 |
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
The otherthrow of which leader to do you think would contribute most to world security/prosperity/peace etc.
Disclaimer:
This is a genuine attempt to gauge opinion - No offense is meant to either the American of Iraqi people
|
|
|  |
 |
|
alofatti
|
|
Perhaps both of them should be removed...
But not exactly "overthrown", maybe a more democratic way of handling things is in order.
The way the world is going on now is not exactly good and I donīt think that with Bush things will improve...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
spartak
|
|
6 each - about right.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
spartak
|
|
10 vs 10.
Cool.
Hey Joe - Coooool It! Bush is a moron and quite capable of destroying the world with his stupidity. Saddam is a monster but not exactly threatening the world right now. Choice is simple....
|
|
|  |
 |
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000 time: 00:21
|
|
The thing is that while Bush's removal would do more for world peace than Saddam, if he is removed that would collapse the American democracy thus hurting the stability and peace of the world. So I would have to say that while I would like to see Bush go, please wait till 2004.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:21
|
|
Fez, seriously...get some help. An anger management course would do you a lot of good.
If the "regime change" in question is, for the U.S., an election that doesn't threaten stability, I vote Bush, by a hair, on the sheer fact that he has much more influence and his policies have much more impact on the world. He has, single-handedly, squandered every bit of good will to the U.S. around the world.
Still, Saddam should go as well. Anyone who gasses his own people needs to be gone. I just don't want a manufactured war to do it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
spartak
|
|
Fez and Ned - Cool It willya. Use some logic - despite Sept 11 the USA is not universally popular and is picking up a reputation as an international bullyboy. Now why might that be? Well perhaps because the US is turning into an international bullyboy. Is this good for the world? No. Is this good for the US? Hmm in the shorterm probably but in the longer term? No.
Explain to me how supporting ther Israelis against the Palestinians is helping the cause of middle-east peace? Or perhaps how removing Saddam (settling old scores is a more accurate description of this) is going to help the US in the longer term? Toppling Saddam will undoubtedly lead to greater instability in the middle-east and I'm not sure that places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq & Syria need a popular upsurge of Islamic brotherly feeling right now. In case you hadn't noticed, the middle-east going up in flames would totally wreck the supply of oil to the west and when that happens - bye-bye world economy.
Now I realise that a lot of Americans struggle to see a longer view but surely anyone who attempts any meaningful analysis of the situation in the middle-east right now must see that what isn't needed right now is greater instability or anything that might lead to uprisings and an uopswell fo islamism in unstable countries which currently have (nominally) pro-western governments.
This doesn't mean that saddam is good but try and see things from a wider perspective that just 'ol "USA USA"! Bush's attempts to remove Saddam is not only potentially ruinous to us all, but is squandering all that pro-US feeling that the atrocities of Sept 11 caused.
Two wrongs do not make it right.....
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|