George Bush the biggest threat to World peace!

[valentine]

Interesting poll going on at Yahoo currently where voters are asked to record who they consider to be the biggest threat to world peace, either George Bush or Kim Jong-il. From nearly 10,000 votes, 72% say Bush, while only 28% for Kim Jong-il. Be interesting to see the forumites reaction.

[polehawk]

It will be more difficult for Bush to be a threat to anything now that the Democrats have controlling majority in the House and Senate. It will be lame duck politics until the end of his term of office in two years. Kim Jong-il is still a loose cannon.

[Doc]

Given what "Shrub" Bush has already done, it will be extremely difficult for the new Congress to pull the "fat from the fire" as well as to continue to restrain him. We must not forget that Congress under Republican control gave Bush the power to conduct "premptive" attacks in the so called "war on terror." Until that power is removed - which is doubtful given that the Democrats would like to retain that power assuming that they are to gain the White House in 2008.

Whilst Bush is currently being labeld as a "lame duck" (aside from the fact that, in my ever so humble opinion, he always was "lame") he still retains veto power over what Congress does. Unless Congress can get a 2/3 majority to over ride his vetos, whatever they do will be fruitless. Ultimately, he can make this a "lame duck" Congress if he so desires. Given the broad executive powers that the White House thinks that it has, combined with those that have been given to the White House in the last two administrations, Bush can still be dangerous.

Kim Jong-il is ultimately nothing more than a pain in the arse for the world, and can't seriously be considered to be a major threat to world peace. If he gets too far out of hand, Russia and China will step on him and bring him into line. I believe that we will actually hear less about North Korea now that the elections are over, and a greater effort will be made to find a level of compromise with North Korea.

The "cowboy politics" of Bush will continue, however they will be more subtle for about a year. Then the republicans will start ratcheting up the fear factors in an effort to seize power again.

[jetdoc]

I think that even if the pole were opened to include everyone Bush would still win. Hopefully the Dem's will be able to rain in the gun slinger and instill some fiscal responsibility.

[valentine]

Let me start by saying I know nothing about American politics. Its always seem to be a bit of a circus to me so I've not been interested. However taking the last two replies it looks like some , if not most, Americans think along the same lines about the president. I suppose if you run a circus you shouldn't be surprised when a clown gets the most votes. What really worries me though is that as a world leader he must be surrounded by experienced advisers, so my question is, are they equally clueless or is Bush so arrogant that he ignores their advise?
On the original question, bearing in mind we are talking about WORLD peace. I think without doubt, Bush is the most dangerous. Yes Kim Jong-il is posturing and playing very dangerous games, but in reality, if he went OTT and set off a bomb, it would most likely be only one, because retaliation would be swift and sure and that would be the end for his country, so the conflict would , hopefully be confined to that region of the world and not spread globeally.Wheras Bush in comparison is making threats all over the planet and it is far more likely the ex-communist block would feel this threatens their security and retaliate on the world stage.
Just the interested views of a neutral observer, would love to know what others think.

[Doc]

What really worries me though is that as a world leader he must be surrounded by experienced advisers, so my question is, are they equally clueless or is Bush so arrogant that he ignores their advise?

Whether Bush ever had an original idea is open to debate. Evidence strongly supports that Bush's ultimate success of getting elected President was orchestrated by Karl Rove. I would suspect that shortly we will see Rove quietly leaving the White House since his attempts to orchestrate the recent elections were disasterous for the Republicans.

The advisers that Rove surrounded Bush with were / are neo-conservatives - the majority of which were from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Both Cheney and Rumsfield were founding members of this organization. An overview of the PNAC can be found at http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1665.htm In short, the PNAC clearly defined American Foreign Policy once Bush was elected.

In my opinion, the PNAC was misguided - however, their general beliefs gained a lot of conservative support after 9/11. The conservatives, and hence the evangelicals who all hold strong conservative beliefs, believed that the course of action would be beneficial to, and ultimately save Israel. The PNAC is also strongly supporting Israel - no matter what they do.

Ultimately - as history is now demonstrating in the short term analysis - everyone was clueless. Supporting the clueless opinions, and giving strong impetus to all that has transpired now, was 9/11. Bush - through Rove - was able to convince the American public that the attacks were because the Muslims hate America for its freedoms (a complete fallacy) and that Iraq had both WMD's (proven false) and was supporting terrorists throughout the Middle East (partially true). The only person in the Administration that had any sense was Colin Powell - who was the token voice of sensibility - and who was kept on to convince the Democrats to support the invasion of Iraq. Powell eventually saw that he was being a shill for something that was totally wrong - and abandoned ship, opening the door for Rice - another believer in the neo-con philosophies in general.

