what would you call the Japanese internment?

killing is killing, and it's terrible. but if you look in the conditions in Iraq before we got involved, it's worse now. Hussein committed strategic executions; the U.S. has destroyed the country's entire infrastructure for decades through two wars and economic sanctions. i never called Hussein a terrorist myself, but i wouldn't be opposed to the statement. he was a dictator, and it's good that he's been removed from power. but if that's the real reason the U.S. got involved, we would have ousted him in the early 90s. of course, in the 90s people might have remembered that it was the U.S. government who helped put Hussein in power in the first place.



and the Soviets had chimps operating space probes. besides that, piloting a jet fighter requires a vastly different kind of intelligence than leading a nation. have you ever listened to Bush speak? if the man doesn't grasp basic grammar, i'm pretty sure the subtleties of statecraft elude him.



just give me the chance.



but at least they don't claim to be unbiased. they claim to be telling the side of the story that doesn't make it to the mainstream news (actually, that's the sole purpose of FAIR). it's naive to think bias can be escaped, but at least they don't lie about their purpose (funny how the mainstream news parallels the war in iraq there).

Why say George bush is dangerous? He is your employee!!

There is only one leader listed who is not under the authority of his people.

Sorry for this one, but i feel the need to give my 2 cents on this discussion.

First of all, bad mouthing the very people who give you the right to bad mouth them...umm don't you think that could be construed as being bad taste? Comparing the U.S military to genocidal tyrants is going just a bit far don't you think? We've (yes, active duty) made some mistakes through the years but GENOCIDAL?? i think not. Dystopic mentions the japanese internment camps of WWII. Well, in hindsight these were probably a mistake but Genocidal?? C'mon now. I have to wonder how many of you that post such diatribes have ever been overseas, to compare life over there with what you so brazenly take advantage of in the good ol US of A? I've been to quite a few foriegn countries( about 27 last time i counted) and have yet to find one where life is as good as here.

Now onto the original topic" 5 most dangerous men on the planet"

Well, if we're talking potential, then of course President Bush would be #1. After all, he is in command of the most powerful military in the world, but likelihood? Well, let's think about this, if you controled the U.S. Military and wanted to cause numerous deaths would we be taking the thumping in Iraq that so many of you think we are? We just would have leveled the place and been done with it.

Vladimir Putin? #2 read above, they were close to us in military might.

Osama and Kim Il Jong- 2 of a kind, nutcases and dangerous.

Why Olmert was included i haven't a clue, seems your forgetting all that Israel has given up to the palestinians to try and secure peace. You also seem to be forgetting all the palenstinians that have blown themselves up( along with quite a few israeli's). That makes them kinda dangerous in my humble opinion.

How about Amedenjihad. He has stated publicly that he intends to wipe Isreal off the map. Can the US be far behind if he suceeds?

The problem with you America Haters out there is that you are gulliable and naive. You absorb what the leftists tell you and don't bother to check it out for yourselves. Have we made mistakes in the past? Of course we have. Will we make mistakes in the Future? You betcha. But this country remains the best place to live in terms of freedom on the planet. And that is my 2 cents.

In defence of the 'leftists' might i remind you of the saying "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". This dousn't just apply to overseas, it applies to your own government too.

'vigilance' also includes the act of pointing out percieved problems, so weather you agree or not, a diverse and active range of opinions serve to help us maintain our eternal vigilance.

edit; my last post is a little corny sorry, but there is a good point in there somewhare... i hope?

Our elected officials DON'T give us our rights. We retain them when we create our government. Or are you not from the US and so your constitution is different?

No arguement there, perhaps my text was a little convoluted. What I was meaning to say was that there are many people in this country(USA) trying to say how we should have a different kind of government, like Europe,without ever having lived under that form of government. But dissent, well that's one of the things that makes this country so great, we do have the ability to dissent.



they sure don't, but then I wasn't refering to the politicians. I was meaning the Military. I know it's everyone's right to bad mouth whomever they choose to but I just think it's in bad taste to sit back in your comfortable homes and bad mouth the men and women who are out on the front lines protecting your right to bad mouth them. But then again, I'm just a little biased seeing as how i've been on active duty for about 17 years.

