British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il
November 3, 2006 9:41 AM   Subscribe

Newsfilter: Bush and America are now perceived to be more dangerous than Kim Jong-il according to an international opinion poll published by the Guardian Newspaper. Perhaps more interesting than that, it shows that only 1 in 4 people in Israel think that Bush has made the world safer - a fairly small percentage for a country that is traditionally one of America's staunchest allies when it comes to national security...
posted by Mave_80 (90 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
Speaking as an American, I agree.
posted by keswick at 9:46 AM on November 3, 2006


Let's see - how many countries has NK invaded over the past 40 years?
posted by 2sheets at 9:47 AM on November 3, 2006


Only now? Our government has a fantastic PR machine.
posted by pinespree at 9:54 AM on November 3, 2006


Perception? It's a fact.
posted by fire&wings at 9:56 AM on November 3, 2006


Speaking as an American, I agree.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:00 AM on November 3, 2006


total fact, and they're very smart to know that fact.

We really don't have allies any more in the traditional sense of the word i don't think (except for maybe the UK)--we just have countries we use situationally.
posted by amberglow at 10:00 AM on November 3, 2006


25% in Israel feel safer with Bush?

Who are the 25% that think an Iran with nuclear ambitions, rockets flying over the border from Lebanon and an Iraq in chaos makes them safer?
posted by AspectRatio at 10:02 AM on November 3, 2006


Paul Wolfowitz's relatives?
posted by matteo at 10:07 AM on November 3, 2006


(big family)
posted by matteo at 10:08 AM on November 3, 2006


Speaking as an American, I disagree.
posted by 777 at 10:08 AM on November 3, 2006


american, agree.
posted by empath at 10:11 AM on November 3, 2006


Isn't the point of the poll that "More British believe that Bush is dangerous to world peace than British believe that Kim Jong-Il is" rather than "Bush is more dangerous"? Just saying...
posted by Herr Fahrstuhl at 10:13 AM on November 3, 2006


25% in Israel feel safer with Bush?

I wonder if a disproportionate share of that 25% would be American-born Jews who made aliya to Israel. I wonder what the sabra vs. non-sabra breakdown would be.
posted by jonp72 at 10:14 AM on November 3, 2006


American, agree.
posted by amro at 10:14 AM on November 3, 2006


Uh-uh-uh uh, uh, uh-uh uh-uh-uh
Johnny's in America
Low techs at the wheel
Uh-uh-uh uh, uh, uh-uh uh-uh-uh
Nobody needs anyone
They don't even just pretend
Uh-uh-uh uh, uh, uh-uh uh-uh-uh
Johnny's in America

CHORUS (x2)
I'm afraid of Americans
I'm afraid of the world
I'm afraid I can't help it
I'm afraid I can't
posted by jkaczor at 10:15 AM on November 3, 2006


Herr Fahrstuhl - I disagree, try reading the article.
posted by adamvasco at 10:17 AM on November 3, 2006


with you that is. I am in complete agreement with the survey.
posted by adamvasco at 10:18 AM on November 3, 2006


Why do the Brits hate America?

Are they all "Islamofascists" now?

Or are they all terrorist enablers like anyone in the US who votes Democratic this election?

Buckshot Dick ain't gonna be happy!
posted by nofundy at 10:18 AM on November 3, 2006


Well, duh!

(about the article, not any of your comments)
posted by echo0720 at 10:25 AM on November 3, 2006


Kim Jong Ill may be a worse leader then Bush, but bush has far greater capacity to do harm.

Still, is the Average North Korean worse off then the average Iraqi? Kim has done a huge amount of damage to his own people, in excess of what was done to any group of people by bush, other then the Iraqis.

If you only count people outside of the country the person leads, then unquestionably bush has done more damage.
posted by delmoi at 10:31 AM on November 3, 2006


Herr Fahrstuhl - "As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries..."
posted by engling at 10:34 AM on November 3, 2006


"He (Bush) is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries, but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% who think this of Mr Bush."

