NationStates Jolt Archive

Whcih country in your opinion is the greatest threat to world peace?


I personaly beleive america, as its military budget is something like the size of the next 33 military budgets combined.

As im new, i tried to get a poll, but my computer went weird, so i didnt do one, anyway, let your opinion be known!

I personaly beleive america, as its military budget is something like the size of the next 33 military budgets combined.

As im new, i tried to get a poll, but my computer went weird, so i didnt do one, anyway, let your opinion be known!

Military spending doesn't make a nation dangerous, it's the abuse of that power that makes it dangerous. Remember, the US military can also be a weapon of peace and stability, and has been one of the great champions of freedom in all of the world's greatest wars.

The nations most dangerous to world peace are North Korea, followed by Iran and China.

America, but mainly because it is the most likely country to start a war, statistically speaking, and even if you use common sense.

EDIT: That is assuming we already have "world peace" :p

Oh my god, Burundi is totally the biggest threat to world peace ;)

I think we would have to have world peace before someone was a danger to it.

I agree... America. but not for the reasons you state.

America is the last remaining Superpower. Sure China will get up there but not yet, and the Soviet Union is rebuilding.

so, with America Standing tall, all the little jelous Nations will continually snipe and attack the US. Fringe groups will continuously attack her citizens and America will be forced to retaliate.

And Germany didn't even get a spot on the list.

You battle away for 2000 years, and what do you get? You are ignored.
Godammit.

And Germany didn't even get a spot on the list.

You battle away for 2000 years, and what do you get? You are ignored.
Godammit.


Oh, lol, im sorry, i was being nagged by my girlfriend whislt doing that. GErmany and iran should of been added, sorry

That's easy.

Pakistan.

let the America-bashing begin...... This is obviously going to have a bias..... Why bother??

let the America-bashing begin...... This is obviously going to have a bias..... Why bother??because it will prove my point... a threat doesn't have to be the antagonist... it can just be the tempting target.

because it will prove my point... a threat doesn't have to be the antagonist... it can just be the tempting target.


being a tempting target does not make a nation a threat to world peace.. That is a backwards way of thinking, that is like blaming a rape victim for an attack..

The US. Simply because it is the sole super power. The new Rome, and all that.

let the America-bashing begin...... This is obviously going to have a bias..... Why bother??
Oh you just loooove the victim part, don't you.

Is the US the most likely country to start a major war (ie not civil or militias) in the next 5-10 years? Who is?

It doesn't say anything about reasons and intentions. It might be to end world hunger, but it will still be an attack on "world peace".

The only country that is capable of sustaining full-scale war for a long time is the United States.

China's military is still modernising, and would hardly be able to sustain a long, large war.

North Korea, apart from nuclear missiles, will only be able to trample bits of South Korea, because they've got no food nor logistics to support any operation of size. All they have is a load of propaganda, and that can't fill stomachs the way grain does.

Britain - what a joke. Isn't there a report saying that the RN can't sustain another Falklands War?

Kim Jong Il thinks that he is a superpower, at least military-wise. And whenever he gets mad and gets a whim to do something, he does not have a congress to tie him up for a little while until he cools down.

The "potential" to wreak havoc does not make one nation a threat. The "desire" is much more threatening than the might. This argument goes against all Reaganesque logic: The United States is the lighted city upon a hill. We are here as an example to others, as to what hard work and a desire to free can result in.

The "potential" to wreak havoc does not make one nation a threat. The "desire" is much more threatening than the might. This argument goes against all Reaganesque logic:

Now, there's an oxymoron!

The United States is the lighted city upon a hill. We are here as an example to others, as to what hard work and a desire to free can result in.

You keep telling yourself that, and we'll judge you by your opposite actions.

The "potential" to wreak havoc does not make one nation a threat. The "desire" is much more threatening than the might. This argument goes against all Reaganesque logic: The United States is the lighted city upon a hill. We are here as an example to others, as to what hard work and a desire to free can result in.
Reagan had logic?
Well for one thing, that logic has been abandoned long since, because rather than stay in its city, the enlightened population has long since decided to enlighten the rest with all kinds of things, including bombs.