Usually society is pretty good at respecting the men and women of military forces. I think we learnt that lesson load and clear as a result of the Vietnam war.

As many places as you can go and be cheered for bagging the government, you won't find many places at all where you will be cheered for bagging military personel.

I think I'm going to puke all over my keyboard over that one. I just love how Israel always comes off as the 'victim' in all of this. First off, just by your saying "all that Israel has given up to the Palestinians"... what have they given up? Was the land not Palestinian land prior to Israel being 'placed' on the map after WWII? Doesn't Israel have checkpoints and walls and gun turrets and roving patrols harassing citizens as they try to go about their daily lives.
Some of you Israel defenders need to check out the documentary "The Other Zionists". I think it will open your eyes as to what really goes on in the 'land of deception' known as Israel. Oh, and before anyone mutters anything related to "more conspiracy talk", the documentary was made by Jews who live in Israel and do not agree with what Zionists are doing.

Keep in mind - he won by electoral college votes. He lost the popular vote both times. I'm generally Republican but it is a valid argument that he is not really the people's representitive.



No, not really. There are historic parallels.

Both Nazi Germany and Venezuela were in economic disarray. Both leaders (Hitler & Chavez) brought economic prosperity and a sense of national pride, at the price of a socialistic government and by uniting the people against a manufactured threat. In Hitler's case the threat was the Jews. Chavez appears to be using us as his threat.

Be careful glorifing Chavez.







Taken together, these quotes express why I think these discussions are so important. It is our responsibilty to find solutions and vote for who we think can do the job. If we fail to do that we have failed our country and our heritage. Corny, but I think it is true.



A direct response to a clear and present danger.

Here is a danger about looking at our history. Try to remember the context of the events - The US had been directly attacked by a nation who was actively trying to destroy us. As a result, they confined an ethnic group that they felt posed a threat to national security.

Was it right? Probably not, but who knows? Maybe they did prevent a spy.

Where there WMDs in Iraq? Who knows, but the only way to have been sure would have been to let Saddam use them. I can't believe that would have been a good idea.

The context of historical events is critical. Has this country made mistakes? Sure. But many, if not most, of the events that we view as mistakes were made with the best intentions and with the best information available at the time. Hindsight gives us a viewpoint that is not available during the events themselves.

i think i give all-due respect to service men and women. my criticisms here, however personal some armed forces personnel might take them, are aimed at the institution and powers that command it. i think the military does plenty of good things. the U.S. navy was the first organization to provide aid after the tsunami in southeast asia, for example, and that's certainly a very lonely gold star on GWB's report card. but it hardly outweighs the atrocity. hell, put the deaths of thousands of foreign bystanders aside. i lived with two marines who were deployed when we first started this war. they were f*cked up when they came back. it's a crime against our own people to send them to hell so haphazardly.



true, knowledge gives us new perspective, but from whence come our ethics? incarcerating an entire ethnic group and robbing them of their private property to possibly prevent a few spies is a joke. what made anyone think the japanese couldn't and wouldn't make a spy out of a white american? calling it outright genocide wasn't founded, i admit. but i also feel the need to point out, when we commit a deplorable act, we like to call it a mistake. when foreign powers do it, it's a crime against humanity, or a war crime. no, i don't see any hypocrisy there, none at all.

i suppose i might not be so passionate if our culture were different. if from an early age i'd been taught that we'll do anything to survive, that we don't hold up certain altruistic ideals, that it's always got to be eat or be eaten, then i might not feel so disappointed. but we preach freedom, fraternity, the right to pursue happiness, etc. i find that most americans put our cultural ideals to practice on a small and intimate scale, but purposely ignore facts and patterns that show our leaders' actions plainly contradict those ideals we so cherish.