I don't understand those fricken Brits seeing Osama as a greater danger than Bush. After all, bin Laden doesn't have his finger on enough nuclear power to pulverize Jupiter or, worse yet, Buckshot Dick lurking in the wings.
posted by BillyElmore at 10:35 AM on November 3, 2006


Delmoi, KJ has more capacity for harm? Really? With Bush, we've got a power-hungry leader with the world's strongest military and nuclear arsenal. Not to mention the ability to undermine civil liberties. I disagree.
posted by craven_morhead at 10:38 AM on November 3, 2006


AspectRatio, you're surprised that 25% of Israelis feel safer with Bush in office, when we have 34% of Americans who think he's doing a heckuva job? There are always idiots. Apparently, the idiot/non-idiot ratio is currently hovering somewhere around 1/4 (with margin for error, of course, as pollsters might be among the idiots).

Don't forget: 25% of Americans don't believe the Holocaust happened. Heck, 1/6 of Canadians don't believe the Holocaust happened, and Canadians are nice people, right?

Israel Schmisrael, I say!
posted by tzikeh at 10:43 AM on November 3, 2006


Delmoi, KJ has more capacity for harm? Really? With Bush, we've got a power-hungry leader with the world's strongest military and nuclear arsenal. Not to mention the ability to undermine civil liberties. I disagree.

No, we agree. Read my post again.
posted by delmoi at 10:50 AM on November 3, 2006


Any press is good press! I think Bush has what it takes to make it to #1 in the charts!
posted by peeedro at 10:51 AM on November 3, 2006


Not to mention the ability to undermine civil liberties. I disagree.

Are you seriously citing civil liberties as proof of how Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong Il? You've heard about North Korea, right?
posted by pardonyou? at 10:59 AM on November 3, 2006


craven_morhead : "With Bush, we've got a power-hungry leader with the world's strongest military and nuclear arsenal. Not to mention the ability to undermine civil liberties. I disagree."

Er, KJI doesn't have the ability to undermine civil liberties?
posted by Bugbread at 11:08 AM on November 3, 2006


Perhaps more interesting than that, it shows that only 1 in 4 people in Israel think that Bush has made the world safer - a fairly small percentage for a country that is traditionally one of America's staunchest allies when it comes to [the] national security [of Israel] ...

Fixed that for you.
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 11:13 AM on November 3, 2006


North Koreans don't really have many civil liberties left to undermine.

That being said, I'm American and I agree.
posted by SBMike at 11:14 AM on November 3, 2006


I mean, if Israel lost a war, and was overrun by some other power in the region—which is almost impossible, it has the best army in the world, and nuclear weapons—the US would gain millions of skilled immigrants, and its own security would not be dented in the least. Supporting Israel is not in the interest of the national security of the US; it is in the interest of the re-election of the people making US foreign policy.
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 11:17 AM on November 3, 2006


Er, KJI doesn't have the ability to undermine civil liberties?

Not outside of his own country, no. Unlike Bush.
posted by influx at 11:21 AM on November 3, 2006


Interesting, but would have been more interesting with time series data. Does anyone know of similar polls held in the past?
posted by athenian at 11:21 AM on November 3, 2006


I don't understand those fricken Brits seeing Osama as a greater danger than Bush.

I imagine it's because Bin Laden is seen as a symbol for 'general Islamic fundamentalist terrorist threat'.
posted by jack_mo at 11:23 AM on November 3, 2006


Why do the Brits hate America?

We've nothing against most north americans, you're largely perfectly pleasant people. Many of your compatriots believe your TV presenters far too much, but they're otherwise decent enough.

It's your government that's got us pants-wettingly scared, as Brown-nose Tony does anything he's told, and we've no idea what suicidally insane scheme we're going to get dragged into next. We're rather worried it's going to be a war and nuclear exchange with Iran and/or NK, or possibly both. We don't really want to see a full blown 5-way religious war kicking off across the entire middle east either, but we seem to get closer to it every day thanks to Mr W Bush's policies.

