I pretty much agree with the original list.

To those who think Bush and Olmert should not be on the list, I reply: The topic of the post was not "which people are the most evil persons on earth" but "which persons are most dangerous to mankind". Now I don't think either Bush or Olmert mean harm by what they are doing, they probably are even idealistic people. However, the saying goes "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", and George W. Bush seems to be a prime example for that.

As I see it, Bush simply doesn't quite grasp the long-term consequences of his actions, in particular of the wars he started. The invasion of Iraq has now led to thousands of dead American soldiers, ten of thousands of dead Iraqi people and wide-spread antagonism against the American people, especially among muslims. Before the war, Bush probably thought that the military conquest of Iraq was a non-issue (in which he was mostly correct), that the Iraqi people would welcome him with open arms when he rid them of Saddam (he was only partially right in that) and that his troops could soon leave after he set up a democratic government there (in which he was completely mistaken).

That last error cost America greatly and in itself completely justifies Bush's place on this list. To those who think every rapist and murderer is more evil than Bush, yes I agree, but that is not the issue here. Thoes rapists and murderers do not have the position of power and responsibility that Bush does, and thus are not as dangerous to the human race.

To the topic of the others on the list: Olmert, in my opinion, is much the same as Bush, just on a smaller scale, since Isreal simply doesn't have the power to do as much harm as the US.

Osama Bin Laden is rightly on the list: Many will call him evil, I'd call him psychotic: He believes what he's doing is right, which makes him all the more dangerous, since so many muslims who feel themselves wronged listen to him.

Kim Jong Il is the one on the list I'd say fits "evil" the most, since he knows exactly how much his people suffer and still wallows in his luxuries. Calling him dangerous because he's a "communist" is a laugh though: Communism is based on the idea of equality of all people, which is lightyears from what the situation in North Korea actually is. He is dangerous because of the power the bomb gives him, because he has unchecked power in his own country and because he seems to revel in that power and leaves out no opportunity to provoke his neighbor nations, which could one day blow up in his face.

Finally, Vladimir Putin is, of course, also very dangerous as the dictator of the country with the second largest nuclear arsenal. My perception of Putin is that of a ruthless, very smart person. Because of that, he is extremely dangerous to his own people, whose freedom he is taking away step by step these days. However, I very much doubt he would ever let Russia become involved in a nuclear war, he is too smart for that.

Summing it up, I think the greatest threat to the world at the moment is George W. Bush, not because he is "evil", but because he is sitting at the largest nuclear trigger and, IMHO, doesn't have the mental qualifications to use that power responsibly.

Putting in a quote might be a good idea.

Actually that saying is talking about innaction - i do not think you can accuse Bush of that!

"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."

How many lives has Busch saved potentially?? Maybe you might just be alive and can enjoy walking to your local Gamestop without fear of a stray mortor shell or suicide bomber blowing you to oblivion before you can try galciv 2 DA!!

How many terrorist attacks have we had on American soil since 9/11? Are the terrorists waiting for the "big one" or could it be they are engaged in slaughtering battle hardened marines instead of joe you who enjoys walking to gamespot and not having to run from cover to cover to avoid gunfire.

Ok, why don't we just pull out of all wars we are currently in. Lets just sit on our a## and let the terroists attack us! Next time, it could be an atomic bomb devestating the entire city of New York. I can't even imagine the pandemonium that would result if one of our cities was nuked.

Think about what it really takes to enjoy driving around in our SUVs that suck the gas down, playing video games, and being able to essentially walk around without mortar shells, gun fire, and constant death.

"The invasion of Iraq has now led to thousands of dead American soldiers, ten of thousands of dead Iraqi people and wide-spread antagonism against the American people, especially among muslims."

These muslum extreme morons hate us because we are American!! They hate us because we allow our women to run around without excessive clothing to cover every inch of their body despite it being hot outside. They hate us because we piss standing up. They hate us because most of us don't keep heavy beards like the Koran says. Let us not forget 9/11 and who started this mess, or are you one of these people who says the thousands who died in the World Trade Center deserved it?

