George Bush Comes In Third

[benny]

Seems to me that some here might be mildly interested in how some Canadians feel. Others here won't care one way or the other I imagine.

quote:

Canadians declared the American president the world's third most dangerous leader, behind North Korea's Kim Jong Il. Top spot went to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was fourth, while Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was fifth.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...1103?hub=World

[Zathras]

He is going to be ticked off he didn't rate higher.
Of course, he does have two years left.

[benny]

Originally Posted by Zathras

He is going to be ticked off he didn't rate higher.
Of course, he does have two years left.

He did particularly well in the UK having secured top honours.

Quote: The most pessimistic responses came from Britain, where 69 per cent of people said American foreign policy has made the world less safe since 2001. In fact, British respondents said Bush poses an even greater danger than Kim Jong Il.

[Texas Proud]

Originally Posted by 'max'

He did particularly well in the UK having secured top honours.

Quote: The most pessimistic responses came from Britain, where 69 per cent of people said American foreign policy has made the world less safe since 2001. In fact, British respondents said Bush poses an even greater danger than Kim Jong Il.

And for the Brits, he probably does.... I remember being over in Europe and someone said that THEY should have a vote for the American president as he (the president) has more influence over his(the guy's) life than his own Prime Minister...

[maddythebeagle]

Originally Posted by 'max'

Seems to me that some here might be mildly interested in how some Canadians feel.

not really ...is this maximillion posting again...

[mb]

Originally Posted by 'max'

Seems to me that some here might be mildly interested in how some Canadians feel. Others here won't care one way or the other I imagine.

quote:

Canadians declared the American president the world's third most dangerous leader, behind North Korea's Kim Jong Il. Top spot went to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was fourth, while Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was fifth.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...1103?hub=World

B*** S***! America is #1 at everything

[youbet]

Originally Posted by 'max'

Seems to me that some here might be mildly interested in how some Canadians feel.

No Max. This isn't new news. I'd be mighty disappointed if Amercans were anxiously awaiting inputs from "some Canadians" to determine their political outlook.

[benny]

Originally Posted by youbet

No Max. This isn't new news. I'd be mighty disappointed if Amercans were anxiously awaiting inputs from "some Canadians" to determine their political outlook.

I tend to agree with you on this point.

Nonetheless my guess is that many Americans must be asking themselves serious questions about their president who will be in office another two years. And probably amongst that group would be every second poster/lurker here since Bush got in by the narrowest of margins in both 2000 and in 2004.

Whether Bush deserves the dubious distinction is really besides the point. It all boils down to perception.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by 'max'

Nonetheless my guess is that many Americans must be asking themselves serious questions about their president

Many Americans ask themselves serious questions about every president.
Every time I like one, I find plenty of others that don't. Every time I don't like one, I find plenty of others that do.

Our current president will be gone in two years and most likely significantly handicapped after next weeks elections change the control of Congress. While bashing him is fun, it really is time to start thinking about what's next, less about what we don't like today and more about what we do want in the future.

[lets-retire]

IIRC Reagan was said to be the dumbest person alive and was making the world less safe by pushing the Russians. We see how that turned out.

[lets-retire]

Originally Posted by 'max'

I tend to agree with you on this point.

Nonetheless my guess is that many Americans must be asking themselves serious questions about their president who will be in office another two years. And probably amongst that group would be every second poster/lurker here since Bush got in by the narrowest of margins in both 2000 and in 2004.

Whether Bush deserves the dubious distinction is really besides the point. It all boils down to perception.

Well put.

[Nords]

Originally Posted by 'max'

Canadians declared the American president the world's third most dangerous leader, behind North Korea's Kim Jong Il. Top spot went to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was fourth, while Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was fifth.

Well, heck, in this widely-regarded and highly credible poll Bush beat his nearest competitor by nearly a 5:1 margin, and Jong-Il only came in sixth!

http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/sh...ults_2006.html

[benny]

Some here may recall the 1964 campaign. Goldwater supposedly would, if elected, have been a threat to world peace. Unlike George Bush he never made it as president so we shall never know.

