Bush scarier that Kim Jong-il: UK poll

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bush is far from the best president we ever had, but you can no way lump him in with those other three. Plus out out of those four the only one that has really done anything evil as far as I'm concerned is OBL. The other two have been all talk so far. To me Fox in Mexico is more evil when it comes to the U.S.

Bush has started, against all treaties and conventions, an unjustified and needless war that has, thus far, cost about 3,000 American and Lord knows how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. How exactly does that not make him at least as bad as the others?

Well, as a Brit, I've yet to meet a single British person who likes GWB. We are all ###### scared of what he could potentially do. The ssoner he is out of office the better.

As an American, I would agree.

AMERICAN?????? Who said that????

I did. I am an American. By choice.

Self proclaimed american? I sure have'nt seen any testimony to that effect! You can use the "ïts the government I hate speak" last I heard the government is made up of what? hmmmmm elected officials. Elected! did I say "ELECTED" elected by who? hmmmmm, AMERICANS! disagree all you want with government, not a problem. You post a pic of the pres. comparing him to three of the most reprihensible,violent people on this planet is way over the top! Oh by the way your picture should also be included with them!

Self proclaimed? Not at all. There's a process one an follow to become an American. I did that. Again, by choice. And you can spew all the hate you want, I am still an American. Whether the ** you like it or not!

Besides, the President has caused the needless deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. That's a fact. And that makes him one of the most reprehensible people in the world putting him right in line with the other maniacs out there.

spoken like a true AMERICAN!

the President has caused the needless deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.

where is mention of other's that are far worse, never heard you complain about anyone other than Bush? Your obsession is obvious. there are far far worse people than Bush? But your obsessed ways are obvious! by the way who would make a good american president?

Marc, get a f#cking clue...sh#t your ignorance is astounding.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,

or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong,

is not only unpatriotic and servile,

but is morally treasonable to the American public."

~ Teddy Roosevelt

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Marc doesn't have a point - he just wants an argument.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush is far from the best president we ever had, but you can no way lump him in with those other three. Plus out out of those four the only one that has really done anything evil as far as I'm concerned is OBL. The other two have been all talk so far. To me Fox in Mexico is more evil when it comes to the U.S.

Bush has started, against all treaties and conventions, an unjustified and needless war that has, thus far, cost about 3,000 American and Lord knows how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. How exactly does that not make him at least as bad as the others?

Well, as a Brit, I've yet to meet a single British person who likes GWB. We are all ###### scared of what he could potentially do. The ssoner he is out of office the better.

As an American, I would agree.

AMERICAN?????? Who said that????

I did. I am an American. By choice.

Self proclaimed american? I sure have'nt seen any testimony to that effect! You can use the "ïts the government I hate speak" last I heard the government is made up of what? hmmmmm elected officials. Elected! did I say "ELECTED" elected by who? hmmmmm, AMERICANS! disagree all you want with government, not a problem. You post a pic of the pres. comparing him to three of the most reprihensible,violent people on this planet is way over the top! Oh by the way your picture should also be included with them!

Self proclaimed? Not at all. There's a process one an follow to become an American. I did that. Again, by choice. And you can spew all the hate you want, I am still an American. Whether the ** you like it or not!

Besides, the President has caused the needless deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. That's a fact. And that makes him one of the most reprehensible people in the world putting him right in line with the other maniacs out there.

spoken like a true AMERICAN!

the President has caused the needless deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.

where is mention of other's that are far worse, never heard you complain about anyone other than Bush? Your obsession is obvious. there are far far worse people than Bush? But your obsessed ways are obvious! by the way who would make a good american president?

I ain't half as obsessed with Bush as you seem to be with me.

Bush just happens to be one of the worst Presidents this nation has ever seen. History will bear that out.

Oh, and I did complain about the other bad guys. I put some of them right alongside Bush, didn't I? First you complained that I likened Bush to the bad guys and now you already forgot that I did that. Try and keep track of yourself.

Edited November 5, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Carol&Marc 0]

Bush is far from the best president we ever had, but you can no way lump him in with those other three. Plus out out of those four the only one that has really done anything evil as far as I'm concerned is OBL. The other two have been all talk so far. To me Fox in Mexico is more evil when it comes to the U.S.