They screme Jihad, and YES WE ARE GIVING THESE DEPRAVED LUNATICS THE JIHAD THEY WANT!!!!!!!!! I am glad that we are killing more of these mother f#@$#$#. If the above quote is true, then 10 irag lunatics die for every marine killed. Thats a mighty fine trade. They want jihad, WE WILL GIVE THEM JIHAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE WILL GIVE IT TO THEM IN THE FORM OF URANIUM TIPPED RADIOACTIVE DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hehehe, i dunno, anyway i do know they dislike anything (eg; bhudda statues in afghanistan) or anyone that isn't muslim. It is the muslim faith's lack of tollerance for others that is it's downfall, apart from that it is on the whole a noble faith.

You know, I've said for a couple of years that if the world wants to play by terrorist rules, maybe we should, too. Fly a 757 into a building? OK, we drop the Great White Light onto Mecca from a B-52. Blow up a commuter train? Fine. We take out your water purification plants. Let cholera do the rest. Drag the bodies of Americans through your streets? We drop helicopter loads of dead detainees onto Fellujah.

We were winning in Vietnam when we were bombing Cambodia. Maybe we should just bomb the towelheads into the Stone Age and be done with it. Their living in the 17th century, anyway. It would be a short trip.

From my previous quote i would like to appologise to women,, since i forgot to mention their missing equality under Islam.



Playing by terrorist rules will only bring more death and destruction. The only way to stop terrorists is for everyone to convert to Islam! Even then different Islamic factions will keep on fighting each other till there is no one left alive - that is the legacy of intollerance and living by the philosophy of 'an eye for an eye'.

All we can do is try to defend ourselves without being vindictive and try to reduce the cycle of violence (if that were possible).

Personally i think Islam will fall after extremists finally get their hands on a nuke and use it. I think the world would probably rise up against Islam if that happened... Ironic since what the extremists are fighting for is the opposite to what they will get - the destruction of Islam! they just don't get it.

IMHO, the most dangerous person in Germany is Wolfgang Schäuble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Sch%C3%A4uble), our Minister of the Interior. He's actively working on abolishing human rights. Bad thing is that the leading political parties support him. He earned himself the nickname "Wheelchair dictator".

how many terrorists struck American soil before 9/11?



it's statements like that which tempt me to a direct persoanl rebuttal (not to mention the verbal diarrhea flowing through your keyboard in later posts). Al Queda isn't fighting our military in Iraq, and they weren't fighting it in Afghanistan either. it's a diffuse network that opperates covertly. while a few members might get caught up in skirmishes, they're smart enough to know direct confrontation won't win them anything. the people we're fighting are Iraqis, people who were probably just trying to live out their lives before a forgein super power waltzed in and destroyed their entire intrastructure, carelessly bombed civilian neighborhoods, and utterly disgraced



i'm so tired of being denounced because i don't appriciate what the military is doing. "you couldn't walk to the store if they weren't out there!" oh, really? frankly, then, bring 'em back and i'll take my chances on the way to the store. oh, and just to put you in place, there ARE plenty of places in the U.S. where you can't walk to a store safely. i should be greatful to live in america? so what about all those americans who can't sleep safely? should they be greatful? who defends them? how much money does our government spend on that?

there's a huge difference between the service the armed forces provide generally, and the reasons behind this particular deployment. if it were about really defense, the'd do a much better job defending me from the home front, not from halfway around the world.

RUSH LIMBAUGH IS THE GREATER EVIL,next to the people who listen to him

You're right, of course. But every once in a while I just can't stay on the moral high ground.



Good point. Imagine how secure our borders would be if we had 25,000 troops stationed there instead of in Iraq.



Correct again. We are fighting to establish a stable government in Iraq so Al Queda doesn't fill the power vacuum if we leave. But if the Iraqis can't stop fighting each other we'll leave anyway. But by then we will have thoroughly destroyed the country so it will be of no value to Al Queda, anyway. Which counts as a "win" in a sad, grim sense.



How different would our country be if we had spent the money on the Iraq war on social problems? That is an interesting thing to think about. And how would we now look in the world's eyes?

Oh, please...

And I suppose the other four on your list are the four nearest Republicans?

You know, I'm not sure.



This is true, yes? Maybe one solution would be to be so big a threat that they don't dare to risk our wrath.

Interesting.

This whole war is rather interesting, in fact. Nearly every other war we've fought has been a lot bloodier (soldiers dead in the world wars count in the millions, and the american civil war a lot more) - but you'd think this war was the bloodiest we've had yet. It isn't - in fact, it barely scratches the surface. Yet we call Bush "dangerous" - what does that make the presidents of the previous wars?

