> question: who is a greater threat to the world, Saddam or Bush? For my
> money, despite the fact that the latter is something of a cretin and has
> politics I abhor, the former is a greater threat to the world. Saddam is
> not a benevolent dictator. He would have had nukes as his disposal long ago
> if not for outside intervention. Who knows what sort of havoc he might
> create in the ME if Iraq is able to build nuclear weapons in the near
> future?
Nonsense. Iraq is a tiny, bombed-out country, with 23 million people and a GDP the size of Louisville, Kentucky. It's no threat to Turkey or Iran or even Saudi Arabia. *Any* nation stupid enough to use nuclear weapons, anywhere, would face the wrath of the entire world community.
The US oiligarchy is threatening to start a godawful firestorm in the Middle East, which will flame out of control and kill millions. The US oiligarchy has pulled out of Kyoto and countless other international accords. The US oiligarchy continues to push carbon fuels, a decision which will cause unimaginable grief to future generations. The US oiligarchy continues to jail the poor in vast numbers while forking over hundreds of billions in tax breaks to Wall Street. The US oiligarchy funds the monstrous occupation of Palestine by Israel.
Saddam's regime threatens the Kurds, but the oiligarchy threatens the entire planet.
-- Dennis