And for another point: WTF? "We are here as an example to others"???
That must be the single most bigoted and insulting thing I have heard on my time on these forums.

In the near future, China.

deja vu. I know what happens next! US is picked some country that deserves it more then them get very few or no votes and ranting, raving and "debating" goes on for over 200posts (at least)

And Germany didn't even get a spot on the list.

You battle away for 2000 years, and what do you get? You are ignored.
Godammit.



It's fun to pretend the holocaust never happened :D

And for another point: WTF? "We are here as an example to others"???
That must be the single most bigoted and insulting thing I have heard on my time on these forums.

It's a very common delusion in some Americans, that they are the crowning achievement of civilisation and that everybody looks up to them and wants to be like them, and that the US is good and does good. Always good, and better than anyone else.

Best not to take offence. It's not worth it.

It's fun to pretend the holocaust never happened :D
Don't you know? We did it all just to get on this bloody list. And now this...

Don't you know? We did it all just to get on this bloody list. And now this...
"Noone who speaks German can't be evil"

What determines who is the bigger threat is not who has more weapons or who is stronger. It is determined by who is more willing to be a threat. Who is willing to attack. Afterall, it is pretty easy to get weaponry nowadays.

Reagan had logic?
Well for one thing, that logic has been abandoned long since, because rather than stay in its city, the enlightened population has long since decided to enlighten the rest with all kinds of things, including bombs.

And for another point: WTF? "We are here as an example to others"???
That must be the single most bigoted and insulting thing I have heard on my time on these forums.


Yes Reagan had logic, he is considered by many to be one of the top 2 presidents, often the top president in the history of the United States...

and the Soviet Union is rebuilding.

:confused: What!? :confused:

And for another point: WTF? "We are here as an example to others"???
That must be the single most bigoted and insulting thing I have heard on my time on these forums.
What are you talking about!? america [sic] is the Greatest country in the world!!1!!!11! We kick arab ass!! You guys in the rest of the world should follow America's shining example of an ideal democrazy: Just tell everyone they're being attacked, then denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger! It works the same in any country!!!1!!11!1 Especially America and Nazi Germany!!1!1!!11!1 You guys should also create a media outlet that is the voice of the government, standing behind your leader's every move while tearing down any opposition while the whole time creating the illusion of being fair and balanced. Isn't America great!!?!?! I come bomb u if u say no!!! I set up you teh bomb!! All your base are belong to me!!!!

Whcih country in your opinion is the greatest threat to world peace?

I personaly beleive america, as its military budget is something like the size of the next 33 military budgets combined.

As im new, i tried to get a poll, but my computer went weird, so i didnt do one, anyway, let your opinion be known!
If you believe America is a threat to world peace, then you're in serious need of a reality check.

Yes Reagan had logic, he is considered by many to be one of the top 2 presidents, often the top president in the history of the United States...
wow. considered by who? Neoconservative Republicans?

Who is willing to attack.
Indeed.
I reckon it is fairly irrelevant how many carriers the US has. The important matter is this almost crusader-style belief in one's own infallability, and the readiness to use violence against others to achieve something.
It's going to get worse before it gets better.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

democrazy

best word ever! :D

If you believe America is a threat to world peace, then you're in serious need of a reality check.

Because America has not waged a war in what, a month? :p

Yes Reagan had logic, he is considered by many to be one of the top 2 presidents, often the top president in the history of the United States...



I wouldn't state that fact here, some people love to disregard that fact in favor of blind hatred of Reagan :(

If you believe America is a threat to world peace, then you're in serious need of a reality check.
Tell me one thing? How is America promoting world peace? Certainly you don't actually believe that all war ultimately leads to peace. If you do, you're in serious need of a reality check.

Yes Reagan had logic, he is considered by many to be one of the top 2 presidents, often the top president in the history of the United States...
I usually thought the top two presidents were Washington and Lincoln...

Anyways, I like Carter.

OMG why isn't antartica on that list! :mad:

Anyways, I like Carter.


