|
The most dangerous country to world peace (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by ehehe
And what an amazing job they did in Bosnia*!
Yeah...NO. They did jack .
Sorry for derailing. |
Come now, that's not fair. They set up a whole slew of safe haven zones where the Serbs could convenientally slaughter massed refugees. That's doing something right? |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by borron
I've only included the EU, Russia and China to make the list longer. Because the EU has nothing to attack, Russia is well-ocuppied with the Chechen problem and China will think twice to attack Taiwan even if they declare independence. And I doubt Taiwan would do that, they are a bit afraid.
And of course all threats are regional. You don't expect to see North Korea attacking the US or would you?
You can say what you want, but apart from the EU, any of the countries listed here is a bit destabilizing. Some less, like Russia and China, which only destabilize by political pressure; some in the middle, like Israel which occupies palestinian and syrian land and enrages the arabs or like India and Pakistan which like to step on each other toes quite frequently (that seems to be changing); and some a lot more, like North Korea, which threatens their neighbours on a weekly basis and like the US, which provoked the last "big" war we know of. |
Huh! You might as well come right out and say it Borron that the "evil U.S.A" is the greatest destabilizing threat to humanity today. The same U.S.A mind you that assisted Europe in its fight against German aggression twice, the spread of Soviet Communism throughout Central and Eastern Europe, foolishly took over the mess of the French in IndoChina (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam) boy was that ever a mistake, the removal of a dictator who took the liberty of invading aanother nation under the pretext that it belonged to him as one of his provinces. Saddam Hussein sadly was not removed a decade earlier, but to please the Arabs the U.S. didn't go any further than kicking Iraq out of Kuwait.
I have often said that the U.S. isn't perfect and neither is any nation from Europe's involvement in colonial Africa, the Middle East and even in Europe itself. That however is another story. You're probably right Boron the U.S. is probably indeed the greatest threat to world stablity today for such an unprovoked and heinous attack on Iraq, that is why every runt of a developing world dicator can blame the U.S. for what is ailing his nation and the populace will believe it. What has the world come to when democracies are viewed as being a greater threat than the inhumanity that takes place in totalitarian regimes throughout our world. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
Huh! You might as well come right out and say it Borron that the "evil U.S.A" is the greatest destabilizing threat to humanity today. The same U.S.A mind you that assisted Europe in its fight against German aggression twice, the spread of Soviet Communism throughout Central and Eastern Europe, foolishly took over the mess of the French in IndoChina (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam) boy was that ever a mistake, the removal of a dictator who took the liberty of invading aanother nation under the pretext that it belonged to him as one of his provinces. Saddam Hussein sadly was not removed a decade earlier, but to please the Arabs the U.S. didn't go any further than kicking Iraq out of Kuwait.
I have often said that the U.S. isn't perfect and neither is any nation from Europe's involvement in colonial Africa, the Middle East and even in Europe itself. That however is another story. You're probably right Boron the U.S. is probably indeed the greatest threat to world stablity today for such an unprovoked and heinous attack on Iraq, that is why every runt of a developing world dicator can blame the U.S. for what is ailing his nation and the populace will believe it. What has the world come to when democracies are viewed as being a greater threat than the inhumanity that takes place in totalitarian regimes throughout our world. |
You are praising the US for what it has done in the past, while leaving unmentioned its actions over the last couple of years.
You are condemning Europe for what it has done in the past, while leaving unmentioned its actions over the last couple of years.
Not solid reasoning IMO. Thread title is: "What is the country most destabilizing to world peace nowadays?" - not "What was the country most destabilizing to world peace back in the old days?" |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
You are praising the US for what it has done in the past, while leaving unmentioned its actions over the last couple of years.
You are condemning Europe for what it has done in the past, while leaving unmentioned its actions over the last couple of years.
Not solid reasoning IMO. Thread title is: "What is the country most destabilizing to world peace nowadays?" - not "What was the country most destabilizing to world peace back in the old days?" |
Oh no, no, no I do not care to leave out the negatives of the USA under any circumstance whatsovever, my statement on the previous post was made so as to demonstrate that you cannot simply detach yourself from history and look at today as though it has no significance to the past if you are going to make mention of the threats to world peace, etc, etc.
