Clemme w/Stick Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 NOTE: This has nothing to do with anti-americanism or anything like that. This is stricktly a question, that popped into my head and I thought it would be fun to get some oppinions. I wont vote since I cant decide which! But whos more dangerous? George Bush or Saddam Hussein? -Clemme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leXX Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Where's the 'both are dangerous' option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clemme w/Stick Posted March 10, 2003 Author Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by leXX Where's the 'both are dangerous' option? Hmm, I thought about adding that one, but then I knew that everyone would vote for that one...! I guess I should have added that one as well...! I'll see if I can edit ! -Clemme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mex Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 George Bush. He wants to start a war with Iraq, which makes him dangerous to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I voted Saddam, he's the mad man who kills his own citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I'm going with Saddam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I'm going with Saddam. And Captain Wing, Bush may want to go to war to gain peace and not to kill people but Saddam wants to wipe out all Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I voted for Bush because: 1 - He wields more power than Saddam 2 - He lacks intelligence 3 - He has no insight/foresight, partially due to reason # 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kstar__2 Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 both, saddam because he's absolutely mad, bush because it looks like he wants war with every country that could cause him trouble and because he is power hungry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast And Captain Wing, Bush may want to go to war to gain peace and not to kill people but Saddam wants to wipe out all Americans. Errrr..... Both are dangerous. Bush doesn't have a tremendous of amount foresight, as Aru-wen pointed out - he has no idea what a war will result in. He cares only for his little WMD. -C' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-s/<itzo- Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 definetly saddam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckcsaber Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Aru-Wen 2 - He lacks intelligence Too much SNL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taos Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I'd say Saddam simply for the fact that he's a dictator and has total control over things........thankfully it's a power that Bush doesn't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clemme w/Stick Posted March 10, 2003 Author Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Leemu Taos I'd say Saddam simply for the fact that he's a dictator and has total control over things........thankfully it's a power that Bush doesn't have. Thats a good point. Also Aru-Wens point was pretty good. Well, lets see how this ends shall we? -Clemme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katarn07 Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Theyboth are. Saddam killed his own people and despite what he says, wants to bring death and destruction to Israel and their allies (us, the USA). But thankfully, Bush is in charge of this here country, and this here country has a better army, and even better with the British giving their assistance (better than the French and Germans ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I voted for both, but I really think Bush is most dangerous. Saddam hasn't done anything in the past few years, while Bush has acted like a true idiot, constantly warmongering and threatening and bribing other countries to support his cause (he really is). And of course, his naive black-white sight of things, plus the fact that he never thinks about the consequenses of what he does. But Saddam's still dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Aru-Wen I voted for Bush because: 1 - He wields more power than Saddam 2 - He lacks intelligence 3 - He has no insight/foresight, partially due to reason # 2 im with him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Well guys. I'm actually glad that Bush is doing thing this way. Wanna know why? He Is Not A Conformist Yep. Many great leaders in the past did what they thought was right and were not trying to be conformist just to please people. Thats what led them to great things. I have a feeling that France, Germany and Russia are just going with the flow to try and please people. Just my $0.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_wolf Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 No offense, but I believe the question should be whos the dumbest.... Im fed up of the whole thing, and just hope what ever happens happens. FULL STOP. PERIOD. END OF PLAY. FIN. EXIT STAGE LEFT. THE END. NO ENCORE TONIGHT. FINALE. ENDING SEQUENCE. GAME OVER. Capische? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonces Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Resorting to personal attacks to disparage somebodys point of view that you happen to dissagree with is rather unfortunate. Base your arguments with fact, not your personal bias and feelings. The Swamp is not a place to share your political ideology. This thread belongs in the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTeddyPaul Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 I knew when we voted Bush in office we were going to attack Iraq. I KNEW IT. His history and politics lead you to believe this. If he had emergency powers he would be sending missles and men there right now. I take that back. If he used his emergency powers right now he could do whatever he wanted for 30 days (or is it 90)? Sadam however has already used biological weapons against his people, killed his family members, uses torture against people regularly, and lies to foreign states about his weapon capabilities. Does it strick anyone else as being weird that Bush still wants to go to war against Iraq even though EVERYOTHER COUNTRY says they don't and would vote no in attacking him? BigTeddyPaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 They're both pretty dangerous, but since the question asked who was more dangerous, I'd say Saddam. Mostly because Bush will, in time, get voted out of office, and become powerless. Saddam can stay as long as he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_wolf Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by Toonces Resorting to personal attacks to disparage somebodys point of view that you happen to dissagree with is rather unfortunate. Base your arguments with fact, not your personal bias and feelings. But laot of this IS feelings. Any way, the fact is that US has been gunning for Iraq for a while, but have now been given the opportunity to deal with them. As said previously, when he was voted in, me and my friends here in England KNEW it was gonna happen, although we could not have predicted the horrendous circumstances through which it came about. I am worried that this could get out of hand, but hope that it fizzles out. I think that Saddam is seriously worried now - he knows what happened last time, and is aware that there will be no holding back. Its all very well having mass destruction Inc. supplies but the Americans won't give him the chance. He needs to be ousted, but for the good of the planet, I think perhaps Bush should be also. Two FRESH leaders - no strings, no history. Thats ideally, and I know thats not possible, but the closer we get to it, the sooner we can get on with the world peace and the happiness and yey hay hay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by BigTeddyPaul Sadam however has already used biological weapons against his people They were rebelling, after all. killed his family members, Prove it. uses torture against people regularly Prove it. and lies to foreign states about his weapon capabilities. Prove it. Does it strick anyone else as being weird that Bush still wants to go to war against Iraq even though EVERYOTHER COUNTRY says they don't and would vote no in attacking him? Not totally right. Serveral countries has said they are going to vote yes (mostly because they get $10 billion for it, but anyway). And anyway, acting against the general opinion just shows how dumb he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Well this 1 is very important. Bush is by far more dangerous. He is an appointed offical of the most powerful force to exist yet in the world. We used to be a democratic nation, but bush was handed his presidency by a court of appointed officals. The majority rule was ignored. He has no respect for anyone who does not submit to his will. The legislative branch of our goverment was created to "check" the executive branch, but they signed away this power forever ( FOREVER!!) right after 911. This country has had antihuman powermonger leaders before but their power was limited by our checks & balances. Bush has more power than any other human who has ever lived in the history of the Earth. Bush will be remembered as a tyrant long after history forgets about Sadam. Sadam is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.