British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il (1 Viewer)

[jujuman13]

Well hell, it's only those damn Limeys!
Admittedly it was posted in a left wing newspaper.
Link

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

Interesting about Israel and Mexico polls.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well **** them we should have left them to rot under the ****ing hun. God damn English.

 

[talloulou]

I've known this ever since David Bowie came out with the "I'm Afraid of Americans" song. :mrgreen: Catchy tune.

 

[MSgt]

What does that tell you about Europe? Women subjugation, widesweeping oppression, religious terror, and the neglect of Muslim basic human rights are perfectly fine as long as it stabilizes the Middle East and give us our "peace." There only strength after unwittingly supporting Saddam and men who cling to violent Radicalism is to accuse those that fight it as equally dangerous. They weren't singing this tune when we crossed the ocean three times to protect their rights.

Considering Europe's long history of perfected genocides, colonialisms, and massive warfares, I don't pay too much attention to what they think. "Morality" left Europe on the Mayflower.

 

[talloulou]

What does that tell you about Europe? Women subjugation, widesweeping oppression, religious terror, and the neglect of Muslim basic human rights are perfectly fine as long as it stabilizes the Middle East and give us our "peace." There only strength after unwittingly supporting Saddam and men who cling to violent Radicalism is to accuse those that fight it as equally dangerous. They weren't singing this tune when we crossed the ocean three times to protect their rights.

Considering Europe's long history of perfected genocides, colonialisms, and massive warfares, I don't pay too much attention to what they think. "Morality" left Europe on the Mayflower.

Well in fairness we are more dangerous than Kim Jong whatever. We have more weapons, more power, more might, more influence on the world as a whole. Now if they said Bush was "crazier" than Kim Jong I'd roll my eyes. But Bush is more powerful than Kim Jong and he definitely has the potential to be more dangerous. If Kim Jong gets too nuts the US will have to take him down. If we needed to be taken down that's gonna be alot harder, NO?

 

[MSgt]

Well in fairness we are more dangerous than Kim Jong whatever. We have more weapons, more power, more might, more influence on the world as a whole. Now if they said Bush was "crazier" than Kim Jong I'd roll my eyes. But Bush is more powerful than Kim Jong and he definitely has the potential to be more dangerous. If Kim Jong gets too nuts the US will have to take him down. If we needed to be taken down that's gonna be alot harder, NO?

The difference between being "dangerous" and "powerful" is the will to use said power. If we wanted this world to shape up to our standards, we would simply have dropped nukes all over the world and save the lives of our troops that trapsed into battle against our enemies over the last 61 years - and no one could have done a thing. Do you think our European allies would have even cared? We do not go to war to bring the Bible and we do not go to war to enslave. That is called being "powerful," but not "dangerous."

 

[Kandahar]

The difference between being "dangerous" and "powerful" is the will to use said power. If we wanted this world to shape up to our standards, we would simply have dropped nukes all over the world and save the lives of our troops that trapsed into battle against our enemies over the last 61 years - and no one could have done a thing. Do you think our European allies would have even cared? We do not go to war to bring the Bible and we do not go to war to enslave. That is called being "powerful," but not "dangerous."

Someone can be dangerous without having an evil intent. I think George Bush is too politically neutered for it to happen, but suppose he decided Venezuela or Somalia or Zimbabwe or some other nasty-but-unimportant country was an immediate threat to us and needed to be invaded. That would certainly qualify as "dangerous," even if there was no sinister intent. Under different political circumstances, that might not be out of the realm of possibility.

I agree that sheer power alone means that George Bush has the ability to make the world much more dangerous than Kim Jong-il. In a worst case scenario, Kim Jong-il could maybe drop a nuke or two before swallowing a few nukes himself. Devastating, but the world would keep turning. George Bush, on the other hand, has the ability to create a new world order (in theory), and given his history of ignoring the most blatantly obvious facts, it would almost certainly be much more harmful than the current international system.

 

[Deegan]

I'm sure they do, those on the far left in Britain, make our leftist seem like Ann Coulter, lol.:lol:

They are obviously still frustrated that their temper tantrums in Britain have not worked, and their troops are still in Iraq, tough ****.

 

[jujuman13]

Partial quote by some idjit or other:-
(I don't pay too much attention to what they think. "Morality" left Europe on the Mayflower.)

It may have left England on the Mayflower, but it certainly NEVER ARRIVED on the American Mainland.
Sure as god made little chickens, there aint no morality here now.

US went to aid of UK in WWI and UK just finished paying it's monetary debt to the US this year, however, repayment of the debt in terms of lives will and can never be repaid, best that the UK can and does do is to stand by America as and when she asks for UK assistance.

US went to aid of UK in WWII, why?
Simple answer here, Japan attacked US without warning and without declaring war on US (sneaky buggers these Nips), for some reason which has never become apparent, 3 days after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, Germany's Adolph Hitler declared war on the US.