:eek:

best word ever! :D
If TJ hadn't had found that typo in the Declaration of Independence, it would be "democrazy"! :p

deja vu. I know what happens next! US is picked some country that deserves it more then them get very few or no votes and ranting, raving and "debating" goes on for over 200posts (at least)
You're psychic, Seosavists! :D

wow. considered by who? Neoconservative Republicans?


You see, your bias is overly transparant. One could almost type your next comments for you, as you follow typical, anti-american, anti-conservative philosophy, but really can't back your argument up with anything.

Ronald Reagan is considered one of the top 2, often the top President in American History by any major survey you will see across the United States, usually him and FDR share the title. It is too easy to guess you making attacks on conservatives, again something that has no basis.

Drive-by political criticism gets you nowhere, but is practiced by so many.

:eek:

Who doesn't love 27% inflation?

Ronald Reagan is considered one of the top 2, often the top President in American History by any major survey you will see across the United States, usually him and FDR share the title. It is too easy to guess you making attacks on conservatives, again something that has no basis.

I am very interested to know which surveys these are. I am not one of those people who say Reagan was one of our worst presidents, but top two? Come on. I can't believe the majority of Americans would say that he was.

By no means is the following question an attack, just curious as to why? Everyone has their logic, I would just like to hear yours...

" Anyways, I like Carter." Why Jimmy Carter as the greatest?

You're psychic, Seosavists! :D
this exact same topic was here about 4 or 5 months ago. :D
With the exact same title I think. Different poll options though.

Anyway I vote Antartica! You never hear anything about their government there is no informaton on their major cities and no infor on their military, it can all only mean 1 thing they plan to destroy us all. Those Antartican bastards!

Id say the nevilles (anti war people) are the biggest threat to world peace, as they allow morons to solidify their powerbase, fester, and become a threat down the road.

Europe negotiating with Iran, the US negotaiting with North Korea, the coalition in the early 90's with iraq, Britan and France negotiating with Germany in the late 30's.

How many times does this have to happen over and over?

You see, your bias is overly transparant. One could almost type your next comments for you, as you follow typical, anti-american, anti-conservative philosophy, but really can't back your argument up with anything.

Ronald Reagan is considered one of the top 2, often the top President in American History by any major survey you will see across the United States, usually him and FDR share the title. It is too easy to guess you making attacks on conservatives, again something that has no basis.

Drive-by political criticism gets you nowhere, but is practiced by so many.
whoopdeedoo. everything you said about me and your implication of all liberals can just as easily be attributed to conservatives. See above quote. Show me several credible surveys (not carried out by FOX News or any other partisan organization) that have Reagan in the top 2 slots and I might take you a little more seriously.

Tell me one thing? How is America promoting world peace? Certainly you don't actually believe that all war ultimately leads to peace. If you do, you're in serious need of a reality check.


This isen't to point out who is in a war, but who is most likely to start one. Last time I checked, the U.S. didn't start the current one.

I like Carter because
a) I didn't have to live with 27% inflation ;)
b) 27% Inflation is something for the Fed to deal with, not the Prez
c) He has shown more sensible foreign policy towards countries considered "Communist"
d) He's still involved in charitable and peace-instigating work.

I don't like the whole Iran business that he was responsible for though.

Last time I checked, the U.S. didn't start the current one.
Iraq?

Iraq?
oh dear, I think he might think that Iraq has something to do with """The War on Terrorism""". Shame that someone can think that.

(disclaimer: I did not vote for the US in this poll, I voted for Antartica.)

This isen't to point out who is in a war, but who is most likely to start one. Last time I checked, the U.S. didn't start the current one.
Oh really? Which country was it that launched 70 or so BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles into the soverign nation of Iraq then followed that with an invasion of over 150,000 men? Certainly it wasn't the U.S. because, after all they don't start wars. Or did you mean the War on Terror? That we just moved to Afghanistan and pretended like we were trying to get Osama bin Laden.

I am very interested to know which surveys these are. I am not one of those people who say Reagan was one of our worst presidents, but top two? Come on. I can't believe the majority of Americans would say that he was.

You can easyly see that by checking the election results. Whoever said Carter is the biggest dolt.