Interestingly enough, people also complain about our occupation - although we occupied Germany and other countries for decades (and we still have soldiers in Germany). What makes the Iraq occupation special?

Oh, yeah, it's those terrorists. In fact, they're the ones killing most of the people today, with no regard for innocence or guilt. Personally, they'd be at the top of my list as the most dangerous.

And it's not just the killing that's dangerous. After all, they're not called "terrorists" for no reason - their primary objective is to terrorize you.

The terrorists' ultimate goal is not to win, but rather to convince you that you're losing. Make no mistake, this is psychological warfare. And our media is siding with the enemy.

And, unfortunately, they are winning. Not because we can't defeat them - but because they can convince us we are losing.

The truth be known, we are at a stalemate, not a loss. In addition, we kill a lot more of them - for every one of our soldiers dead, there's about six to ten or so of them dead. So actually, the stalemate is in our favor.

Fortunately, we don't need to really be losing the war. We only need to be convinced we are losing.

Luckily, the Iraq war will start anew if we elect a Democrat president in 2008. We'll pull out of Iraq. Our soldiers won't die, of course, because they're much more important than that store keeper on the street just trying to make a living.

The day after we pull out? Well, that store keeper will be dead, because he was the wrong religion. And so will a lot more people. The Sunnis and Shiites will be at each others' throats, and the new democratic government will be powerless. The number of dead will skyrocket, and the blood will continue to spill.

Tell me, how many lives will really be saved by pulling out of Iraq? Do you only count our soldiers?

The most dangerous person in the world is not George W. Bush.

The most dangerous person in the world is the person who says to the shop keeper: "Your life is not important. You are not worth defending. You will die while my soldier lives."

every time an insurgent kills citizens in Iraq, he creates more insurgents looking for revenge. Every time an insurgent in Iraq dies trying to kill American soldiers, the cycle of violence ends there.

That is somthing to consider.

oh i forgot... every time American soldiers kill Iraqi citizens they also create more insurgents looking for revenge - they need to be very careful if they want to succeed in Iraq.

Indeed. This is why Iraq must have a successful police force in place before we leave.



Therefore, if we pull out of Iraq before a police force is in place, the violence will become self perpetuating and uncontrollable.

It is indeed something to consider.



Of course, that is the solution! We must tell Americans to stay in Iraq, but they must allow themselves to be killed! They should not be allowed to defend themselves or return fire!

Incredible.

Interesting quote on Paul Harvey this morning -

"Once aerial bombs were invented 90 years ago, we ALL became combatants."

If we say that no innocent people can be injured we have handed the victory to those who don't care about the innocent. Which means that we don't care about the innocent. But we do care, so we can't harm them. So then...

The end to this circular argument is to be realistic about what we are doing. Will some innocent people die? Yes. Can we save many more by stabilizing the government. Probably.

If one death saves hundreds, is it worth it? Not if my talk to the dead kid's mother? Thousands? Millions?

How about two? If one dies to save two, then the math says it was worth it. Will we accept this?



Great post, Cobra.

Huh did i say that? I just said they need to be very careful. Meaning they need to be vary careful not to kill Iraqui citizens where possible.

Oh come on. That's not fair.

There's a big difference between coke and pepsi.

If the one 'chose' to die for the two then yes. The question of what is acceptable collateral dammage to achieve a certain goal on the other hand is far more complicated question

OK, but how? When the enemy is dressed as civilians, what can they do?

Our forces were never designed or trained for what we are asking them to do.

But if we dressed our soldiers as civilians so no one knew they were Americans......


The UN would scream that we are violating the Geneva Convention.



I'm laughing so hard I can't type!

Yea, pepsi is cheaper. So i always buy pepsi unless it dares to insult me by being the same price as coke, then of course i buy coke!

Agreed. Unfortunately, we're sorta placed in a no-win situation, because many of the insurgents are Iraqi. We're caught in a civil war.

In addition, there's a lot of anti-American sentiment going around which isn't really helping to solve the problem any faster.

So, yeah, there's a lot of pressure, and not very much we can do at the moment, except get the Iraqi police force up as fast as we can so we can leave as soon as possible.

So yeah, I agree with Bush - we leave when their government has adequate power, and when their police force is capable of maintaining law and order. We do not leave before they are ready.