[Cerek]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: 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?

I realize you were talking about the position rather than the person, Illumina. 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?