Of these options, which Head of State do you believe to be the most dangerous?

[11 Bravo]

Not who do you most dislike, or who you think most needs his ass kicked, or who you feel is the most misguided; but who is the greatest threat to peace?

19 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Bashar al-Assad
	3 (16%)
	Barack Hussein Obama
	10 (53%)
	Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin
	6 (32%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[tarheelsunc]

1. Putin over Assad, because he actually has influence outside of his borders. eom

[Shrike47]

2. Rootin' Tootin' Putin, of course.

[onehandle]

3. Putin is a bully with nukes. As long as he is in power, I think the doomsday clock turns forward. nt

[JI7]

4. Putin as far as how much power and influence he has , but i think Saddam and Assad were personally

worse when it came to treatment of their own people.

[cali]

5. Putin, but if you'd asked me which country is the most dangerous, I would have

said the U.S.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. agreed. nt

[Benton D Struckcheon]

6. Assad

Not because of him personally, but because he has that CW, and at some point it will have to be secured. The situation in Syria, with Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and a bunch of sympathetic others on both sides, and then all this CW in the middle, is a nightmare.
This is why if the strike actually topples Assad, it may well be truly said that defeat (as in not deterring future use of CW and keeping Assad in power) is bad enough, but victory might wind up being a disaster.
Further, even staying out doesn't solve the problem, because at some point some one of these groups is going to get their hands on this stuff. I'd say it's more or less inevitable.
It doesn't really bear thinking about, if you spin out the most likely scenarios.

[freshwest]

48. Well said. And I keep asking myself, why didn't Assad listen to Syria's Arab Spring protestors?

It seems the escalation in violence could have been avoided if he'd given the people a voice as people were in Egypt. After all the bad rap on Mubarak, he was a kitty cat next to Assad.

Why all of the brutality, imprisonment, torture, shootings, shellings, gassings and murders?



I just wanna know. And I can't see how he's 'evil' or 'nuts' is the answer.

Nothing practical in the long run from inflicting terror on his own people. Short term he is propping up a regime whose time has passed.

Looking solely at Assad's benefit, what's missing?

[Benton D Struckcheon]

50. Tradition?

Dad did it successfully years ago, levelling a city but keeping his grip. Prolly figured an encore was called for. Things got a bit messy though. C'est la guerre.

[freshwest]

51. I guess I'm having trouble understanding how dad got away with it, too. The civil war is a bit late.

I'd never heard good things about the father or the son. Damn, things are rough over there most of the time. Kind of pre United Nations, or human rights. But then Syria has been around for centuries, as I noted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017143236

Thousands of years of history for the people, although the nation itself was defined by WW1. And I suppose by WW2. Now folks are saying it's the beginning of WW3.

From what I've been reading, there are global connections through Syria, but I'm not sure why this is the case. Could be that 'location X3' thing... I would think Turkey is more important.

Now I'm reading, but only in passing, thank goodness, conspiracies about the Jews - that train is never late! - set up Al Queda and Wahabism. Now we have people saying Obama is giving Syria to Al Queda? Is this the next big CT?

And I read the Russians provoked the 6-Day War. I'd never imagined such a thing. Syria was in the Byzantine Empire which is gone, but the page on Byzantism describes what we are up against here, with our inexperience:

Byzantinism or Byzantism is a term used in political science and philosophy to denote the political system and culture of the Byzantine Empire, and its spiritual successors, in particular, the Balkan states, the Ottoman Empire and Russia.[1][2] The term byzantinism itself was coined in the 19th century.[3] The term has primarily negative associations, implying complexity and autocracy.

This negative reputation stressed the confusing complexities of the Empire's ministries, the elaborateness of its court ceremonies, as well as its supposed lack of backbone in martial affairs. Likewise, the "Byzantine system" also suggests a penchant for intrigue, plots and assassinations and an overall unstable political state of affairs. The term has been criticized by modern scholars for being a generalization that is not very representative of the reality of the Byzantine aristocracy and bureaucracy.[4][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantinism



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

I can't wrap my mind about what this is. From either side. I really do not want this. I do understand that strategic strikes can work but in a country with that many people?