1980
Reagan 489
Carter (incumbant mind you) 49

1984
Reagan 525
Mondale 13

both elections were blow outs.

whoopdeedoo. everything you said about me and your implication of all liberals can just as easily be attributed to conservatives. See above quote. Show me several credible surveys (not anything that would reach a conclusion different than the one I want) that have Reagan in the top 2 slots and I might take you a little more seriously.



Corrections in bold

this exact same topic was here about 4 or 5 months ago. :D
With the exact same title I think. Different poll options though.

Anyway I vote Antartica! You never hear anything about their government there is no informaton on their major cities and no infor on their military, it can all only mean 1 thing they plan to destroy us all. Those Antartican bastards!yeah... real cold summabitches down there... real quiet like...

and you can't see their cities... their stealth tech is really advanced... who knows what kind of weapons they got down there

I am very interested to know which surveys these are. I am not one of those people who say Reagan was one of our worst presidents, but top two? Come on. I can't believe the majority of Americans would say that he was.


I just went on CNN's website to look for polls, the first one that came up...

Presidents and History
All data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older.


Polls listed chronologically.


.



Gallup Poll. Feb. 7-10, 2005. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.


.

"Who do you regard as the greatest United States president?"


.
2/05 11/03 2/99
% % %
Ronald Reagan 20 13 12
Bill Clinton 15 9 12
Abraham Lincoln 14 17 18
Franklin Roosevelt 12 11 9
John Kennedy 12 17 12
George W. Bush 5 3 -
George Washington 5 7 12
Jimmy Carter 3 3 3
Harry Truman 2 3 4
Theodore Roosevelt 2 3 3
Thomas Jefferson 2 3 2
George H. W. Bush 1 2 5
Dwight Eisenhower 1 2 2
Richard Nixon 1 1 2
Other 1 2 1
None 1 - 1
No opinion 3 4 2

This isen't to point out who is in a war, but who is most likely to start one. Last time I checked, the U.S. didn't start the current one.
Uhm... What?! Who did then? The UN?!

Anyway, the US continously use force to achive it's forign policy. Since the US is also the only nation that really can do such a thing, how can the US not win this particular insano contest by default?

Keep in mind that most of the atrocities (far from all, just the majority as far as I'm aware) and wars happening in this world, could not take place unless one or more sides was sponsered by the US.

I like Carter because
a) I didn't have to live with 27% inflation ;)
b) 27% Inflation is something for the Fed to deal with, not the Prez
c) He has shown more sensible foreign policy towards countries considered "Communist"
d) He's still involved in charitable and peace-instigating work.

I don't like the whole Iran business that he was responsible for though.I like Carter too... I'll admit he was a lousy President but an A-1 former President.

not to show any bias at all I usually discount Bill Clinton and George W. Bush because alot of younger people only had seen these two in their lifetime, thus not a true reflection of American history (although they both do have accomplishments)

wow. I have factual reason to make the claim I did. You don't.

I corrected your quote to reflect the actual value of your argument, btw.

Uhm... What?! Who did then? The UN?!

Anyway, the US continously use force to achive it's forign policy. Since the US is also the only nation that really can do such a thing, how can the US not win this particular insano contest by default?

Keep in mind that most of the atrocities (far from all, just the majority as far as I'm aware) and wars happening in this world, could not take place unless one or more sides was sponsered by the US.



Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Robert Mugabe, and Khadafi come to mind.

I think we would have to have world peace before someone was a danger to it.


You are 100% right, by no means is the world at peace... nor is it all due to the United States..

When did this turn into a Carter vs Reagan debate?
Why don't you take it to another thread.

Point is that currently there is a very strong neo-conservative influence in the US Government. Various people from the New American Century (to which I provided a link previously) hold high positions in the Government or as advisors.
That group (as well as various other influential think-tanks) explicitly state that war is a good means of spreading peace and democracy.

We have seen the practice in the current war against "terror" as well as in Iraq.

Judging from this, I conclude that the US is the most likely country to start a war in the next few years (once they can get their soldiers out of Iraq), and thus it is the "greatest threat to world peace".