Stir in the complete ignoring of slowly looming environmental disasters, and we're getting a little bit worried about WTF you guys are up to that side of the pond. Seriously, do Rumsfeld and Cheney not sound completely off their rockers to you guys over there? Maybe it's us...
posted by ArkhanJG at 11:23 AM on November 3, 2006


United States Citizen: Don't care
posted by a3matrix at 11:23 AM on November 3, 2006


You've got to laugh...
posted by algreer at 11:26 AM on November 3, 2006


"Are you seriously citing civil liberties as proof of how Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong Il?"

How many of my civil liberties are threatened by Jong a long a ding dong?
posted by 2sheets at 11:29 AM on November 3, 2006


I'm an American, and I approve of this message.
posted by triolus at 11:39 AM on November 3, 2006


a power-hungry leader with the world's strongest military and nuclear arsenal.


Two hours later at noon, H. R. Haldeman and Ron Ziegler joined Kissinger and Nixon:
President: How many did we kill in Laos?

Ziegler: Maybe ten thousand - fifteen?

Kissinger: In the Laotian thing, we killed about ten, fifteen.

President: See, the attack in the North that we have in mind, power plants, whatever's left - POL [petroleum], the docks. And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?

Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.

President: No, no, no, I'd rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?

Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.

President: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you?...I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.

posted by matteo at 11:39 AM on November 3, 2006


Yes, ArkhanJG, they do and are.
BTW, my comment was not a serious one. (just in case you didn't know)
posted by nofundy at 11:40 AM on November 3, 2006


Yeah, I agree too, but what do we do about it?

Me, precinct walking Monday in CA-11 -- all I've come up with so far.
posted by salvia at 11:44 AM on November 3, 2006


ArkhanJG, the trick to understanding the American psyche (speaking as one) is to grasp one very important thing:

Americans are terribly, terribly afraid.

They live in a media culture where every day, from every outlet, they are told how endangered they are. Gays are taking over marriage. Commies are undermining the economy. Liberals want to release the teeming criminal masses who are just waiting to rape your daughters. Terrorists are OUT THERE RIGHT NOW trying to blow up more skyscrapers.

And so on and soforth.

So despite living in the biggest, richest, safest country in the world, deep down most Americans believe we are THIS CLOSE to becoming the next Darfur. (even the ones who have never even heard of Darfur) And every decision this country makes is based on that underlying fear and complete paranoia. Which starts making Cheney and Rumsfeld sound reasonable.

The only reason the public is rallying behind the Dems is that the Republicans have managed to make themselves MORE scary than the terrorists to a lot of people. But there's no guarantee that once the Ds have power, they won't realize how easy it is to abuse power with such an easily-cowed populace.
posted by InnocentBystander at 11:44 AM on November 3, 2006


Hey! Do you pussies want some guy named Mustafa to kick down your door and slap a burkha on your hot sexy wife? And make your sons PLAY FUCKING SOCCER FOR CHRISSAKES?!?!?!?!!!?

CUZ THAT'S WHAT'S GOAN HAPPEN if these shit-heel Britons keep impugning us! Every time someone suggests that our orgies of terror, fire, and death are "dangerous", the baby Jesus cries and Osama bin Laden lights up a fat doobie comprising the dried organs of dead servicemen! Don't you get it? We're at war here, and calling Bush more "dangerous" than Il is like handing Osama the keys to my goddam Buick!
posted by Mister_A at 11:49 AM on November 3, 2006


True, true InnocentBystander.

Which is why Americans desperately need to turn off their TVs and get informed about reality.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:51 AM on November 3, 2006


I've never been able to decide if it's Bush or his hardcore, slack-jawed supporters who scare me more. There are no excuses left for supporting this election-stealing war criminal bastard. On September 12, when flags went up on every porch and car antenna in the nation, I can remember folks saying how grateful they were that Bush scammed his way into office. Gore wouldn't have been up the challenge.