Bush has started, against all treaties and conventions, an unjustified and needless war that has, thus far, cost about 3,000 American and Lord knows how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. How exactly does that not make him at least as bad as the others?

Well, as a Brit, I've yet to meet a single British person who likes GWB. We are all ###### scared of what he could potentially do. The ssoner he is out of office the better.

As an American, I would agree.

AMERICAN?????? Who said that????

I did. I am an American. By choice.

Self proclaimed american? I sure have'nt seen any testimony to that effect! You can use the "ïts the government I hate speak" last I heard the government is made up of what? hmmmmm elected officials. Elected! did I say "ELECTED" elected by who? hmmmmm, AMERICANS! disagree all you want with government, not a problem. You post a pic of the pres. comparing him to three of the most reprihensible,violent people on this planet is way over the top! Oh by the way your picture should also be included with them!

Self proclaimed? Not at all. There's a process one an follow to become an American. I did that. Again, by choice. And you can spew all the hate you want, I am still an American. Whether the ** you like it or not!

Besides, the President has caused the needless deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. That's a fact. And that makes him one of the most reprehensible people in the world putting him right in line with the other maniacs out there.

spoken like a true AMERICAN!

the President has caused the needless deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.

where is mention of other's that are far worse, never heard you complain about anyone other than Bush? Your obsession is obvious. there are far far worse people than Bush? But your obsessed ways are obvious! by the way who would make a good american president?

Marc, get a f#cking clue...sh#t your ignorance is astounding.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,

or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong,

is not only unpatriotic and servile,

but is morally treasonable to the American public."

~ Teddy Roosevelt

Marc doesn't have a point - he just wants an argument.

Bush is far from the best president we ever had, but you can no way lump him in with those other three. Plus out out of those four the only one that has really done anything evil as far as I'm concerned is OBL. The other two have been all talk so far. To me Fox in Mexico is more evil when it comes to the U.S.

Bush has started, against all treaties and conventions, an unjustified and needless war that has, thus far, cost about 3,000 American and Lord knows how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. How exactly does that not make him at least as bad as the others?

Well, as a Brit, I've yet to meet a single British person who likes GWB. We are all ###### scared of what he could potentially do. The ssoner he is out of office the better.

As an American, I would agree.

AMERICAN?????? Who said that????

I did. I am an American. By choice.

Self proclaimed american? I sure have'nt seen any testimony to that effect! You can use the "ïts the government I hate speak" last I heard the government is made up of what? hmmmmm elected officials. Elected! did I say "ELECTED" elected by who? hmmmmm, AMERICANS! disagree all you want with government, not a problem. You post a pic of the pres. comparing him to three of the most reprihensible,violent people on this planet is way over the top! Oh by the way your picture should also be included with them!

Self proclaimed? Not at all. There's a process one an follow to become an American. I did that. Again, by choice. And you can spew all the hate you want, I am still an American. Whether the ** you like it or not!

Besides, the President has caused the needless deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. That's a fact. And that makes him one of the most reprehensible people in the world putting him right in line with the other maniacs out there.

spoken like a true AMERICAN!

the President has caused the needless deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.

where is mention of other's that are far worse, never heard you complain about anyone other than Bush? Your obsession is obvious. there are far far worse people than Bush? But your obsessed ways are obvious! by the way who would make a good american president?

I ain't half as obsessed with Bush as you seem to be with me.

Bush just happens to be one of the worst Presidents this nation has ever seen. History will bear that out.

Oh, and I did complain about the other bad guys. I put some of them right alongside Bush, didn't I? First you complained that I likened Bush to the bad guys and now you already forgot that I did that. Try and keep track of yourself.

three rats in one trap How Fcukin funny is that.

Edited November 5, 2006 by Carol&Marc

[DeadPoolX 9]

Bush has started, against all treaties and conventions, an unjustified and needless war that has, thus far, cost about 3,000 American and Lord knows how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. How exactly does that not make him at least as bad as the others?