What a hellish mess. I'm mad at Assad for being such a fool and doing all of this because it cannot work in the long run, nor should it work. IMHO.

Thanks for expressing your opinions on this.

[TM99]

7. Obama.

Why?

Because the other two are known to be dangerous. There is very little pretense otherwise.

Obama hides the dangers he represents to this country behind a Nobel Peace Prize, the flowery rhetoric, and the pretense of being a 'constitutional scholar' which he is not.

It is a Hobson's choice between the lot of them right now.

[Erose999]

8. If its "person I'd least like to knife-fight" w/, then probably Putin. If its "person I'm least

trustful of having WMD's... then it'd be Obama.

[Demo_Chris]

9. Of these choices, President Obama is the greatest threat to both peace and American liberty...

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 06:21 PM - Edit history (1)

No one else is launching missiles and bombs at a dozen nations we are not officially at war with. No one else is planning -- right now -- to launch yet another war in the middle east. So far as my limited knowlege goes, as bad a guy as he undoubtedly is, Putin isn't currently bombing anyone. And as for our personal liberty, no one in American history has done more to ignore and destroy the legal constitutional protections we enjoy. No President in HISTORY has claimed the right to kill any citizen he wishes, in secret, without judicial process or congressional review. No President in American history has spied on his people more, or gone after whistleblowers and the Press the way this administration has.

In my opinion.

[hardcover]

14. At this point in time I'm sad to say I feel the same way.

I am very concerned about bombing Syria, I see it as a fight between a nasty dictator and a rebellion that has been infiltrated by terrorists. I am worried about the consequences to us, about the blow back from Iran and Russia. It's possible that it could start WWIII. JMHO

[AverageJoe90]

16. WWIII wouldn't happen.....not without a clear indication of some sort of deeper conspiracy.....

Yes, that IS what it would take, barring, perhaps, a scenario like that out of HBO's "By Dawn's Early Light&quot google it).

[HooptieWagon]

27. Russia is not going to just hand over Syria...

...without a fight. Yea, they'll fight by proxy for now, but if Assad gets in real trouble you'll see Russian troops, tanks, and aircraft in Syria.

[AverageJoe90]

30. I don't think so.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that Putin is using Syria as a distraction from increasingly severe problems at home, just as Dubya used the War on Terror to distract from the accelerating theft of our economy and elections; in fact, I'd bet that it'd be more likely that, especially if things get bad enough at home(which looks increasingly possible), that troops might just be deployed, not to Syria, but to their cities at home in the event that martial law breaks out.

[HooptieWagon]

36. Oh, bullshit. nt

[KittyWampus]

49. Then why isn't Putin sending Assad jet fighters that he needs?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57587531/putin-russia-has-not-sent-s-300-air-defense-missiles-to-syria-yet/

[HooptieWagon]

60. Jet fighters won't help Assad.

Jet fighters are of limited use in an urban ground war. Plus, US likely to shoot them down. Also, rebels have captured or destroyed most of Assads air bases...he only has 3 or 4 left, from original 20. Russia has been sending ground attack helicopters, and is re-considering deployment of S-300 air defense system. Or equipping Syria with latest S-400 system is also a possibility. Russia might want to give it a battle-field test.

[PragmaticLiberal]

41. That sounds like a leader who should be impeached......

I'm not advocating it. Just throwing it out there....

[mike_c]

10. Obama, hands down....

Commander in chief of the world's largest and most sophisticated killing machine, the top exporter of global terrorism, the ONLY one of the three who asserts the right to kill anyone in the world, for any reason, on his say so, he has an apparent obsession with secrecy, overseer of a security and surveillance state that has global tentacles, and an unwavering proponent, it seems, of American exceptionalism and imperialism. That's a bad recipe, IMO. No one else on that list can even come close to the dangerousness of President Obama.

[Supersedeas]

65. Kim J Il

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. people who voted obama should be kicked off DU. i am by NO stretch of imagination an obama-purist

but to compare him to dictators is absolute and complete bullshit.

we elected him. he is going about the war in a constitutionally mandated way. you think assad or putin would wait on congress/citizens to vote for either of these things?

on edit: if you changed obama to america, that would make more sense.