Of course, two of Bushes supporters remain - Blair - whose days are limited - and Howard of Australia. Howard himself can remain a threat to the world - especially in the South Pacific and Asia. He holds many of the Bush Administration philosophies and beliefs - and could very possibly be re-elected in the next election cycle. Ultimately, he is as stubborn and as pig headed as Bush.

Politics have never been about who has the best ideas and best plans. It is all about who can best sell the ideas and plans to an unsuspecting, and in the case of America, an uninformed public that really has no desire to know anything beyond what happens in their own neighborhood.

[valentine]

What really worries me though is that as a world leader he must be surrounded by experienced advisers, so my question is, are they equally clueless or is Bush so arrogant that he ignores their advise?

Politics have never been about who has the best ideas and best plans. It is all about who can best sell the ideas and plans to an unsuspecting, and in the case of America, an uninformed public that really has no desire to know anything beyond what happens in their own neighborhood.

Wow Doc, I assume your an American so that is a very damning statement to make about your fellow countrymen.Do you really believe that Americans are so insular they don't know whats happening in the rest of the world.? That would of course explain a lot about Bush.

[Doc]

Do you really believe that Americans are so insular they don't know whats happening in the rest of the world.?

Hate to say it - but yes.

If you want to see how insular that Americans are - simply spend some time watching the two major US news channels - Faux (err... Fox) News and CNN. They are all about the US - nothing about the rest of the world unless it directly affects or could most likely affect the US. Then compare what you see to the other news services that are available.

[Dakoda]

Kim Jong-il is ultimately nothing more than a pain in the arse for the world, and can't seriously be considered to be a major threat to world peace. If he gets too far out of hand, Russia and China will step on him and bring him into line. I believe that we will actually hear less about North Korea now that the elections are over, and a greater effort will be made to find a level of compromise with North Korea.

So true But seven people think otherwise Wait a minute, the problem maybe is that they don't think

[Bump]

An intersting question years ago I was on a cruise and they had a trivia question contest one question was who was the most feared man in the world. Kadafi or Ronald Reagn, Regan was the correct answer.

I trusted Ronnie more the George.

Politcis are a circus anywhere Val.

There is something that everyone is missing George wasn't elected over whelming vote matter fact barely won and sometimes there just isn't anyone good to vote for. Hence we sometimes fail to get the best man for the job.

I believe that may have happened at other times in other places in the world.

Do you really think the average American thinks like George, if so you just haven't met many Americans.

Politics in America and most major countries means huge sums of monies to get elected to those offices, something the average American has very little to do with. But you get two choices and sometimes three but thats it.

So we go with what we have availble, doesn't mean the best man eventually gets the job. I'd vote for Colen Powell in a heart beat, but I doubt he get find the deep pockets to get in the race.

Is it really tha different in the UK I'm asking as I simply don't know?

Do I fear the Korean not at all, as has been said his big brothers are going to keep him in line. Iran that migh be a very different story, don't know.

But Bush he is something to worry about much less so, now.

The good news is two more years and the Bush years are over, he will never be President again.

Now that being said does that mean that the US will calm down. I think that is really going to depend if there are more attacks. So lets all hope for a lot more peaceful world in the very near future.

I doubt that America will elect a hawk next time unless they feel they have to for thier well being. If they do feel threatend that is exactly what will happen. Will there people trying to instill that fear at election time you can bet on it.

Now the truth is the average American especially those of us who have been to war, are not much different then the average person anywhere, want a chance to make a good life for thier families and peaceful existence. Leave a better world so thier kids can have it better then they did.

But the average American doesn't become President.

[Alagrl]

I voted that Bush is a greater danger to world peace. He has stirred up firestorms with the military power and economic ability to feed and sustain them.

North Korea, on the other hand, may have military power but cannot sustain that power with its current economic situation. It would quickly find it difficult to feed the army, and resources now are stretched -- at the expense of the civilian population.

Should be interesting to see what happens now that Rumsfeld has finally resigned (thank God!!).

[aznyron]

I am happy to see we have members who keep up with current events I am also American and I am also happy the Dem. took control of both house which limits the President ability to run things his way I am not in the business of calling my president names but in G.Bush case I can not control my self for a man who went to a ivy league university he has not the sense of a pig in the coral I am proud to say I did not vote for him but I have not voted for a Rep. President since I voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964 and if I had to do it over again I would have voted for LBJ thank you for letting me vent .

[muscle]

Do you really believe that Americans are so insular they don't know whats happening in the rest of the world.?

Hate to say it - but yes.

If you want to see how insular that Americans are - simply spend some time watching the two major US news channels - Faux (err... Fox) News and CNN. They are all about the US - nothing about the rest of the world unless it directly affects or could most likely affect the US. Then compare what you see to the other news services that are available.