Saddam Hussein was a despot, one of many who needed to be removed from power. He had completely ignored all other countries and the United Nations, and at that time, the United States, Israel and the United Kingdom all received faulty intelligence regarding the placement of "weapons of mass destruction." It should be noted, however, that American troops did find large supplies of Ricin, which is deadly. Anything nuclear, chemical or biological comes under the umbrella of a WMD, therefore, finding Ricin could be considered having collected WMD's. Was it the huge stockpile of nuclear missiles that everyone expected (and often thinks of when mentioning WMD's?) when the U.S. entered Iraq? No, it was not, and Ricin was probably not a good enough reason to go to war; however, we should all remember that our intention was not only to find WMD's, but to liberate the Iraqi people from the clutches of Saddam Hussein.

While we may not have really succeeded in one avenue (as I said, Ricin is only a so-so find), we did in another. American soldiers toppled Hussein's regime in about three days, freed Iraq, and is in the process of setting up a democratic government, complete with it's own military forces. The latter is the real reason why the U.S. military is still stuck in Iraq -- the Iraqi military hasn't been trained well enough yet (and for all intents and purposes, lacks the competency to safeguard the land and people) and the government still needs some work. Once these issues get ironed out, then troops can begin their withdrawal from Iraq in a slow, but steady pace. To do so before would prove disastrous for Iraq.

In regards to the total loss of life in Iraq, it hasn't reached 3,000 yet. It is somewhere around the vicinity of 2,802. Still a very large number, no doubt about that. I don't know the exact figure on the Iraqi death toll; however, I can assure you, it is not "tens of thousands" who've died. Is it too many though? Yes, I would agree with that statement.

What I find interesting is that, while a lot of American soldiers have died in this war so far, it is nowhere near equal the number in previous wars. I think the United States got "spoiled" in the Gulf War ("Desert Storm)" by the in-and-out nature of that conflict. In the Vietnam War (a situation in which the Iraq War is frequently compared to erroneously), the average rate of American deaths as a consequence of armed combat was about 15 per day; in Iraq, it's been about 2 per day. During the 1968 "Tet Offensive" in Vietnam (a battle that the U.S. won decisively) there were more than 2,100 U.S. casualties per week. In Iraq, the U.S. casualty rate from all causes has never exceeded 490 troops in a month. As I wrote in the previous paragraph, the total number of American troops who've been reported KIA in Iraq tally at 2,802 -- that’s roughly the same number killed at Iwo Jima during the first three-and-one-half days of fighting against the Japanese during World War II. None of this is to say one war was tougher than the other or that the deaths of U.S. soldiers is worth less than originally reported. It is, however, here to give some of you an idea of exactly what the casuality rate is in Iraq, and compare it to past wars and see that what's happening, while regrettable, is not unexpected nor is it unusual for a war of this scale.

Now...how does all of this make George W. Bush nowhere near the same as the other madmen in that list? Mostly, it's all about his intent. Bush's intent was to liberate Iraq and stop Hussein from controlling "weapons of mass destruction." While the latter turned out to be false (due to faulty intelligence reports), the first is still true. I'm very sure that Bush regrets the loss of life in this conflict, and wishes none of it was necessary (if for no other reason, he only has a 40% approval rating in the polls right now) and could be a peace-time president. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and Bush has had to make decisions and face consequences in this new world of terrorism and asymmetric warfare that presidents have never had to in the past. Is Bush the best president the United States has ever had and could he have done better or be doing better? No, he's not the best, and yes on both counts -- he could have done better and he could be currently doing better.

Remember what I wrote about intent? Let's look at the other people on that "axis of evil" posted in this thread: North Korean President Kim Jong-il and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad both have stated claims that cause worry within the world. Kim Jong-il has threatened countries in Asia and the United States, is dealing in nuclear weaponry, and has even said it might sell off WMD's to terrorist groups. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said his mission (or perhaps, Iran's mission) is to "wipe Israel off the map" and that he "imagines a world without the United States." Then there's Osama bin Laden, who's in-charge of the terrorist organization known as al-Qaida, and was the mastermind behind the events of September 11, 2001 -- in addition to the first World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole and many other operations around the world, all involving the United States.

