Do you people really think George Bush is as dangerous as Osama bin Laden or Kim Jong-Il? Seriously. Who would you rather be in a room with Osama or Bush? I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. What I don’t understand is how people have gotten so crazy that they think George Bush is somehow worse than certifiable sociopaths. Come on people. Come on.

I was waiting for the comments to turn personal and they did so I think we should consider what we’re answering. The poll asks about the most dangerous individual, though a lot of you seem to be answer "evil."

dangerous, adj., able or likely to cause harm or injury

Given that definition, Bush is clearly #1.

You have to consider the magnitudes and put them in perspective. Bush has the most powerful military the world has ever seen. If unleashed, it could do terrible things. That is his ability. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan has caused both harm and injury; regardless of your political views. The war itself shows that he is likely to use his deadly power; regardless if for good or bad. He has both ability and likelihood. The magnitude of ability is so huge that I think it overshadows any competition.

So, I see this as more of a science question than an opinion. Spare us the opinions of who you voted for and why the other person is a moron and just answer the question and support your answer. By doing so (and doing it well), you will naturally counter other arguments.

A recent Guardian poll had Bush as more dangerous than Kim Jong-Il. However, Osama ws #1. It all depends on where the nukes are pointed: Britain doesn’t have much to fear from North Korea, but bin Laden has attacked their country and will try again.
He’s attacked ours too, but apparently George Dubya Bush is way more dangerous if you believe the results of this 0-Nerd poll.

I always felt Dick Cheney was quite dangerous in his quiet sneaky way, much more so than George Bush.