I think Bush is more dangerous, because he have all kind of nuclear weapons.
2007-03-26 04:21:29 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They are both equally dangerous, they both have at their disposal men and women willing to fight to the death for them. That is what makes them dangerous.
I do think though that Bush is slightly more limited in the use of his force and there are no limits in Bin Laden's, he can just will something and it can happen, because there is no other governing body.
2007-03-26 04:58:06 · answer #1 · answered by Perhaps I love you more 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I seriously hope you are kidding. You libs are brain dead, I cannot wait for the day when Islam becomes a dominate force in the world and people like bin laden kill you libs immediately. You are the reason Islam is at war with the US not Bush, Bush is defending your warped ideals.
2007-03-26 04:31:38 · answer #2 · answered by Geo Washington 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is more dangerous as he has more power and support. Wherever he wants, he attacks and no one is there to condemn or stop him from doing so. He has killed too many innocent people all over the world in the name of war against terror but infact this war is against the people who are innocent and have nothing to do with America. These people have courage to say wrong if there is something wrong, they are not bowing in front of America, this is the main reason of current situation in the world.
2007-03-26 19:12:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
bush is of course - he has an arsenal to destroy the world countless times over while bin laden can make a stab wound at best
2007-03-26 04:28:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What you say is true, but Bin Laden is much more likely to actually use the weapons at his disposal. If he had a nuke or two, do you think he'd hesitate to set them off in your town?
2007-03-26 04:25:33 · answer #5 · answered by kscottmccormick 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush at least has a system of checks and balances to control him. Many Republicans are saying enough is enough to Bush's apparent lack of respect for the voters' say.
2007-03-26 04:24:42 · answer #6 · answered by J G 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That depends. If you mean who is more dangerous to the evil people of the world, then Bush.
If you mean who is more dangerous to the good people of the world , then Bin Laden.
.
2007-03-26 04:28:21 · answer #7 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
People like you who even ask this question are more dangerous than anyone.
You can elect an idiot who thinks like you into office.
2007-03-26 04:29:58 · answer #8 · answered by Philip McCrevice 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bin Laden, now go back to class.
2007-03-26 04:24:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'll tell you the same thing I've been telling the conservatives so far today:
Don't ask a question at all if you can't make it worth reading.
2007-03-26 04:25:12 · answer #10 · answered by Josh 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