[BeeBee]

13. Yes, thank you.

This whole thread should be locked IMHO.

[zappaman]

15. I disagree!

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:21 PM - Edit history (3)

I love seeing who voted for Obama in this ridiculous poll.
So far...

bigwillq, jbpinkerton, Raksha, G_j, TM99, mike_c, hardcover, Erose999, Demo_Chris, Bandit, broiles, Township75, 1-Old-Man, ozone_man, Poll_Blind, David__77, Th1onein, JohnyCanuck, Katashi_itto

[1awake]

25. lol.. did you just broadcast votes in a private poll??

Is that even allowed here? Regardless of how you feel about it, that was a pretty shitty thing to do.

[tridim]

29. The poll results are public.

More: bigwillq, jbpinkerton, Raksha, G_j, TM99, mike_c, hardcover, Erose999, Demo_Chris, Bandit, broiles, Township75, 1-Old-Man, ozone_man

This is fucking disgusting.

[1awake]

32. Then my apologies... all these years I have never bothered to look. n/t

[zappaman]

38. Yeah, every poll is public.

Now ya know.

[Daniel537]

33. +1

Its always good to know the names of the brainless.

[G_j]

34. purge away

I stand by my vote. At this singular point in history I believe Obama on the verge of striking Syria is the most potentially dangerous player on the stage.

[David__77]

47. That is true.

At this moment, the United States poses a greater threat to world peace than either Russia or Syria. That is a fact. And you ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer...

[G_j]

52. I agree, the question was bound to trigger

some food fights. The wording was danger, not, evil.
Still, it's just a poll, and who really knows? This is geopolitics at its worst. They are all a danger to peace.

[Posteritatis]

18. Reminds me of people claiming he's the most authoritarian leader ever a few years back

Christ in heaven that was either a depressing or a hilarious thread, I still can't figure out which.

[Andy823]

23. Kind of crazy isn't it

No matter what it seems it just gets crazier and crazier! Post like this just show how insane things are getting. Disagreeing is one thing, comparing him to these dictators, well as you said it's just plain bullshit!

[bunnies]

31. Well....

today I learned that all the Obama voters are "insane". So yeah... I guess we should be purged.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023595453

[David__77]

39. I voted Obama to stand against the idea that those should be "kicked off DU."

It's a stupid poll, personifying countries. The US has done more damage, hence it get's the vote. Stupid poll, stupid answer.

[mike_c]

42. I beg to differ-- it's NOT constitutional....

I'm afraid most Americans are pretty uninformed in that regard, and appear to think that if the news media says it's constitutional, it just is. The truth is a bit more complicated.

Art. 2 Cl. 2 of the constitution is the "Supremacy clause." It establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It's been referred to as the most important constitutional clause for maintaining the union, because it prevents states from enacting laws that conflict with federal laws, and prevents congress from legislating laws that violate U.S. treaties.

Several treaties are important to this discussion, but the most important are probably the Kellog-Brand Pact and certainly the U.N. Charter. Both contain the signatorys' agreement to not use war as an instrument of foreign policy, and in particular, the Charter prohibits any attacks, for any reason other than immediate self defense or as authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Ban Ki Moon confirmed yesterday that attacking Syria would violate the Charter, which the U.S. Constitution establishes as U.S. law, and would constitute a war crime.

Article 2, paragraph 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 33

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

And Kellog-Brand specifically prohibits

Declaration of war upon another State.
Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State.
Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State.
Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State.
Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.

(emphasis added)

I've just been BANNED from the BOG group simply for pointing this out. That's it. Just for pointing out the unconstitutionality of violating our agreements re: the U.N. Charter. We call Bush and Cheney war criminals for doing precisely that. I believe that's the only time I've ever responded to a post in BOG. American exceptionalism at its worst. It's like, "Na na, we can't hear you."

This isn't a philosophical position. It's a simple truth. I've quoted from the Charter and alluded to the Constitution directly, not made up an argument to support my biases. If you disagree with me, how about we talk about the substance rather than calling one another names and calling for further banning?