I like Carter because
a) I didn't have to live with 27% inflation ;)
b) 27% Inflation is something for the Fed to deal with, not the Prez
c) He has shown more sensible foreign policy towards countries considered "Communist"
d) He's still involved in charitable and peace-instigating work.

a) You're very lucky then. That was a really lousy time for the US.
b) But he did almost nothing to stop it, and his Fed Chairman choice was pretty weak
c) He weakened our military and pursued unilateral disarmament, which was a very dangerous move to make. It weakened us while he pursued his detente policies, which were not a good idea because it required more or less bluffing to keep up. The 1979 Afghan invasion called that bluff, with it's disasterous consequences.
d) Can't knock him on that; I give him credit for his work, and believe he is an excellent humanitarian advocate and elections worker. He should have remained a private citizen and focused on that.

When did this turn into a Carter vs Reagan debate?
Why don't you take it to another thread.

Point is that currently there is a very strong neo-conservative influence in the US Government. Various people from the New American Century (to which I provided a link previously) hold high positions in the Government or as advisors.
That group (as well as various other influential think-tanks) explicitly state that war is a good means of spreading peace and democracy.

We have seen the practice in the current war against "terror" as well as in Iraq.

Judging from this, I conclude that the US is the most likely country to start a war in the next few years (once they can get their soldiers out of Iraq), and thus it is the "greatest threat to world peace".



The true greatest threat to world peace: The imbeciles that attack America and bring retribution upon the countries that harbor them.

Military spending doesn't make a nation dangerous, it's the abuse of that power that makes it dangerous. Remember, the US military can also be a weapon of peace and stability, and has been one of the great champions of freedom in all of the world's greatest wars.

The nations most dangerous to world peace are North Korea, followed by Iran and China.

great champions of freedom? Tell that to Salvador Allende, Jacobo Arbenz, Juan Bosch, Joao Goulart, and Patrice Lumumba

b) But he did almost nothing to stop it, and his Fed Chairman choice was pretty weak
He can't do much. Inflation is inherently coupled with the interest rate, and if the Fed of the time didn't raise it, it's not his fault.
But I'm not familiar with the exact events, so I'll shut my mouth.


c) He weakened our military and pursued unilateral disarmament, which was a very dangerous move to make. It weakened us while he pursued his detente policies, which were not a good idea because it required more or less bluffing to keep up. The 1979 Afghan invasion called that bluff, with it's disasterous consequences.
You weren't nuked, were you? So no Americans got hurt because of it. It's merely about you having patriotic feelings and fearing to lose face.

Should I start a Reagan vs Carter thread then?

Now, there's an oxymoron!



You keep telling yourself that, and we'll judge you by your opposite actions.


Yes you will judge us and you do judge us and you will continue to do so until the next time you are all in over your heads and need us to bail your butts out as we have already done on more than one occasion. We are your scapegoats until you need us to be your saviors. And we allow it. You can talk all you want so long as you keep in mind why you are free to do so - because had it not been for us, you would not have been saying anything for the last 60 years.

The true greatest threat to world peace: The imbeciles that attack America and bring retribution upon the countries that harbor them.
Didn't Jesus say you should turn the other cheek?

I'm an atheist, but I still don't think you can blame "Terrorists" for the actions of neocon war hawks. There are plenty of alternatives to bombing places, and pretty much all of them are more effective.
After 9/11, the US still had a choice what to do. It's not like you could blame Bin Laden for the war in Afghanistan.

Yes you will judge us and you do judge us and you will continue to do so until the next time you are all in over your heads and need us to bail your butts out as we have already done on more than one occasion. We are your scapegoats until you need us to be your saviors. And we allow it. You can talk all you want so long as you keep in mind why you are free to do so - because had it not been for us, you would not have been saying anything for the last 60 years.



Europe: Stupid Americans, you are a barbaric, uncivilized, war-mongering nation that.....*gets invaded* HELP HELP!!! SAVE US OH BLESSED AMERICA!!!!

Didn't Jesus say you should turn the other cheek?

I'm an atheist, but I still don't think you can blame "Terrorists" for the actions of neocon war hawks. There are plenty of alternatives to bombing places, and pretty much all of them are more effective.
After 9/11, the US still had a choice what to do. It's not like you could blame Bin Laden for the war in Afghanistan.



