I've read some interesting results of a new poll among Canadians, Brits, Mexicans, and Israelis. The survey suggests 62 per cent of Canadian respondents believe Bush has made the world less safe since he became president in 2001. The poll also indicates 34 per cent of Canadians felt Bush is a "great danger" to the world.

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.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061103/bush_poll_061103/20061103?hub=TopStories
My Question to our neighbours to the south is, Do you care? Does it matter to you that your closest friend, trading partner, and ally in the world ranks your leader only behind Kim Jong Il and bin Laden for the worlds most dangerous leader?

From what I understand, most people living outside of the United States are totally dumbfounded by this man's worldview. Given how influencial our country is to the rest of the world, it's totally fair that they perceive him as dangerous.

I'd say he's obviously the most dangerous man in the world. Then again, the next President will be as well. That sort of goes with the territory of having thousands of nukes at one's disposal.

Yeah, how often are U.S. Presidents this stupid though?

in control of maybe the most dangerous arsenal (as has been stated) but to say hes just behind kim and osama is idiotic in terms of his person

Who cares about his person. I'm sure if you are a Muslim extremist or a North Korean party member, Osama and Kim Jong Il are perfectly respectable people.

no shit sherlock, but canada and the UK are a democratic society. to say bush is as evil as as much as the other two, i stand by my statement. youre letting your personal opinion of a man completely dilute any sense of reality in that type of comparisson

Nobody here said Bush was "evil." You can be well-intentioned yet still dangerous.

Exactly. The people who are most cocksure of themselves and their ideologies and their beliefs are the most dangerous ones of all.

And what is your impression of Muslim extremists and North Korean party members?

Worse than Bush, not as bad as Satan.

Yes. Bush should be fourth on the list.

We liberate tens of millions of people under President Bush's watch, and this makes him a dangerous...and to some evil....person. Amazing.

As Bill O'Reilly once said, the world's not black and white.

You've got a little drop of something on the corner of your mouth...

(+) liberate Iraqis
(+) capture Saddam
(-) destabilize Iraq (maybe civil war)
(-) refuse any talks with Iran, call them evil, provoke more hatred
(-) refuse any talks with N. Korea, call them evil, provoke more hatred
(-) run roughshod over Afghanistan, leave it under protected

Now, surely, all of this stuff is debatable, but it shouldn't be "amazing," "shocking," or "unbelievable" that someone might do their math this way. Unless you belive there's only one way to see the world, and all others are stupid and should be ignored, which is Bush's attitude, which is another negative (-).

Is LeninFlux Bush's Monica Lewinsky?

Very well put.

Well no, there isn't "one way" to look at the world. But all of your (-) are Liberal Talking Points.

1. "Destabilize Iraq"...Yes, Iraq has devolved into sectarian strife. But is this really our fault? In other words, were the Iraqis so mad at the Coalition Forces that they took arms and decided to shoot at each other? The only other alternative would be to have Saddam back in power. Is that desireable?

2. "Refuse any talks with Iran, call them evil, provoke more hatred." First, Iran had a clandestine nuclear program before President Bush took office. Second, we have not "refused any talks with Iran." The UN Security Council passed a resolution and President Bush has said over and over that we are more than willing to talk to Iran...the only caveat is that they verifiably suspend uranium enrichment. To say that we "refuse to talk" is just not true.

3. "Refuse any talks with N. Korea, call them evil, provoke more hatred." We have never "refused any talks with North Korea." What President Bush did was put together multi-lateral talks as opposed to the bi-lateral ones that the North Koreans agreed to, reached an agreement with and then broke under President Clinton's framework. North Korea walked away from the table...not the US. Again, to say that we "refuse to talk" is just not true.

4. "Run roughshod over Afghanistan, leave it under protected." A point can be made that we left Afghanistan under protected once we went into Iraq, but the circumstances behind it are not as you state them. The Taliban retreated into Pakistan in December, 2001. In order to "finish the job," as Democrats fault President Bush for not doing, we would have had to invade Pakistan. President Bush received assurances from the President of Pakistan that he would take the fight to the Taliban and assorted terrorists. This didn't work out very well as the Pakistani Army proved to be ineffective, and the Taliban regrouped and we now have their resurgence to deal with. But President Bush put together a NATO force to deal with it and has tens of thousands of our own troops back in the theatre.

On a side note, I'm always amused at the idea that President Bush "provoked" the situation by declaring regimes to be "evil." Let's ignore the fact that Iran had a nuclear program well under way before his "Axis of Evil" speech. Let's also ignore the fact that Hezbollah was an Iranian proxy long before the Axis of Evil speech. And we'll also ignore the fact that Iran declared the United States to be the "Great Satan" long before the Axis of Evil speech. I won't bother getting into North Korea's prior actions of provocation and saber-rattling rhetoric.

[quote="LeninFlux]Well no, there isn't "one way" to look at the world. But all of your (-) are Liberal Talking Points. [/quote]

If those are Liberal talking points, than Liberals are talking for the bulk of America.