Which was nonsense, of course. With such a rabid outbreak of nationalism, this country would have rallied behind Rocky & Bullwinkle, had they stood behind the seal of office and gave speeches that rang like the script of a Micheal Bay film. The Taliban could have had worlds of big trouble for Moose & Squirrel and it wouldn't have mattered - that's how badly we wanted to believe.

I suppose Bin Ladin still frightens me more, but only by inches. After all, Bush's body count has now exceeded that of 9/11 by several magnitudes. All that said, I wish he and Bin Ladin both long, healthy lives. Preferrably with a war crimes trial somewhere in the near future. Either one of them dying now would unleash catastrophic martyr effects that I doubt the globe could endure.
posted by EatTheWeak at 11:53 AM on November 3, 2006




Don't forget: 25% of Americans don't believe the Holocaust happened.

What? Where are you getting that statistic from?
posted by Pastabagel at 12:11 PM on November 3, 2006


The propaganda machine keeps on rolling. On Fox News about the new Borat movie. "America haters will love how Cohen uses Michael Moore-type scenarios to get his point across."
posted by Mr_Zero at 12:12 PM on November 3, 2006


How many of my civil liberties are threatened by Jong a long a ding dong?

For that matter, how many British civil liberties are threated by Bush a whoosh a toosh toosh?

Obviously, for a North Korean, KJI will be the greater threat to civil liberties. Obviously, for an America, Bush will be the greater threat. We're not talking about that, as far as I know. We're talking about "threat to the world". I don't think Bush's abilities to quash American civil liberties, or KJI's abilities to quash NK civil liberties, are really the big threats to the world that people are worried about. It's the war stuff.

After all, if you're going to use your own local situation as the basis for international opinion, then clearly the biggest threat to world peace is that scary guy who sometimes lurks around my train station.
posted by Bugbread at 12:13 PM on November 3, 2006


bugbread : In Britain? None. Now, how many British civil liberties are threatened by Tony "I never saw a bowel movement from George W. Bush I wouldn't want to emulate" Blair using this whole war on terror thing to his own advantage? Quite a few, buddy.

In the US? Quite a few. There's that whole 'as aliens we Brits don't warrant Habeas Corpus' thing, the whole 'lock them up without trial' thing, the whole 'Hey, it wasn't torture it was vigorous interrogation' thing ... whole lotta things, really. Oddly enough, perhaps we're somewhat against the president of a country who's basically said he reserves the right to lock up visiting Brits and throw away the key if he feels like it ...

I know the response, here : don't visit. Oh, don't worry - I don't and won't. There are some Brits, however, who might not have that luxury of saying that so glibly. Family in the US, job in the US, that sorta thing.
posted by kaemaril at 12:29 PM on November 3, 2006


Speaking as an American: I'm sorry about this.
posted by davejay at 12:36 PM on November 3, 2006


That makes sense, kaemaril. I apologize, I wasn't considering the non-USian visiting the US scenario.

It just seemed that a lot of people were saying "As an American, Bush is a greater threat to my civil liberties than KJI is, and, as such, he is a greater threat to the world, because what threatens me as an American is obviously the same as what threatens the world". That seemed a little bit egomaniacal. But you're right, much more of the world visits the US than visits North Korea, so even for a lot of non-Americans, decreased American civil liberties present more of a threat than decreased North Korean civil liberties.

So, anyone who was commenting in the second sense, I apologize.
posted by Bugbread at 12:41 PM on November 3, 2006


As a scary guy who sometimes lurks around train stations, I agree.
posted by econous at 12:44 PM on November 3, 2006


Americans are terribly, terribly afraid.

This is exactly right. I'd further extend it this way:

Americans believe in life as seen on TV.

I'm serious. Most of us think that what's on TV is the real world. TV in this country is an endless parade of things-to-be-scared-of, because nothing pulls in eyeballs like fear and spectacle.

There probably has never been a group of people in the world who simultaneously fear so much and have so little real danger.