From wikipedia:

A campaign advertisement, known popularly as Daisy, shown only once, filmed a child, a young girl, counting daisy petals, from one to ten. Immediately following this scene, a voiceover counted down: ten, nine, eight, ... three, two, one. The child's face was shown as a still photograph followed by images of nuclear explosions and mushroom clouds. The campaign advertisement ended with a plea to vote for Johnson, seemingly implying that Goldwater would start a nuclear war if he won. The advertisement, which featured only a few spoken words of narrative and relied on imagery for its emotional impact, was one of the most provocative moments in American political campaign history, and many analysts credit it as being the birth of the modern style of "negative political ads" on television. The ad only aired once, and was immediately pulled. (Goldwater called Johnson personally and threatened to sue him.)

[. . . Yrs to Go]

Originally Posted by 'max'

Canadians declared the American president the world's third most dangerous leader, behind North Korea's Kim Jong Il. Top spot went to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was fourth, while Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was fifth.

Canadians can take comfort that the weapons of Kim Jong Il, Osama and Ahmadinejad are not pointed their way.

It strikes me that many of these same folks would have thought Winston Churchill the "most dangerous man" in the late 1930s, favoring the "dialog" of Neville Chamberlain instead.

[benny]

Originally Posted by 3 Yrs to Go

Canadians can take comfort that the weapons of Kim Jong Il, Osama and Ahmadinejad are not pointed their way.

It strikes me that many of these same folks would have thought Winston Churchill the "most dangerous man" in the late 1930s, favoring the "dialog" of Neville Chamberlain instead.

I can only agree with you in part.

Yes indeed Osama is and still is a clear threat. Not only to the Americans (9-11) but take a look at what Al Quaeda has done in other parts of the world, for instance London, Madrid, and Indonesia.

As for North Korea and Iran, if indeed there is a real threat, well time will tell. But then that is all in the realm of the potential.

Iraq BTW was supposed to have been a threat but the WMD never existed.

As to Churchill in those days there was prevailing a climate of appeasement. Neville Chamberlain was either naive or wanted to look the other way.

Also I would remind us all that the Americans did nothing to help but it took Pearl Harbour to get them going. And it wasn't even the Nazis that did the bombing but the Japs.

I cannot see the logic in your comparison.

[brewer12345]

Hey butthole: you going for ban #3? Or is it a higher #?

[youbet]

Originally Posted by 'max'

Also I would remind us all that the Americans did nothing to help but it took Pearl Harbour to get them going.

It's true that the Canadians declared war two years before the USA, but it was in name only.......

Canada was unprepared for war. The regular army of 4500 men, augmented by 51,000 partly-trained reservists, possessed virtually no modern equipment. The air force had fewer than 20 modern combat aircraft while the navy’s combat potential consisted of only six destroyers, the smallest class of ocean-going warships. It was a modest beginning.

[benny]

Originally Posted by youbet

It's true that the Canadians declared war two years before the USA, but it was in name only.......

Canada was unprepared for war. The regular army of 4500 men, augmented by 51,000 partly-trained reservists, possessed virtually no modern equipment. The air force had fewer than 20 modern combat aircraft while the navy’s combat potential consisted of only six destroyers, the smallest class of ocean-going warships. It was a modest beginning.

Yes that is fact and lamentably even today Canada still doesn't spend anywhere near the money that is needed.

[. . . Yrs to Go]

Originally Posted by 'max'

I can only agree with you in part.

Yes indeed Osama is and still is a clear threat. Not only to the Americans (9-11) but take a look at what Al Quaeda has done in other parts of the world, for instance London, Madrid, and Indonesia.

As for North Korea and Iran, if indeed there is a real threat, well time will tell. But then that is all in the realm of the potential.

Iraq BTW was supposed to have been a threat but the WMD never existed.

As to Churchill in those days there was prevailing a climate of appeasement. Neville Chamberlain was either naive or wanted to look the other way.

Also I would remind us all that the Americans did nothing to help but it took Pearl Harbour to get them going. And it wasn't even the Nazis that did the bombing but the Japs.

I cannot see the logic in your comparison.

The comparison is apt.

"in those days there was prevailing a climate of appeasement" - as is true today.

[benny]

Originally Posted by 3 Yrs to Go

The comparison is apt.

"in those days there was prevailing a climate of appeasement" - as is true today.

It is one thing to justifiably protect oneself against a known threat, Al Quaeda for instance. It is quite another to get bogged down in Iraq (USA and UK). I still don't see where there is a prevailing climate of appeasement today. If so, then which nations are doing the appeasing?