Actually, it was British land, ceded at the end of WWI. Umm, the Israeli's didn't steal anything, they bought and paid for what they recieved from the British Empire. There were and are no "Palestinian refugees". They were all warned by the various Arab Nations that attacked Israel to get out or they might be killed when they invaded and destroyed Israel. I ask you, would you let these people back in? As for checkpoints, walls, gun turrets and the like...ummm exactly how many living bombs would it take before you would adopt the same measures for your country? Hmmm..now on to your other point, "What has Israel given up? How about the Sinai? West Bank? Golan Heights? I guess none of this sounds familiar to you? Let's just put this into perspective for a moment. I don't know where you're from so I'll use the USA as an example. Last year, Hezbollah started launching rockets into Israel. Everyone knows this is a fact correct? Israel retaliated. The entire world condemned Israel. Now what do you think would have been the US response if Mexico started sending rockets our way? Would we have retaliated? Would we be condemned as Agressorsif we did? Just my thoughts. Hopefully you didn't ruin you keyboard with you "puking all over it" By the way, I'm not a Zionist, I'm a methodist. Just a little humor there. I like how this discussion has stayed very civil, very little name calling at all. I guess gamers are quite a different breed from all those right wing and left wing fanatics.

To respond to your comments PitSnipe...
I am an 'American' and do live in the USA. I have never said that one party is more guilty than the other, at least I don't recall doing so but that's bad memory on my part  .
I see it as the 'David and Goliath' syndrome, which is my view on the situation. Israel is obviously Goliath. I will 'always' side with the underdog on a matter of personal principle and morality.
Some of these 'suicide bombers' are actually fighting back against something, they are not doing what they do for Islam or radicalism or anything of the sort. They are fighting back against oppression and aggression. Resorting to strapping a bomb on and blowing yourself up shows the nature of their desperation, and vigilance. This is all they have at their disposal and they are willing to use it to continue 'the fight' if necessary. What I don't see is trained military squads of Palestinians with the latest hi-tech weapons and armor and gadgets attacking both armed and unarmed people. I do see families, even communities, banding together and engaging in guerilla warfare to protect themselves, or to be the aggressors, to play Devil's Advocate with this. I believe this would be what we as Americans would do if forced to rely on ourselves to defend our homes and our towns against an armed threat, regardless of who is right or wrong.
Israel. Citizens are required to serve in the military. We send TONS of cash every year to support said military, they give some back by purchasing weapons from us, keeping the military/industrial complex alive and well and happy. Everyone gets to go out and play amongst the Palestinians to 'meet' the people by setting up checkpoints all over the place and just generally making life miserable for anyone to go about their daily routine. Easy enough to say it is done for safety reasons for after all, there could be a crazy person with a bomb strapped to them so...
Israel is the dominant power in their region and they have nukes... or doesn't anyone believe that either? We are the dominant superpower in the world (I don't believe we are the 'only' one as some do, regardless of the Soviet Union's collapse or not)and are attempting to 'set standards' throughout the world on how things should be so that life will be 'prosperous and filled with joy', to be a little sarcastic of course   . I would think that there would have to be a better way than violence, especially if we are the ones holding all of the great toys with which to kill and maim people. Yes we could 'wipe them out' with some nukes and 'end' all of this. Since we haven't I guess you could say that we are a 'good little country' for not doing so and this would also say that we are doing all that we can to resolve the situation 'peacefully', for after all it's always them not us right?
I couldn't even begin to tell any of you how all of this could be 'fixed' for all I have are theories. Our politicians, whose job it is to represent us and deal with these issues, 'should' be taking care of this with other means besides violent options or life threatening sanctions. If they cannot do this, and I assume they can't since we have been at war for quite some time now to the tune of many billions of dollars that could have been better spent elsewhere, then they should be 'fired' and replaced with people who will get the job done. Ahhhh, if only it were so simple.
I told my 'representative' that I didn't want our country involved in a war. I told my representative that I didn't want my money going to Israel, not because of ethnicity, but because of ethnic cleansing being done with my money (if you support it then by all means allow your money, hell, send your money. I don't so allow it to go elsewhere or 'give it back'). It seems those around me voiced similar concerns to their 'representatives' and guess what... the situation is the opposite. Prove me wrong. Show me that more people in this country endorse the war than don't. Show me that more people in this country favor sending such high amounts of aid to Israel than those who don't.
A comment regarding these little 'debates' we've been having. I think the bottom line to all of this is one way or another we are all right and wrong in our views. I would really like to believe that those of you in here who don't agree with me, those of you who do believe we are doing the right thing by being at war and ousting Saddam and 'fighting terrorism' truly don't want to see us at war. I can only hope that you would rather have seen all of these events handled in any other manner than how it has ended up, with violence and bloodshed.
Things won't ever change with our diplomacy and politics if we continue to go about life as we do. All of us find ourselves too busy to be bothered with getting involved in what happens in our community, our state and our country anymore. To just go out and punch a ticket or pull a lever and cast that vote isn't enough anymore. To rely on the media and our 'leaders' to tell us what is real and what isn't has and will only lead to our demise, not physically but psychologically. This is where we can debate all day and still never really know, at least not all of us since maybe some of you have actually witnessed these things for yourselves or have had first hand experience, unless we truly do 'get out there' and find out for ourselves what is going on in this world that we all have to share, and which we should all respect, but the environment is a totally different topic so...
Sorry Marcus for totally taking your post so far off topic with all of this, I really am. Sometimes you just stumble across a comment that you just have to reply to, you know what I mean?  