Add in a great deal of military power and outright evil leadership, and you can see the results for yourselves.
posted by Malor at 12:45 PM on November 3, 2006


bujgbread: we have admitted that we actively steal people off the streets of foreign countries and fly them to foreign prisons where they can be 'legally' interrogated. People don't even have to VISIT the US to get nabbed, and to be removed from all help.

I understand that NK has kidnapped some people too, but as far as I know, they haven't done that in more than a decade, and we're just getting started.

For probably 90% of the world's population, we ARE a far greater threat than NK.
posted by Malor at 12:51 PM on November 3, 2006


Hell Malor, you should see the venom I get whenever I suggest our best course of action in regards to North Korea is to IGNORE THEM.

But they have teh nuke!

Even when I point out that the North Koreans don't have a delivery system and are years from having one, they STILL find ways to be terribly frightened of NK and insist that we HAVE to intervene immediately.

In between, of course, saying I hate America and want to see a mushroom cloud over NYC.
posted by InnocentBystander at 1:03 PM on November 3, 2006


Malor: Sorry, I may have been unclear. I wasn't arguing that America isn't as a whole more of a threat than NK, just about the civil liberties part. But, as you point out, the US has extraterritoriality in addition to declining civil liberties, so I take back my disagreement on that point as well.
posted by Bugbread at 1:08 PM on November 3, 2006


InnocentBystander: Even when I point out that the North Koreans don't have a delivery system and are years from having one, they STILL find ways to be terribly frightened of NK and insist that we HAVE to intervene immediately.

Eh? They've been firing missiles capable of carrying nukes since 1993.
posted by Bugbread at 1:13 PM on November 3, 2006


Metafilter: the baby Jesus cries and Osama bin Laden lights up a fat doobie comprising the dried organs of dead servicemen!

: >
posted by amberglow at 1:16 PM on November 3, 2006


The Pew Global Attitudes project has data over a few years on similar issues.

It'll be interesting to see if there people take to the streets globally to celebrate if the Dems get the house on Tuesday.
posted by sien at 1:18 PM on November 3, 2006


Thank you for proving my point, Bugbread. In it's entirety.

Yes, they have missiles capable of CARRYING nuclear warheads. Just not very far. Or with any precision.

Their actual threat to the US is a statistical zero.

The MOST they could do is lob one at South Korea or Japan and, assuming it actually hit something, have their country then be destroyed in retaliation.

Assuming China let them do something that ridiculous and suicidal, which it would not.

North Korea is not a threat. Period.
posted by InnocentBystander at 1:21 PM on November 3, 2006


Of course it's true. Bush has a lot more nukes than North Korea.
posted by MythMaker at 1:23 PM on November 3, 2006


I just want to say, as an American, how impressed I am that after all that's happened in the last six years, the rest of the world is able to focus their hatred on Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and not on ordinary Americans. My fear is that this general good will towards the other 300 million of us is not going to last forever...

Hey, Rest of the World: We're trying, we really are...
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 1:23 PM on November 3, 2006


InnocentBystander: Thank you for proving my point, Bugbread. In it's entirety.

The MOST they could do is lob one at South Korea or Japan and, assuming it actually hit something, have their country then be destroyed in retaliation.


Ah. Allow me to apologize for LIVING IN TOKYO AND NOT AMERICA. I forgot that if a country is not a threat to America, nobody else should be worried about it either. After all, America is all that counts, right? Thank you for proving my point, InnocentBystander. In its entirety.
posted by Bugbread at 1:37 PM on November 3, 2006


Slarty Bartfast: *I* loathe you. Feel better now?
posted by mr. strange at 1:54 PM on November 3, 2006


OK bugbread, let's see... In my initial post on the subject, I was very clearly talking about NK not being a threat to the *United States.* This is absolutely clear from my post.

Then you response, disagreeing with me. You said, but they have missiles. This is all you said.

Nowhere in your post, nor in this entire thread, did you give any indication that you were referring to them being a threat to anywhere but the US. If you had meant to say, they have missiles, therefore they could be a threat to JAPAN, you completely failed to do so.