Conflict between Israel and the Middle East didn't start recently, the role of the U.S. in the world didn't start recently and neither did problems on the Korean peninsula so you cannot arbitrarily separate the present world order today from the past relationships to suit an argument or arrive at a fair conclusion.
Trancaholic you demonstrated my point by this quote "You are praising the US for what it has done in the past, while leaving unmentioned its actions over the last couple of years. You are condemning Europe for what it has done in the past, while leaving unmentioned its actions over the last couple of years." It works both ways, the U.S. is not intrinsically all bad and no good or all good and no bad, as so many people have seem to fail to realize in their opinions on U.S. policy. I for one am willing to see what happens in Iraq and we shall see who has the last word on that.
My opinion has always been that I don't care for nation-building and all that nonsense that the U.S. gets itself into because it comes back to bite you in the butt. The U.S. as far as I am concerned should focus on its own domestic conditions and avoid these conflict regions at all cost, but that has never been the way of the U.S. darn Woodrow Wilson for getting us involved in Europe in the first place;)
I am no fan of the Bush adminstration and I wouldn't mind seeing a new U.S. President with that said the bumbling Democratic candidates don't inspire me especially Howard Dean who I could have sworn I saw recently referring to Russia as the Soviet Union on Hardball. When it comes to articulation he strikes me as the Democratic version of G.W. Bush. There has got to be better for this nation which is why I would cast my vote for Clark if I voted today. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| trancaholic has spoken for me.;) |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
Huh! You might as well come right out and say it Borron that the "evil U.S.A" is the greatest destabilizing threat to humanity today. The same U.S.A mind you that assisted Europe in its fight against German aggression twice, the spread of Soviet Communism throughout Central and Eastern Europe, foolishly took over the mess of the French in IndoChina (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam) boy was that ever a mistake, the removal of a dictator who took the liberty of invading aanother nation under the pretext that it belonged to him as one of his provinces. Saddam Hussein sadly was not removed a decade earlier, but to please the Arabs the U.S. didn't go any further than kicking Iraq out of Kuwait.
|
Well, if we're going to go that far back in history, the US wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the european explorers and settlers. So there! :p |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Well, if we're going to go that far back in history, the US wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the european explorers and settlers. So there! :p |
Well not all people might consider that a good thing or a bad thing, depending on an individuals take. By that mentioning DrUg_Tit0 can't we then blame the Euro's by default for the world's problems for discovering America depending on one's viewpoint, because we know what came after that, hmmm;) |
|
|
| borron |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
Oh no, no, no I do not care to leave out the negatives of the USA under any circumstance whatsovever, my statement on the previous post was made so as to demonstrate that you cannot simply detach yourself from history and look at today as though it has no significance to the past if you are going to make mention of the threats to world peace, etc, etc.
Conflict between Israel and the Middle East didn't start recently, the role of the U.S. in the world didn't start recently and neither did problems on the Korean peninsula so you cannot arbitrarily separate the present world order today from the past relationships to suit an argument or arrive at a fair conclusion.
Trancaholic you demonstrated my point by this quote "You are praising the US for what it has done in the past, while leaving unmentioned its actions over the last couple of years. You are condemning Europe for what it has done in the past, while leaving unmentioned its actions over the last couple of years." It works both ways, the U.S. is not intrinsically all bad and no good or all good and no bad, as so many people have seem to fail to realize in their opinions on U.S. policy. I for one am willing to see what happens in Iraq and we shall see who has the last word on that. |
I'm not saying that the US is an evil empire. It is a hiperpower. So it behaves like one, bullying every small state it wants. But i'm not blaming the US as a country, but rather the Bush administration.
I think the US could be a great country. The most benign superpower ever. If you funded the right organizations and governments, all would be good.
Of course, there will always be dictators, that's the world how it is. But a dictator rarely survives more than a generation. The people in a country can't take it long, and usually after a great dictator, either he is deposed/killed at the end of career or he gets substituted by a ty dictator which loses control after a few years. This happened in my country for example. It happened in Spain too. Also in Argentina, Brasil... many american countries...