I think that most of the replies in this thread are ignoring the basic premis. the Idea was to talk about the 5 "most dangerous to human likes", presumably the 5 who by their personal actions could potentially cause death/harm to the most human lives. NOTHING WAS SAID ABOUT BEING GOOD OR EVIL in the original proposal.

Argurably, in 1962, John F. Kennedy and Nikita Kruchev were unquestionably the 2 most dangerous people on Earth; forget good-evil, forget their intent. They were both probably doing the best for their nation, and maybe the world, as they saw it; but dangerous? Hxxx Yeah!

For 1940, one can argue with great reason that this list should include Hitler, Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt...and that personally gentlest of men, Albert Einstein.

Heck, there's even an argument that for the year 30 A.D., the list should include Jesus of Nazareth!

So, anyone want to relook this in terms of "dangerous", that is, able to create danger to lives, rather than "has a bad intent for lots of people, from my viewpoint"?

In this context, the original list looks not bad to me, though I might substitute Zaqwari(sp?), the nominal Al Queda #2 and strategist for Bin Ladin. Mushariff and PM M. Singh of India are strong candidates for my list, also.

drrider,

I'll have to reluctntly agree with you there. I did get severely off topic and started politicizing. Sorry about that. Well, in that case

5 most dangerous men alive as far as potential:

President George W bush- Let's face it, we might not be the only superpower but

Kim Il Jong- This guy is either very smart or very crazy and he does have the potential to do great harm

Leadership of China- not a single man, but even if they never left their borders they could kill quite a few people

Leadership of India- See Above

President Amendeijad(sp)- Iran has a powerful military, and the Mid-east has a lot of people he could exterminate.

Entirely untrue. Bush holds the power to kill millions of millions of people and have used this power as well. Do you really believe, that because you are not holding the sword yourself, you are somehow in fact not guilty?

So far mr Bush is responsible for possible tens or hundreds of thousands of lives in wars he fights in order to secure oil and promote corporate interests.
(If in doubt, just look at WHERE US are curently fighting, WHOM they are bashing at, and you will regonzise a strange connection between oil & US wars)

Hugo Chavez for instance is treated like if beeing the Devil by US and yet the "demonic" sins Hugo Chaves have
conducted includes helping out the poor guys in his own country by kicking western corporate ass! Is that beeing evil?
In truth, he is called evil simply because not helping in securing US oil reserves.

