I totally agree. The USA is guilty of massive warcrimes in QB.grim_tales wrote:They shouldn't be tortured then under ANY cicumstances. Prisoners also cannot held without trial like in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib (sp?) - thats just wrong.
Actually, i was serious with what I said: I think I could have a much more sophisticated conversation with Bin Laden then with Dubya.Bin Laden is a sweet and nice guy in private?! I hope Yi was joking, I hear Hitler and Pol Pot were lovely guys to their mums as well.
Bush may be a coward, ignorant and as thick as pigshit, but he's not a tyrant.
By pretty much most accounts of everyone who has met OBL, including westerners (press), he's a very nice, soft-spoken and smart guy.
That does not mean I dont think he's evil. clearly he is, as he has intentionally made innocent victims, and thus is a bad man.
However, I WOULD call Bush a tyrant. His administration has repeatedly lied and abused their powers, and the numbers of innocent victims are well into the tens and maybe hundreds of thousands. I have absolutely no doubts that a large amount of those victims werent necesarry, and could have been avoided. Yet the Bush admin. chose to wage wars, and seeing where the profits are going (straight into bush's and his friend's pockets) you could at least have questions about his motives.
By most accounts of people who lived/worked near the president (and who are independent from him), the guy isnt the smartest guy around, and I also dont trust him.
Plain and simple, the guy is an idiot... so yeah, I would always choose to have a conversation with a smart guy that I dont agree with, as opposed to having a conversation with a dumbass that I dont agree with.
In my mind, both have done evil. I wouldnt consider BL a bigger threat to world peace, then Bush.