One thing I thought all liberals and conservatives could agree on: Diplomacy doesn't work with terrorists.

-snip-
And yet another big and chunky
:rolleyes:

One thing I thought all liberals and conservatives could agree on: Diplomacy doesn't work with terrorists.
Does a criminal investigation help?
No, how could it!

Uhm... What?! Who did then? The UN?!

Anyway, the US continously use force to achive it's forign policy. Since the US is also the only nation that really can do such a thing, how can the US not win this particular insano contest by default?

Keep in mind that most of the atrocities (far from all, just the majority as far as I'm aware) and wars happening in this world, could not take place unless one or more sides was sponsered by the US.
Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Robert Mugabe, and Khadafi come to mind.
The truth is rarely as simple NR. Check out some history books on US forign policy or read up on the actual documents. You happen to live in a country with comparatively few restrictions on government documents.
POL POT

Commander of the Khmer Rouge

The bombing of Cambodia by the US from 1969 to 1972, left 600,000 civilians dead, millions of refugees, tens-of-thousands dying from disease and starvation, and the Cambodian economy and culture in ruins. Cambodians blamed the US and the puppet regime of Lon Nol for the country's destruction, and gradually sided with the guerrilla army of the Khmer Rouge led by Pol Pot, which finally defeated Lon Nol, and took power in April, 1975. Once in power, Pol Pot emptied the cities, forcing the people into the countryside. Virtually all educated people were killed and more
than 1.5 million people perished in this "holocaust". Only when the Khmer Rouge was ousted by Vietnam in 1979, did the terror stop. Washington took steps to preserve the Khmer Rouge as a counter force to the Vietnamese. International relief agencies were pressured by the US to provide food and humanitarian assistance to the Khmer Rouge, which had fled to Thailand, and the US sent military aid as well. In 1982, in an effort to isolate the Vietnamese, the US forced together the three contending anti-Vietnamese groups, insisting that the Khmer Rouge be part of the negotiations.
Cambodia continues to suffer from the devastation produced by both the US bombing and the Khmer Rouge atrocities. Pol Pot is considered to still be the power behind the Khmer Rouge, which has a strong presence in Cambodia today, thanks to the US.

If you want, I'll take you through some of the US backed, US managed and outright American wars and massacres tomorrow - My bed is calling, so I can't be arsed to compile info right now.

Yes you will judge us and you do judge us and you will continue to do so until the next time you are all in over your heads and need us to bail your butts out as we have already done on more than one occasion. We are your scapegoats until you need us to be your saviors. And we allow it. You can talk all you want so long as you keep in mind why you are free to do so - because had it not been for us, you would not have been saying anything for the last 60 years.

Yeah, yeah, that tired old living-in-the-past "argument." *yawn*

Yes you will judge us and you do judge us and you will continue to do so until the next time you are all in over your heads and need us to bail your butts out as we have already done on more than one occasion. We are your scapegoats until you need us to be your saviors. And we allow it. You can talk all you want so long as you keep in mind why you are free to do so - because had it not been for us, you would not have been saying anything for the last 60 years.


Excellent comment Jakutopia, I couldn't agree more.

And yet another big and chunky
:rolleyes:


Oh my apologies to the Germans - we didn't bail you out - we kicked your butts back to your borders and then cut your balls off - don't suppose we can expect gratitude from you.

Europe: Stupid Americans, you are a barbaric, uncivilized, war-mongering nation that.....*gets invaded* HELP HELP!!! SAVE US OH BLESSED AMERICA!!!!
Yes we're under danger from all those enemies we've made [/sarcasm]
Who in the world today wants to invade europe?

Oh my apologies to the Germans - we didn't bail you out - we kicked your butts back to your borders and then cut your balls off - don't suppose we can expect gratitude from you.
We? Don't see many 80 somethings who fought in ww2 on internet forums usually but hi.

this exact same topic was here about 4 or 5 months ago. :D
With the exact same title I think. Different poll options though.