If a dictator wants to survive, he changes gradually. That's what's happening with Pakistan, a controlled democracy. The only exception being North Korea, which is the first dinastic communist republic, much like monarchy back in the old days.
If i knew the US was doing their crusade of democracy in order to make a better world, i would support them 100%. But i can think of only one reason: OIL. If not, then why is the US friends with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? They are both tightly controlled democracies.
I guess you can imagine what my vote on this poll was :toothless |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
i think that the US aren't that strong... they're far from being invincible (same for the Israeli army).
I used to think that both these guys, especially the US, were unstoppable but they are stoppble.
The US is in deep in Irak and there's not even an organized guerilla against them. The US doesn't even have enough soliders if something happens in North Korea, Taiwan, Syria, etc. The US Army is demoralized and fragile.
America's deep pockets aren't that deep anymore and maintaining an army with that size will be a challenge in the next years. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by borron
I'm not saying that the US is an evil empire. It is a hiperpower. So it behaves like one, bullying every small state it wants. But i'm not blaming the US as a country, but rather the Bush administration.
I think the US could be a great country. The most benign superpower ever. If you funded the right organizations and governments, all would be good.
Of course, there will always be dictators, that's the world how it is. But a dictator rarely survives more than a generation. The people in a country can't take it long, and usually after a great dictator, either he is deposed/killed at the end of career or he gets substituted by a ty dictator which loses control after a few years. This happened in my country for example. It happened in Spain too. Also in Argentina, Brasil... many american countries...
If a dictator wants to survive, he changes gradually. That's what's happening with Pakistan, a controlled democracy. The only exception being North Korea, which is the first dinastic communist republic, much like monarchy back in the old days.
If i knew the US was doing their crusade of democracy in order to make a better world, i would support them 100%. But i can think of only one reason: OIL. If not, then why is the US friends with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? They are both tightly controlled democracies.
I guess you can imagine what my vote on this poll was :toothless |
I agree with your point in regards to the viewpoints that people hold of the Bush administration. I suppose that I don't look at it from that perspective as outsiders may perceive the U.S. governement being in formulating my opinions on the U.S as a nation. We tend to overlook that over half of the voters who went to the polls in the prior election year didn't vote for George W. Bush, food for thought.
I believe that the Bush administration typifies the idea of a conservative, elitist, corporate class that operates primarily for business interests in its policies. I tacitly supported Bush up until the Iraq conflict which has not proven the claims that the Secretary of State of this nation made before the world. As a nation however America has had some less than odious leaders. I felt that the Iraqi issue was no more urgent than North Korea is today. the bottom line is that the best has to now be made out of a bad situation in Iraq. I may be naive but I don't expect Bush to be launching anymore wars soon, the 9/11 backdrop has been utilized to its fullest as a rationale to launch attacks on other nations. Like I said I might be naive to think so:conf: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Yeah, good job excluding all the Arabic nations and African countries from the poll. I guess it would be "politically incorrect" to blame anything on them.
What complete garbage. And I happen to be from Canada, so don't go on with your ignorant "Wow what a surprise that you'd say that, since you're from one of the countries on the list!" Even if I was, that kind of circular reasoning doesn't fly in any debating circles that I have respect for.
Honestly, I think you're full of even making a poll like this. Frankly, I'm a little insulted. |
|
|
| UglyDave |
i know very little about politics / foreign affairs and all that e, but i think that if America wanted they could kick the rest of the worlds ass. I dont ever see them taking over the world, but i do se them having every other nation dependant on them, so as to have a major influence on the ongoings of that nation. e.g, Ireland has massive foreign investment, i'm not sure of exact figures, but a hig percentage of our workforce is employed by American companys which have set up here. So, we better be good to America as if we dont do as they say, they'll shift their operations elsewhere and leave us ed!
As for ppl who might actually consider attempting destroying the world.. well, americans seem friendly enough, and reap the benefits of cheaper labour in foreign countrys, so i cant see any reason why they should..
hope no1 ever does! |
|
|
|
|