Now the UK was at that time engaged in WWII with Nazi ruled Germany, so it made common sense for the US to back up the UK with Military supplies as well as troops.
It was decided that the first imperative was that Nazi Germany had to be Militarily defeated first (Why?, I have no idea) by the allies.
So your perception of US going to assist UK in WWII is partially correct but not from the premise that (unspoken) you put forward.
US had tried to stay out of WWII as long as it could.
With Nazi ruled Germany declaring war on US, it no longer had the option of remaining neutral in that conflict.
I do hope this clears up any missunderstanding any of you folks may have.

 

[AcePylut]

That just shows how stupid the Guardian readers are.

Really, any idjit (love the term btw) that can read any statement by North Korea knows the idiocy of saying that the US is "more dangerous" than North Korea.

What country signed a aid-for-no-nuke development treaty in 1994 and ripped it up?

What country's leader continually babbles "if 'they' go to the security council, that's a declaration of war against us".

All that this "poll" shows is that the Guardian readers that voted US more dangerous than North Korea is that they are more ignorant of what happens beyond their neighborhood than the US is.

 

[MSgt]

Partial quote by some idjit or other:-
(I don't pay too much attention to what they think. "Morality" left Europe on the Mayflower.)

It may have left England on the Mayflower, but it certainly NEVER ARRIVED on the American Mainland.
Sure as god made little chickens, there aint no morality here now.

US went to aid of UK in WWI and UK just finished paying it's monetary debt to the US this year, however, repayment of the debt in terms of lives will and can never be repaid, best that the UK can and does do is to stand by America as and when she asks for UK assistance.

US went to aid of UK in WWII, why?
Simple answer here, Japan attacked US without warning and without declaring war on US (sneaky buggers these Nips), for some reason which has never become apparent, 3 days after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, Germany's Adolph Hitler declared war on the US.

Now the UK was at that time engaged in WWII with Nazi ruled Germany, so it made common sense for the US to back up the UK with Military supplies as well as troops.
It was decided that the first imperative was that Nazi Germany had to be Militarily defeated first (Why?, I have no idea) by the allies.
So your perception of US going to assist UK in WWII is partially correct but not from the premise that (unspoken) you put forward.
US had tried to stay out of WWII as long as it could.
With Nazi ruled Germany declaring war on US, it no longer had the option of remaining neutral in that conflict.
I do hope this clears up any missunderstanding any of you folks may have.

"Misunderstandings?" As explained to us by a card carrying member of the "Global Left?"

You dismiss the deeds, because they didn't happen fast enough? You cast critical remarks despite the result? You seek to damage the facts by producing insignificant time lines? Europe is lucky America chose to fight their continental civil wars at all while we fought our own tyranny in the Pacific during one of them.

Funny, don't you complain about Iraq as well? Perhaps we should just wait for Islamic Radicalism to grow so great that Europe needs us again (like Bosnia). Then you can find your comfortable seat at the critics table and declare that America chose to come into it too late. Of course....it's not about the millions of Muslims that now have a chance to achieve what you have....the exhoneration from helping your fellow man is lost in accusations of war for oil." Too weak.

By the way...."idjit" is your last childish remark.

 

[Gardener]

When Bush said "you're either with us or against us", he laid down a gauntlet, the likes of which was embraced by the left as much as the right. The British left has decided to be anti-Bush, and in doing so, has also decided to throw in its lot with Islamists. The wheels have definitely fallen off the cart when old Red Ken cuddles up to sheik qaradawi and all sorts of smug little people congratulate themselves as being right, proper "progressives" for supporting both.

Precious few people in this world have refused to take the bait Bush laid down. That it is possible to not support Bush but not be such a mindless reactionary that they don't have to support anything that stands against Bush just doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of too many. He laid down Manichaean world view and suddenly everybody takes a side, digs in their heels and stops thinking.

The British left is particularly clueless in this regard, and do little more than act as useful idiots for someting that is far, far worse than Bush.

 

[Volker]

That just shows how stupid the Guardian readers are.

This poll is not particularly representative for Guardian readers, the way I understand it.

All that this "poll" shows is that the Guardian readers that voted US more dangerous than North Korea is that they are more ignorant of what happens beyond their neighborhood than the US is.

No, this is not shown by this poll.

 

[Volker]

The British left is particularly clueless in this regard, and do little more than act as useful idiots for someting that is far, far worse than Bush.

If the British left has 75 % of the voters on their side meanwhile, it doesn't look good for Labour and the Tories in the next elections, I guess

 

[Gardener]

If the British left has 75 % of the voters on their side meanwhile, it doesn't look good for Labour and the Tories in the next elections, I guess

Is this your way of trying to tell me Sharia is comming soon?

 

[Volker]

Is this your way of trying to tell me Sharia is comming soon?

Not exactly, it is rather my way to tell you that 75 % of the British voters probably do not include left leaning people only.

Well, 75 % would be good in the future, I'm not sure if it's realistic with the Britons and their way to like traditions.