So as we can plainly see, the intent for all three of those men is to spread tyranny, bloodshed, chaos, and terror. Bush had no plans to do this (and still doesn't), so he is in no way the same as those three maniacs. He may not be the ideal president in many ways, but he certainly isn't like any of those three men either.

Edited November 5, 2006 by DeadPoolX

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't know the exact figure on the Iraqi death toll; however, I can assure you, it is not "tens of thousands" who've died.

I can assure you it is.

Iraq Body Count

[DeadPoolX 9]

Perhaps you have a source that precludes an obvious agenda? I wouldn't call "www.iraqbodycount.org" an objective source.

[mawilson 2,133]

Perhaps you have a source that precludes an obvious agenda? I wouldn't call "www.iraqbodycount.org" an objective source.

Please explain why you think the site is not objective and provide a link to a more objective source.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Bush has started, against all treaties and conventions, an unjustified and needless war that has, thus far, cost about 3,000 American and Lord knows how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. How exactly does that not make him at least as bad as the others?

Saddam Hussein was a despot, one of many who needed to be removed from power. He had completely ignored all other countries and the United Nations, and at that time, the United States, Israel and the United Kingdom all received faulty intelligence regarding the placement of "weapons of mass destruction." It should be noted, however, that American troops did find large supplies of Ricin, which is deadly. Anything nuclear, chemical or biological comes under the umbrella of a WMD, therefore, finding Ricin could be considered having collected WMD's. Was it the huge stockpile of nuclear missiles that everyone expected (and often thinks of when mentioning WMD's?) when the U.S. entered Iraq? No, it was not, and Ricin was probably not a good enough reason to go to war; however, we should all remember that our intention was not only to find WMD's, but to liberate the Iraqi people from the clutches of Saddam Hussein.

While we may not have really succeeded in one avenue (as I said, Ricin is only a so-so find), we did in another. American soldiers toppled Hussein's regime in about three days, freed Iraq, and is in the process of setting up a democratic government, complete with it's own military forces. The latter is the real reason why the U.S. military is still stuck in Iraq -- the Iraqi military hasn't been trained well enough yet (and for all intents and purposes, lacks the competency to safeguard the land and people) and the government still needs some work. Once these issues get ironed out, then troops can begin their withdrawal from Iraq in a slow, but steady pace. To do so before would prove disastrous for Iraq.

In regards to the total loss of life in Iraq, it hasn't reached 3,000 yet. It is somewhere around the vicinity of 2,802. Still a very large number, no doubt about that. I don't know the exact figure on the Iraqi death toll; however, I can assure you, it is not "tens of thousands" who've died. Is it too many though? Yes, I would agree with that statement.

What I find interesting is that, while a lot of American soldiers have died in this war so far, it is nowhere near equal the number in previous wars. I think the United States got "spoiled" in the Gulf War ("Desert Storm)" by the in-and-out nature of that conflict. In the Vietnam War (a situation in which the Iraq War is frequently compared to erroneously), the average rate of American deaths as a consequence of armed combat was about 15 per day; in Iraq, it's been about 2 per day. During the 1968 "Tet Offensive" in Vietnam (a battle that the U.S. won decisively) there were more than 2,100 U.S. casualties per week. In Iraq, the U.S. casualty rate from all causes has never exceeded 490 troops in a month. As I wrote in the previous paragraph, the total number of American troops who've been reported KIA in Iraq tally at 2,802 -- that’s roughly the same number killed at Iwo Jima during the first three-and-one-half days of fighting against the Japanese during World War II. None of this is to say one war was tougher than the other or that the deaths of U.S. soldiers is worth less than originally reported. It is, however, here to give some of you an idea of exactly what the casuality rate is in Iraq, and compare it to past wars and see that what's happening, while regrettable, is not unexpected nor is it unusual for a war of this scale.

