Originally Posted by dorfman24
So, Bush is a greater threat than Iran? Wow. Simply wow.
Bush's danger comes from having the world's most powerful arsenal of weapons under his control, and being without the necessary skills to figure out where to aim them, or even if they should be aimed at anyone, and, then, if so, whether or not to tell the world about it in cowboy movie jargon, some form of English, or to just shut up about it. Iran poses a threat because they say lots of offensive and stupid things about Israel, and are apparently able to send certain know how and resources to the Shiite Iraqis, which keeps at least half the "insurgents" in operation. Who is doing the same for the other half?
But, given what Iran can do on purpose vs. what Bush can do with another bumbling misstep like his last one, yes, I would say Bush represents a greater danger to world peace than Iran both in the probability of initiating some disaster and the scope such a disaster can become. And, if we continue to ignore the Iranians and let them become further alienated, Bush may actually be partly responsible for a good deal of their future ability to mount threats and their activity in the next years. Kind of like he should be held responsible for letting the NK nut stew in his own radioactive juices until he had a nuke before he tried to negotiate a solution that was other than entirely on terms he dictated to NK.
But we understand in the black and white world you guys insist on sorting all events into so you can apply cowboy movie logic to identify and root for the good guys, you will find all this utterly incomprehensible. I mean, Iran has already been issued black hats, so how can Bush, in his white hat, ever be viewed as other than righteously right? Jim