Anyway I vote Antartica! You never hear anything about their government there is no informaton on their major cities and no infor on their military, it can all only mean 1 thing they plan to destroy us all. Those Antartican bastards!
LOL! Could be! :D

... the soverign nation of Iraq ...
Sigh. :(

We? Don't see many 80 somethings who fought in ww2 on internet forums usually but hi.

Don't forget, for these people, Germany of today = Germany of 50 years ago, and the US also, for that matter.

Living in the past, as they do. :rolleyes:

Yes you will judge us and you do judge us and you will continue to do so until the next time you are all in over your heads and need us to bail your butts out as we have already done on more than one occasion. We are your scapegoats until you need us to be your saviors. And we allow it. You can talk all you want so long as you keep in mind why you are free to do so - because had it not been for us, you would not have been saying anything for the last 60 years.
[ applauds wildly ]

Pfft! More like: "Stupid Europeans! How dare you critizese us?! Us who've done so much for us, who continously undermine your economy, who never ever give two shits about anything you say, and who rely on your MASSIVE subsidising because we otherwise go bankrupt and trash the entire global economy! U Little meanies! We not like you complain when we shit in your mouth and on the rest of the planet's population! Just eat poop and say ahh!"

That made no sense whatsoever. Are you like 13 years old??? Please feel free to elaborate on this one. It almost appeared as if you were saying Europe has to subsidize the US to keep it afloat.... What a joke..

And yet another big and chunky
:rolleyes:
Oh! Oh! Oh! What a devastating rebuttal! I know I'M cut to the quick, how about you?? :D

San Marino ... it represents a clear and present danger to the territorial integrity of Italy.

Can we all see the anti-American rhetoric behind this topic now? It has become quite obvious, as the "I HATE AMERICA" posters have reared their head again, in the usual manner.... First attempting to sound objective, as if they are capable of a civilized debate, and then the rage comes forth, spewing anti-americanism, you just couldnt hold back....

what a pity...

Can we all see the anti-American rhetoric behind this topic now? It has become quite obvious, as the "I HATE AMERICA" posters have reared their head again, in the usual manner.... First attempting to sound objective, as if they are capable of a civilized debate, and then the rage comes forth, spewing anti-americanism, you just couldnt hold back....

what a pity...

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Oh, the irony.

Why am I not surprised that people think that the US is a greater threat to world peace?

Oh you just loooove the victim part, don't you.

Whose playing the victim? No one that I can see!

Is the US the most likely country to start a major war (ie not civil or militias) in the next 5-10 years? Who is?

North Korea, Iran, or Syria. Pick your nation.

Oh my apologies to the Germans - we didn't bail you out - we kicked your butts back to your borders and then cut your balls off - don't suppose we can expect gratitude from you.
*takes a deep breath*
Okay. Why do you think this has anything to do with anything?
YOU didn't defeat anyone. YOU are probably a 20 something fella (I assume) who hasn't seen a war in his life.
America didn't defeat Germany either. I don't expect someone of your statue to know it, but the USSR defeated us. The West was a secondary front.
YOU didn't bail anyone out either. You attacked because you couldn't avoid it any longer. It's funny how you seem to completely disregard that matter everytime one of you brings it up.
No one needs to be grateful to you for being forced to go through France to get to Germany.

And BTW: If Fass is from Scandinavia, then you better hope he's from Norway, cuz otherwise your comment is pointless...

Oh! Oh! Oh! What a devastating rebuttal! I know I'M cut to the quick, how about you?? :D
Do you expect me to get involved with that type?
Oh crap. Now I did... ;)

North Korea, Iran, or Syria. Pick your nation.
I don't mean provoke the US into attacking them, I mean an actual military attack, or declaration of war, against another country.

I usually thought the top two presidents were Washington and Lincoln...

True but Reagan is up there with them as well.

Anyways, I like Carter.

Why because Carter screwed over the US Military? Because Carter was a complete idiot in matters foreign? Carter is considered to be one of the worst presidents we ever had.

I don't mean provoke the US into attacking them, I mean an actual military attack, or declaration of war, against another country.??? WTF!!!
redefining it now are we? if provoking the US into attacking them is not a threat to world peace, but the US (being Provoked) attacking is considered a 'threat' then, my theory of the US being a 'target' is also Viable.