Now...how does all of this make George W. Bush nowhere near the same as the other madmen in that list? Mostly, it's all about his intent. Bush's intent was to liberate Iraq and stop Hussein from controlling "weapons of mass destruction." While the latter turned out to be false (due to faulty intelligence reports), the first is still true. I'm very sure that Bush regrets the loss of life in this conflict, and wishes none of it was necessary (if for no other reason, he only has a 40% approval rating in the polls right now) and could be a peace-time president. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and Bush has had to make decisions and face consequences in this new world of terrorism and asymmetric warfare that presidents have never had to in the past. Is Bush the best president the United States has ever had and could he have done better or be doing better? No, he's not the best, and yes on both counts -- he could have done better and he could be currently doing better.

Remember what I wrote about intent? Let's look at the other people on that "axis of evil" posted in this thread: North Korean President Kim Jong-il and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad both have stated claims that cause worry within the world. Kim Jong-il has threatened countries in Asia and the United States, is dealing in nuclear weaponry, and has even said it might sell off WMD's to terrorist groups. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said his mission (or perhaps, Iran's mission) is to "wipe Israel off the map" and that he "imagines a world without the United States." Then there's Osama bin Laden, who's in-charge of the terrorist organization known as al-Qaida, and was the mastermind behind the events of September 11, 2001 -- in addition to the first World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole and many other operations around the world, all involving the United States.

So as we can plainly see, the intent for all three of those men is to spread tyranny, bloodshed, chaos, and terror. Bush had no plans to do this (and still doesn't), so he is in no way the same as those three maniacs. He may not be the ideal president in many ways, but he certainly isn't like any of those three men either.

Very nicely articulated DeadPoolX! It really makes me wonder when someone like ET2004 posts pics like that, when he knows the history on all of them and still makes GWB the worst one. It truly makes me wonder who he is allied with.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush has started, against all treaties and conventions, an unjustified and needless war that has, thus far, cost about 3,000 American and Lord knows how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. How exactly does that not make him at least as bad as the others?

1) Saddam Hussein was a despot, one of many who needed to be removed from power. He had completely ignored all other countries and the United Nations, ...

2) I don't know the exact figure on the Iraqi death toll; however, I can assure you, it is not "tens of thousands" who've died. ...

3) Remember what I wrote about intent?...

1) So, according to your argument, it is okay to ignore the UN and most of the nations in the world to go after someone for ignoring the UN and most of the nations in the world. That's interesting. Thanks for clearing that up.

2) How can you assure me of anything if you don't know? I am not aware of a single source that would put the Iraqi civilian death toll that is attributable to our illegal invasion of that country below several tens of thousands. The only numbers I am aware of are either around 50,000 or around 650,000 depending on what is actually counted. Either source confirms, though, that the death tolls are rising and that they have been on that rising trend ever since Bush gave the orders to march in which he had no right or reason to do.

3) Intent? So, starting an unjustified, illegal and needless war causing tens of thousands of deaths is okay as long as there's a positive intent behind it? Tell that to those Iraqis that lost their husbands, wifes, parents, children and siblings as a result of our attack on their country. You know, the other guys I pictured with our war mongering President follow that same line of BS argument that you put forth for doing all the bad things they're doing.

[chri'stina 190]

I find it very laughable that Bush is thought of as scarier than Kim Jong Il, or on the same level with Iran's pres, and Bin Laden. Even if he is not the greatest president, this is a stretch.

Give me a flipping break.

So I guess this is what republicans have to look forward to from the world. Instead of people disagreeing with your policies, you will now be vilainized since people don't like you. Wow that really opens political discourse, huh.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bush has started, against all treaties and conventions, an unjustified and needless war that has, thus far, cost about 3,000 American and Lord knows how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. How exactly does that not make him at least as bad as the others?

1) Saddam Hussein was a despot, one of many who needed to be removed from power. He had completely ignored all other countries and the United Nations, ...

2) I don't know the exact figure on the Iraqi death toll; however, I can assure you, it is not "tens of thousands" who've died. ...

3) Remember what I wrote about intent?...

1) So, according to your argument, it is okay to ignore the UN and most of the nations in the world to go after someone for ignoring the UN and most of the nations in the world. That's interesting. Thanks for clearing that up.

2) How can you assure me of anything if you don't know? I am not aware of a single source that would put the Iraqi civilian death toll that is attributable to our illegal invasion of that country below several tens of thousands. The only numbers I am aware of are either around 50,000 or around 650,000 depending on what is actually counted. Either source confirms, though, that the death tolls are rising and that they have been on that rising trend ever since Bush gave the orders to march in which he had no right or reason to do.