And then you express surprise and outrage that I, unaware that you had changed the rules of the debate since you didn't bother to tell me, did not know you were talking about Japan.

Pardon. Me.

And furthermore, might I point out, that in this context, your comment of "Eh? They've been firing missiles capable of carrying nukes since 1993," would then carry the meaning that you EXPECT the US to intervene on your behalf. Since, again, I was talking about whether or not the US should interfere with North Korea.

Is *that* the point you were attempting to make?

Please clarify in detail lest I mistake you again.
posted by InnocentBystander at 2:00 PM on November 3, 2006


"...despite living in the biggest, richest, safest country in the world, deep down most Americans believe we are THIS CLOSE to becoming the next Darfur..."

I'm more concerned that we're all THIS CLOSE to becoming the next New Orleans.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:01 PM on November 3, 2006


Hey, Rest of the World: We're trying, we really are...
That's what i used to think before you re-elected him.
posted by silence at 2:06 PM on November 3, 2006


OK bugbread, let's see... In my initial post on the subject, I was very clearly talking about NK not being a threat to the *United States.* This is absolutely clear from my post.

Then you response, disagreeing with me. You said, but they have missiles. This is all you said.


I understood that you were talking about whether or not they were a threat to the US. However, since the discussion is, overall, about which country is dangerous to countries other then the US and NK, I took your statement that they didn't have a missile delivery system on its face, to mean that they didn't have a missile delivery system, not to mean that they didn't have one capable of hitting the US. My comment ("Eh? They've had delivery systems since 1993") was just a light reminder that they do have delivery systems, just not very long range ones.

Nowhere in your post, nor in this entire thread, did you give any indication that you were referring to them being a threat to anywhere but the US.

This entire thread is about the threat of Bush and Kim Jong Il to the rest of the world. That's the whole topic being discussed. No, I did not bring up Japan specifically. But my whole discussion, above, has been about the relative threats of NK and the US to the rest of the world, not to the US. In fact, you'll note that I'm not even placing NK above the US on the threat ladder. It's more dangerous to me, of course, but so is the crazy guy who hangs out near my train station. We're not discussing which is more dangerous to Japan, or which is more dangerous to the US, but which is more dangerous to the rest of the world.

"And then you express surprise and outrage that I, unaware that you had changed the rules of the debate since you didn't bother to tell me, did not know you were talking about Japan."

No. I expressed surprise and annoyance that the rules of this discussion are "which is more dangerous to the world", and that your perception of relative danger is "well, if a country isn't dangerous to the US, it's not a danger to anyone". I'm not saying that NK is the winner of this fight because it could nuke my town. My town isn't the deciding factor here. And neither is the US. My annoyance, and my point throughout the thread so far, is that whether something threatens America or not is not the deciding factor in what threatens the rest of the world or not, because America is not the center of the world.

"And furthermore, might I point out, that in this context, your comment of "Eh? They've been firing missiles capable of carrying nukes since 1993," would then carry the meaning that you EXPECT the US to intervene on your behalf."

If it carries that meaning, I apologize. All I meant to say is what I said (no subtext), which is that they have had international nuclear missile capable delivery systems since 1993. That's all, nothing else.
posted by Bugbread at 2:24 PM on November 3, 2006



My first time actually looking something up on uTube

Bowie + Reznor
- it ain't worth an FPP but it's worth a look.

I had totally forgotten the punchline to the song, but it's handled nicely here.

(comment transplanted from other, totally irrelevant to issue, thread)
posted by Sparx at 2:27 PM on November 3, 2006


Slarty Bartfast: *I* loathe you. Feel better now?

Damn you, Bush. Now they hate me too.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 2:37 PM on November 3, 2006


What innocentbystander said @ 2:44
posted by notreally at 2:44 PM on November 3, 2006


As much as I am looking forward to a little regime change stateside, I would be hard pressed to EVER think of any country other than this one in the history of the world, under any president, that would be the most dangerous country in the world. Look, we are the only country to have ever used nukes, we have more than anyone, a large standing army, advanced weaponry, and a cowboy, attitude. Who else, ever? Nothing new here, seems to me.