I second Doc's statements. Most Americans are more concerned about SUVs, Malls, The Home Shopping Network and other ephemera to even care about world events. The neithr know, not care. How do you think Bush got elected?
The few that pretend to care aren't well enough educated to do anything ther than ape whatever Rush or Bill O'Reiley say.
America, it's a great country to be from.

[jetdoc]

Far away from;o)

[cookie]

I am not sure if this article confirms if Bush is the biggest threat to world peace. Some will say yes, others will say no.

"Congress approves US-India nuke deal"

In fact France, Germany and Russia were (and still are) doing the same with Iran, but then without any agreement.
So who is the biggest threat???
One thing is sure: The Big Companies won again: GE, ... General Electric and Westinghouse Electric,
Perhaps we should change the question:

What BIG Companies are the biggest threat to world peace?

If this is the example of how the US is " furthering their interests in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons" ( just wondering how much this representative got paid by GE????)
An other representative says: "US is hypocritical"
......

Congress approves US-India nuke deal

Washington (dpa) - US Congress passed a bill early Saturday paving the way for landmark cooperation between the United States and India in the field of nuclear energy, overriding objections by arms control advocates opposed to the agreement.

After the House of Representatives approved the bill late Friday night, the upper chamber, the bill then cleared the upper chamber, the Senate in the early hours of Saturday.

The bill now goes to President George W Bush for signing.

The legislation is a reversal of three decades of US policy in which there was a ban on civilian nuclear technology cooperation with India ever since that country tested a nuclear bomb in 1974 without having signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

During the debate, opponents to the bill cited the danger of an increasing likelihood that nuclear arms could fall into the hands of terrorists and escalate an arms race with Pakistan.

But supporters said the plan would give a boost to strategic ties with India, which is emerging as a power in Asia and whose demand for energy is rising with the country's strong economic growth.

In talks last April, Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had agreed on plans for nuclear cooperation, but this required approval by Congress.

Both the House and Senate earlier this year approved different versions of a bill authorizing the nuclear deal, and a negotiating committee reconciled the bills on Thursday, setting up the vote overnight Friday.

The House vote of 330-59 for the bill was expected to be one of the last acts of the centre-right Republican-controlled body, which will cede control in January to a newly elected centre-left Democratic majority.

The legislation will allow the US to sell nuclear fuel and reactors to India despite New Delhi's refusal to participate in the NPT.

The Bloomberg business news agency reported that two firms, General Electric and Westinghouse Electric, were waiting in the wings to supply India with equipment, fuel and reactors once the bill had been enacted.

Existing US law does not allow transfers of nuclear technology to countries that have not signed the NPT, and Congress had sought assurances that the deal will not help India's nuclear weapons programme. (??????????)

India paved the way for an agreement in March by agreeing to separate its civilian and weapons programmes, complying with Congressional demands.

US President George W Bush has strongly backed the deal - first proposed in the summer of 2005 - and made it a priority for legislation to be passed before the end of the year.

The landmark nuclear deal signified the burgeoning ties that have developed between the United States and India after decades of frosty relations during the Cold War, when New Delhi was friendly with the Soviet Union.

Prior to the bill going to vote, a Senate requirement for a monitoring system to ensure that no US nuclear exports to India were diverted to military use was changed.

The bill's final text only said that the agreement was contingent on assurances by the president that India was taking "appropriate measures (to) ... maintain accountability."

In addition, a condition that India join international efforts to sanction Iran was softened to a requirement that the White House should report to Congress about India's efforts in that regard.

The debate in the House of Representatives reflected both the fears and the sense of opportunity from US-Indian cooperation in the nuclear field.

Among the opponents, Democratic representative Edward Markey from Massachusetts said "This bill is a historic mistake that will come back to haunt the United States and the world."

Markey said it was hypocritical for the United States to make an exception for India, which is not a member of the NPT, while pressuring the international community to forbid Iran, which is a member of the NPT, to develop civilian nuclear power.

He cited research that projected India, which now constructs an estimated seven nuclear bombs a year, will boost its production to 40 to 50 bombs a year. He said that Pakistan is building a new facility to increase its production from the current estimated two to three warheads a year to 40 or 50 warheads.

"The Pakistanis and Iranians are not going to sit on their hands (while) Americans preach temperance from their bar stool," Markey said.

But Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California, welcomed the agreement, saying it would "be of immense importance to global security and economic development, while at the same time furthering our interests in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons."

After US approval of the nuclear cooperation, two further steps are required. First, India must reach an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency on establishing international inspections.

In addition, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a 45-nation forum dedicated to limiting the spread of atomic weapons, must also give its approval.