2006-07-22 23:01:18 · 11 answers · asked by Agenda Dog 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with the others here.
Firstly, I fully accept that Kim Jong Il is a psychotic despot who is possessed of at least some nuclear weapons.
HOWEVER, he is trapped up in North Korea - he can hit Japan, South Korea, China and Eastern Russia (or if being particularly pointless, Mongolia) but no-one else. That is if he chose to. He is perfectly aware that even the slightest offensive action against any of these states will result in his being crushed. Chinese "support" for Kim is only really tolerance. If China perceives that N. Korea represents any threat to it's future prosperity (which any attack on any of the other countries would do) China will invade. Let alone the response from America.
So - Kim can at most launch one (admittedly nasty) attack in North-East Asia. Not really dangerous to the world as a whole...
However, Bush (who as someone has pointed out has God talking to him) is in control of the world's most powerful economy, the world's most powerful army, is responsible for the bulk of world emissions leading to climate change etc. Whereas Bush is clearly not a threat to AMERICAN interests, that much power concentrated in one man's hands (not just Bush, but really any American president) is without a shadow of a doubt a major threat to the rest of the world. And Bush is wielding that threat with rather reckless abandon.
So, QED. No question about it - BUSH. And no, to Army Wife and the others who suck up Neo-con propaganda... it is NOT a stupid question...
2006-07-23 00:45:48 · answer #1 · answered by the last ninja 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Kim Jong! Bush isn't threatening anyone with nuclear weapons!! Besides, Kim Jong is a Communist that's waaaaay off his rocker. An insane dictator with nukes?? Not much worse in this world than that!
2006-07-23 06:05:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kim Jong II is more dangerous
2006-07-23 06:09:18 · answer #3 · answered by Chymaportharcourt 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If dangerous implies starting wars that have killed thousands of people, then I think Bush would take the honours....
2-0 to Bush....and the way he's going on with Iran, won't be too surprised if he makes that 3-0.
2006-07-23 07:43:30 · answer #4 · answered by Hussain 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kim Jong... he thinks he is all powerful....and wants to prove it.....that makes him much more dangerous
2006-07-23 06:10:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kim, but thats only because there are checks and balances to Bush's power - such as the US congress.
2006-07-23 06:23:46 · answer #6 · answered by ArgumentativeButNotInsulting 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush - He is a man that swears he can hear God talking to him, and that is the most dangerous type of person.
2006-07-23 06:06:57 · answer #7 · answered by tiravellian 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither. You don't know the name of the most dangerous man in the world. I guarantee it.
2006-07-23 06:03:58 · answer #8 · answered by claymore 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It actually depends who you are, and its a perspective question! the most dangerous man for me these days is my boss, who will kill me with the workload!!
2006-07-23 06:18:27 · answer #9 · answered by rickashe 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
bill gates. lol. i wouldn't be surprised if there's some code hidden deep in windows that gates can activate at any given moment and just steal everyone's information, and then totally shut down the wordl. lol
2006-07-23 06:05:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