What makes Bush particulary dangerous is the fact that he seem to use any mean nessessary to order to arhieve his goals. Killing millions of people do not seem to matter if corporate intrests and securing oil demands this.

No murder or rapist can ever live up to this kind of evilness.

All right, if we are going to stay on the "good or evil" political motivations twist of this thread for awhile...

Please note that the United States does not import significant amounts of oil from the major Near East oil fields/refineries (no, not even Kuwait or Iraq). Most of that flow goes to Europe, Japan, Pacific Rim, and China. Our degree of on-the-ground influence and control in those producing areas is not, so far, steering actual oil shipments to U.S. terminals.

Now, we do buy a bit of oil that is on the secondary market, having passed through the primary recipient ports not under specific delivery contreact, and that oil may have come from anywhere. Also, the impact of our military and diplomatic operations have effect on the world oil MARKET, so those operations are arguably helping to define the PRICE that we pay for oil, though not steering us the actual shipments.

drrider

It is funny how many people say this. I don't know why Israel seems to be the only land around the place that was 'taken'. Different civilisations have been taking over each other for thousands of years.... Whatever country you are in, it has been taken from somone else at one time or another, and Israel was taken from the jews before it was taken from the Palestinians anyway,,, why carn't the Palestinians just GET OVER IT!
For fu--'s sake, if the Irish can finally except the English in Northern Ireland, then anything is possible!

you could use the same argument to invade North korea, Iran, China,,, the list goes on.
Invading any country that is a threat is not the answer. Spending money to defend against WMD's directly is probably the only way to make America safe in that regard.



Some get away with warcrimes for various reasons, some don't. Japan got away with a heap of war crimes after WW2 and Germany didn't. Winston Churchil was not a nice guy during WW2 either, he was unashamedly out to win at all cost but no one brought him to justice after WW2 either. In particular was his order to destroy 4 french battleships in a neutral habour, clearly a war crime but no charges were ever laid that i know of?

I don't know of any American warcrimes?

2 points that always seem to get passed over:

1. How can the same people people who believe Bush is too dumb to tie his own shoes, turn around and accuse him of masterminding the most ingenious plot and coverup in history?

2. Israel has one of the most formidable nuclear arsenals on the planet and has never used them, despite extreme provocation. Do you honestly think that Iran and bin Laden would be able to show such restraint? Would you really, truly, feel more comfortable and secure if these nuts had the nukes instead of the USA and Israel?

As a Dutchman, I consider Bush the most dangerous since he signed a law that justifies invading my country if they don't like who is brought before the ICC ( http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm ).

hahaha ... hey don't spoil the 'Bush Bashing' fantasy!!



Yea, no one seems to take offence to heart more massively than Muslims. I said in other posts that if Muslim extremists had nukes then they would be firing them off like firecrackers at the slightest of insults.

Even here in Australia, if somone says somthing to offend Malasia or Indonesia, then all the Muslims there rush out and smash Australian shopfronts etc etc. No consideration that the people who own those businesses didn't have anything to do with the insulting comment, no, that's not how Muslims think... they just think it is 'us and them' philosophy.

Where are you getting the last one from?

Yes, but those countries were actively threating us with destruction. If they do, we may need to do the same thing there.

when those of us who know what we're talking about say something like, "we're over there for oil," we don't mean we're over there to bring there oil back here. we mean that we're over there to hand redevelopment of iraq's oil industry over to american interests. they'll continue exporting the oil to wherever it's been going, and they'll make the lion's share of money from it. this isn't something that was ever intended to benefit the average joe.



oh, i don't think he's a mastermind. quite the contrary, i think he's more of a pawn than anything. it's cheney, rumsfeld, and his other cronies that've orchestrated this mess. bush made a good figurehead because of his good-old-boy appeal to middle america.