09-05-2004, 09:51 PM | #31 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: March 24, 2002
Posts: 10,215
|
Quote:
|
|
09-05-2004, 09:54 PM | #32 | |
Iron Throne Cult
Join Date: January 2, 2003
Location: Big Castle in the Sky
Age: 36
Posts: 4,835
|
Quote:
|
|
09-05-2004, 09:59 PM | #33 |
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
Join Date: September 15, 2002
Location: Kennewick, WA
Age: 52
Posts: 3,166
|
Bingo! You get the golden cookie!.............*cookie?*
__________________
|
09-05-2004, 10:39 PM | #34 | |
Registered Member
Iron Throne Cult
Join Date: August 27, 2004
Location: North Carolina
Age: 61
Posts: 4,888
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cerek the Calmth |
|
09-05-2004, 11:07 PM | #35 |
The Dreadnoks
Join Date: September 27, 2001
Location: Orlando, FL
Age: 61
Posts: 3,608
|
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.
__________________
The Lizzie Palmer Tribute Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. John F. Kennedy 35th President of The United States The Last Shot Honor The Fallen Jesus died for our sins, and American Soldiers died for our freedom. If you don't stand behind our Soldiers, please feel free to stand in front of them. |
09-05-2004, 11:43 PM | #36 |
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
Join Date: September 15, 2002
Location: Kennewick, WA
Age: 52
Posts: 3,166
|
Your still not listening! You will be sorry...
__________________
|
09-05-2004, 11:45 PM | #37 |
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
Join Date: September 15, 2002
Location: Kennewick, WA
Age: 52
Posts: 3,166
|
Sorry, running my little joke to far. Back on topic now...
__________________
|
09-05-2004, 11:51 PM | #38 |
Apophis
|
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?
__________________
http://cavestory.org PLAY THIS GAME. Seriously. http://xkcd.com/386/ http://www.xkcd.com/406/ My heart is like my coffee. Black, bitter, icy, and with a straw. |
09-06-2004, 08:44 AM | #39 | |
Registered Member
Iron Throne Cult
Join Date: August 27, 2004
Location: North Carolina
Age: 61
Posts: 4,888
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
Cerek the Calmth |
|
09-06-2004, 11:43 AM | #40 | |
Jack Burton
Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: Airstrip One
Age: 40
Posts: 5,571
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
[img]\"http://www.wheatsheaf.freeserve.co.uk/roastspurs.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> <br />Proud member of the Axis of Upheaval<br />Official Titterer of the Laughing Hyenas<br />Josiah Bartlet - the best President the US never had.<br />The 1st D in the D & D Show |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bread is dangerous..... | Hivetyrant | General Discussion | 1 | 06-07-2006 08:14 AM |
Hidden & Dangerous 2 scratched CD help... | cav_again | Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) | 2 | 10-31-2005 03:30 AM |
They're eating me alive! Alive I say! | Norin | Baldurs Gate & Tales of the Sword Coast | 10 | 12-21-2003 09:50 AM |
I Need Help ~ Hidden And Dangerous | Beaumanoir | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 9 | 10-27-2001 08:49 AM |
Your most dangerous spell? | RAISTLIN | Baldurs Gate II Archives | 18 | 02-09-2001 03:17 PM |