[Cerek]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: quote: Originally posted by Animal: George W.

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.[/QUOTE]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.