British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il

[dannubis]

Well, how many countries did kimmy attack the past 5 years ?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by dannubis
Well, how many countries did kimmy attack the past 5 years ?

One - his own

[dannubis]

suicide does count not !

[Barnabas]

England is to the USA, what Portugal was to England 200 years ago

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Is there a link to more detailed results? I'm curious to see what the mood in Canada is like.

From CP:

TORONTO — Canadians believe the world has become a more dangerous place since George W. Bush was elected U.S. president and a majority believe he will launch military strikes in Iran or North Korea before his term ends in 2008, a new poll suggests.
The EKOS poll was done in Canada for the Toronto Star and Montreal’s La Presse ahead of Tuesday’s U.S. mid-term elections, which many expect to be decided on the issue of the Iraq war.

The survey suggests 62 per cent of Canadians who were asked thought Bush has made the world less safe since early 2001, when he was sworn in as president. The poll also indicates 34 per cent of Canadians felt Bush is a “great danger” to the world.

Canadians told Ekos they believed Osama bin Laden posed the greatest danger to the world, followed by North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, then Bush. Ranked fourth and fifth were Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

Canadians seem to have soured on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as 73 per cent told EKOS that Washington had no justification for it. When the same question was asked of Canadians in April 2003, right after the U.S. invasion, EKOS found 53 per cent thought it unjustified.



The same questions were also posed to respondents in Britain, Israel and Mexico.

The polling was conducted in late October and involved 1,000 people from each country. The results are considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

[Last Conformist]

Kim could wreck Korea and make a couple holes in Japan. bin Ladin could record a video in a grogforgotten cave. Bush could start a war pretty much anywhere and get away with it. Given such power disparities, who's the most malevolent or insane is irrelevant to assessments of danger.

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

"Don't fear me. I'm just a doorman for a very big Dalek!"

That's my joke!

Still, at least I'll leave Apolyton one day having left something worthwhile behind me. And no, that won't be the burnt mess of the Shakespeare Pub in London.

[Lonestar]

I really like that picture of Dubya.

[Whaleboy]

And no, that won't be the burnt mess of the Shakespeare Pub in London.

What about Mandy?

[Straybow]

Poll is hosed. Asking who is a "threat to world peace," as if there were world peace. Asking if Bush "made the world less safe," as though he had something to do with 9/11.

News flash: the world didn't change on 9/11, only one group of wackos finally succeeded in doing something truly vile. The wackos and their plans had been developed and in place for years.

I don't respond to polls asking questions other than "do you generally approve/disapprove" because polls can only ask vague, shallow questions that don't mean much. Pollsters can't expect much attention span or comprehension above that.

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
This is the bit I really like -

the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma)

for recognising that the Guardian is not a leading newspaper in Britain.

Unfortunately, The Sun is the leading newspaper in Britain.

[joncha]

Silly Strangebow. 9/11 changed everything.

[Chemical Ollie]

Where is Robocon when you need him?

[Solly]

Shows how stupid the Brits questioned are.

[Chemical Ollie]

Oh, there he is!