3) Intent? So, starting an unjustified, illegal and needless war causing tens of thousands of deaths is okay as long as there's a positive intent behind it? Tell that to those Iraqis that lost their husbands, wifes, parents, children and siblings as a result of our attack on their country. You know, the other guys I pictured with our war mongering President follow that same line of BS argument that you put forth for doing all the bad things they're doing.

The secret prisons thing and the removal of habeus corpus, puts Bush (and by Extension, America) in a moral grey area. Hard to condemn Bin Laden, Saddam, Kim Jong Il for human rights abuses when we are showing to the world that "its ok, if..."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bush has started, against all treaties and conventions, an unjustified and needless war that has, thus far, cost about 3,000 American and Lord knows how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. How exactly does that not make him at least as bad as the others?

1) Saddam Hussein was a despot, one of many who needed to be removed from power. He had completely ignored all other countries and the United Nations, ...

2) I don't know the exact figure on the Iraqi death toll; however, I can assure you, it is not "tens of thousands" who've died. ...

3) Remember what I wrote about intent?...

1) So, according to your argument, it is okay to ignore the UN and most of the nations in the world to go after someone for ignoring the UN and most of the nations in the world. That's interesting. Thanks for clearing that up.

2) How can you assure me of anything if you don't know? I am not aware of a single source that would put the Iraqi civilian death toll that is attributable to our illegal invasion of that country below several tens of thousands. The only numbers I am aware of are either around 50,000 or around 650,000 depending on what is actually counted. Either source confirms, though, that the death tolls are rising and that they have been on that rising trend ever since Bush gave the orders to march in which he had no right or reason to do.

3) Intent? So, starting an unjustified, illegal and needless war causing tens of thousands of deaths is okay as long as there's a positive intent behind it? Tell that to those Iraqis that lost their husbands, wifes, parents, children and siblings as a result of our attack on their country. You know, the other guys I pictured with our war mongering President follow that same line of BS argument that you put forth for doing all the bad things they're doing.

Reinhard, I would also add that the atrocities for which he was charged against and found guilty of happened back when we were allies with him. We even knew that he gased the Kurds. The bushbots are never going to see things beyond black and white...except in the situations when it was convenient historically.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I find it very laughable that Bush is thought of as scarier than Kim Jong Il, or on the same level with Iran's pres, and Bin Laden. Even if he is not the greatest president, this is a stretch.

Give me a flipping break.

So I guess this is what republicans have to look forward to from the world. Instead of people disagreeing with your policies, you will now be vilainized since people don't like you. Wow that really opens political discourse, huh.

I would agree - but the Bush administration has shown itself willing to villainise (in the worst way) anyone who says anything against their policy.

The poll is about public perceptions - and generally speaking there is a general perception that Bush is a greater danger to world peace than the despoit leaders who are, if not contained within their own countries (North Korea), contained in specific regions (Iran).

Its not that people don't know that there are evil bad people in the world - but a lot of people are scared by (the ever-expanding and amorphous) war on terror, and wonder just what the objectives are. I mean, how do you know if you've won? When Bush tells us? Is that like when an election comes up and Bush et al tells us we should be afraid (of some general undefined threat) just because people might be thinking of voting another way...?

Reinhard, I would also add that the atrocities for which he was charged against and found guilty of happened back when we were allies with him. We even knew that he gased the Kurds. The bushbots are never going to see things beyond black and white...except in the situations when it was convenient historically.

Indeed, and what does that say - that mass murder is ok if its convenient politically.

[chri'stina 190]

I wonder how many from the UK are immigrating to North Korea? How about none!

You can't immigrate to North Korea. It is a closed state.

It is a closed state, and the ppl of North Korea are not allowed to know what is going on in the outside world.

Yet that is scarier than Bush ruling the US, a country with immigration allowed and where ppl can find out what is going on around the world, freely, and where we are allowed to be critical of Bush without fear of prison? I don't get it...do people know anything about North Korea who took this poll?