What has saved us in the past has been (I think) a generally moral and educated, if sometimes misguided and somewhat parochial leadership. We were the 'big lug' on the block. What we've become is the drunken idiot self-righteous fat scared bully. Don't worry too much world, we're getting it under control, sometimes freedom doesn't lead you the best places, but it does allow you to change things....I hope.
posted by sfts2 at 3:30 PM on November 3, 2006




United States Citizen: Don't care

Yeah, that's why the rest of us hate you.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:04 PM on November 3, 2006


Attention Guardian readers: Bush's plan was to "fight terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them over here." And you live "over there". Here at home he's fighting civil liberties.
posted by ryanrs at 4:15 PM on November 3, 2006


Speaking as a Canadian living in Korea, I want both of the fuckers strung up by their nuts, preferably side by side.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:37 PM on November 3, 2006


For that matter, how many British civil liberties are threated by Bush a whoosh a toosh toosh?
Plenty: We had biometric recognition fitted to our passports so far ahead of schedule that it bypassed the debate stage because the US said without it we wouldn't get tourist visas.

Additionally, as passengers our personal information is exposed forcibly to a country without EU protection laws. And flights to the US are subject to insane restrictions on liquids, still.
posted by bonaldi at 4:49 PM on November 3, 2006


I bought the Guardian today, and this headline is going on my wall.
posted by 999 at 4:55 PM on November 3, 2006


Well, at least Kim Jong-Il isn't creating web sites that show the world how to build nukes, in Arabic (no less).
posted by clevershark at 5:06 PM on November 3, 2006


But the speed cameras and CCTV monitoring were your own doing.
posted by ryanrs at 5:21 PM on November 3, 2006


It's funny because it's true.
posted by NewBornHippy at 6:40 PM on November 3, 2006


Does Britian, who as a country supports us, really have a lot to say about us? They're not exactly unbiased.
posted by Cyclopsis Raptor at 6:56 PM on November 3, 2006


Well, their gov't supports our gov't anyway.
posted by ryanrs at 7:14 PM on November 3, 2006


bonaldi: Plenty: We had biometric recognition fitted to our passports so far ahead of schedule that it bypassed the debate stage because the US said without it we wouldn't get tourist visas.

Additionally, as passengers our personal information is exposed forcibly to a country without EU protection laws.


Yes, I've since reversed my position on the impact of Bush on civil liberties outside the US (at the time, I was thinking about things like the right to assemble, protest, etc., not about the rights of people visiting but not living in the US. It was an oversight on my part, I apologize.)

bonaldi: "And flights to the US are subject to insane restrictions on liquids, still."

I wasn't aware that was a civil liberties issue. I thought that was just incredible stupidity.
posted by Bugbread at 4:45 AM on November 4, 2006


Even when I point out that the North Koreans don't have a delivery system and are years from having one

I find it amusing that you even think they have nuclear capabilities. Hook, line and sinker.

Since their primary enemy is just a couple hundred miles south of them, they could train a bunch of carrier pigeons to fly in formation if they wanted. The real problem (from the NK side of the DMZ) isn't their lack of delivery system, it's their lack of bomb.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:25 AM on November 4, 2006


despite living in the biggest, richest, safest country in the world

Huh??
posted by dreamsign at 5:57 AM on November 6, 2006


I hadn't even noticed that comment.

America is the biggest country in the world? Russia and Canada no longer exist?
America is the richest country in the world? Luxembourg and Norway no longer exist?
Safest country in the world? Australia, Japan, Canada, and pretty much all of Europe no longer exist?

When did this happen, and why wasn't it on the news.
posted by Bugbread at 9:14 AM on November 6, 2006


American news broadcast, probably.
posted by athenian at 12:05 PM on November 10, 2006


« Older It's only rock 'n roll, but Al likes it   |   Adrienne Shelly: 1966-2006 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments