war and destruction. You indicated there were "other things" the POTUS could do that would also fit the definition of "dangerous". What type of things were you thinking of?</font>

Obviously US history isn't my strong point but I do believe that Presidents CAN go to war without the approval of the Congress.

Basically leaders will do whatever they think they can get away with. Bush consulted Congress because he was sure of their support on this occasion.

But didn't Truman go to war in Korea without approval of Congress? He got a UN resolution to support action against North Korea, bypassing Congress. Only when he needed more troops because the war was going badly did he get Congressional support.

Lincoln commenced the American Civil War whilst congress was in recess.

The original Gulf War and the war in Kosovo were both "undeclared" wars, started without Congressional permission.

In fact the President can go to war for 60 days without permission.