[Th1onein]

43. How silly. Of course it's Obama.

He has the means, and he's capable AND willing to wage war.

[quinnox]

45. that is kind of ridiculous, frankly

If we go by that kind of logic, then the OP should be banned as well, because they dared to even post Obama's name as a possibility in the poll itself. Which is absurd. Maybe instead of talking about banning duers for their votes, it is perhaps better to let them have the freedom to select their picks.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. it is my opinion that if you think Obama is bigger threat than assad/putin, you don't belong here. n

[ocpagu]

55. But, objectively, he is.

The question is about the most dangerous head of state.

It is the head of state of the most dangerous country.

Spending half of the world's military budget, with thousands of nuclear weapons, and advanced toys, and with an imperialist foreign policy under influence of MIC, US qualifies as the most dangerous country of the planet.

Therefore, Obama.

Not his fault, though, as you can see, anyone there will fall in this position. I see no reason to feel offended.

[eridani]

58. It's really not Obama per se

It's the US military empire, and all US presidents since the end of the Cold War qualify for that status.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

61. which is a very different questions altogether.nt

[eridani]

64. Yes. I HATE this constant elevation of personalities over institutional power n/t

[AverageJoe90]

17. Putin. Assad is a madman, but he has no nukes(there were better choices, though! See text).

While I very seriously doubt Putin would want to start World War III....he may be Russia's Dubya but he's no Hitler(even with his tacit approval of Anti-LGBT legislation).....he's still dangerous, more so than Assad, who doesn't have nukes, btw, but maybe not as much as Kim Jong-Un or Ahmadinejad; those two very well COULD try something nuclear. They ARE that insane.

[Throd]

19. I want it on the record that Throd voted for Assad

[NuclearDem]

20. As long as you don't mind me taking it out of context!

Would you trust someone who voted for Assad? We sure don't think so.

[Throd]

22. I get a lot of shit for still having his campaign stickers on my car.

[hughee99]

21. Isn't that "Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama"? n/t

[ozone_man]

28. I hear he's working on his second. n/t

[DevonRex]

24. To Syrians and Israelis and Turks- Assad at this moment. Putin in the long run. nt

[Scootaloo]

26. King Abdullah al-Saud

Russia and the US are basically just jumping rope to his count at the moment.

[1awake]

35. Most dangerous to whom?

To the Syrian people... Assad

To the mid east and surrounding area... Putin

To me as a US citizen... Obama x 5

[LWolf]

37. +1

[tridim]

40. Why? And why x5?

[1awake]

44. I could tell you why

but it's said far better here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023595453


My order of importance would look different, but overall... the same.

[davidpdx]

53. Putin by far

I think Assad is a small time thug. Putin will rule Russia for as long as he wants to.

[ocpagu]

54. Obama.

He's the Head of State of the country spending the same amount of the rest of the world combined in military.

[AtomicKitten]

56. Putin's the wild card.

He's George of the Jungle on crack.

[eridani]

57. Toss-up between Putin and Obama

Russia's WMDs are guarded by rusty bicycle locks and underpaid soldiers. But they don't have an empire anymore. No matter who is the head of a military empire with 800+ miltary bases around the world, s/he is pretty dangerous by definition.

[eridani]

59. The problem is imperial state power, not any particular leader

You can't change the direction of an over-aggressive empire by changing presidents. Russia has more loose cannons than Putin. Assad hasn't done jack shit to any foreign country, and doesn't have the power to do anything either.

[malthaussen]

62. "Greatest threat to peace?"

Putin? Maybe I've been away from the news too long, but when was the last time Russia indulged in a war?

-- Mal

[zappaman]

63. LOL!

Can't believe we have DUers who think Obama is more dangerous than a dictator.

Unfuckingreal.


bigwillq, jbpinkerton, Raksha, G_j, TM99, mike_c, hardcover, Erose999, Demo_Chris, Bandit, Township75, 1-Old-Man, ozone_man, Poll_Blind, David__77, Th1onein, JohnyCanuck, Katashi_itto, Warpy, Wwagsthedog, Vashondem, Casandra, ramparta, XemaSab, ocpagu, malthaussen