You can easyly see that by checking the election results. Whoever said Carter is the biggest dolt.

1980
Reagan 489
Carter (incumbant mind you) 49

1984
Reagan 525
Mondale 13

both elections were blow outs.

Not to knock these numbers but the voting was a tad closer than the electoral college

Why because Carter screwed over the US Military? Because Carter was a complete idiot in matters foreign? Carter is considered to be one of the worst presidents we ever had.

You mean that he screwed up the US military by trying to back down the tension of the Cold War by mutual disarmament?

Yes we're under danger from all those enemies we've made [/sarcasm]
Who in the world today wants to invade europe?

Muslim extremists and they have already done that.

You want to know why people think the US is the most likely to break the "world peace". Because we just bombed the living hell out of two countries. One of which was without true provocation and the other of which we helped put the goverment into power. We have a nasty habit of "massive retaliation"

Muslim extremists and they have already done that.

Just about any sort of extremist is a threat to peace. Buddhists are most likely to be the exception

Can we all see the anti-American rhetoric behind this topic now? It has become quite obvious, as the "I HATE AMERICA" posters have reared their head again, in the usual manner.... First attempting to sound objective, as if they are capable of a civilized debate, and then the rage comes forth, spewing anti-americanism, you just couldnt hold back....

what a pity...

Yep. Usually happens. Blame America First. Hell, they blame us for all the troubles in Africa when infact, it was the Europeans that dominated the continent.

I don't mean provoke the US into attacking them, I mean an actual military attack, or declaration of war, against another country.

In that case, North Korea or Iran. Pick your nation.

You mean that he screwed up the US military by trying to back down the tension of the Cold War by mutual disarmament?

Mutual disarmament? Don't make me laugh. That has got to be the most funniest statements I've heard all night long. Thanks for the laugh. Care to tell me what happened in 1979? Twice? If Carter hadn't screwed over the military, Tehran wouldn't have been the disaster that it was. Desert 1 ring abell?

Sigh. :(
wow, how was Iraq not sovereign before we invaded?

You want to know why people think the US is the most likely to break the "world peace". Because we just bombed the living hell out of two countries.

Two countries that supported terror and one that violated a cease-fire agreement. Seems reasonable to me to bomb the crap out of them.

One of which was without true provocation

Excuse me. My BS alarm just went off. Failing to follow through on UN Resolutions and failing to comply with a Cease-fire agreement is provacation Jervengad.

and the other of which we helped put the goverment into power. We have a nasty habit of "massive retaliation"

Last I heard, we didn't install the taliban.

Just about any sort of extremist is a threat to peace. Buddhists are most likely to be the exception

Well..terrorists are the bone of society and they are the biggest threat to world peace with North Korea and Iran right behind them.

Mutual disarmament? Don't make me laugh. That has got to be the most funniest statements I've heard all night long. Thanks for the laugh. Care to tell me what happened in 1979? Twice? If Carter hadn't screwed over the military, Tehran wouldn't have been the disaster that it was. Desert 1 ring abell?

Did I say he succeeded? I said he TRIED to

Did I say he succeeded? I said he TRIED to

Also, our military became ran down. Our military couldn't do simple missions anymore. Morale was at its lowest levels. And all thanks to Carter who promised to help the military and didn't. He backstabbed the military and he paid the price in the 1980 election.

Don't get me started on Carter's Defense Policies. I know to many people that served during his administration and hardly any of them were thrilled at what he did to them.

Two countries that supported terror and one that violated a cease-fire agreement. Seems reasonable to me to bomb the crap out of them.

You do realize that Iraq didn't associate with Osama Bin Laden due to the difference in their denominations, if you will, in Islam.


Excuse me. My BS alarm just went off. Failing to follow through on UN Resolutions and failing to comply with a Cease-fire agreement is provacation Jervengad.

You know what's funny? A lack of weapons of mass destruction which was a major reason for going into Iraq in the first place.

Last I heard, we didn't install the taliban.

Because providing funding and training to the Jihadists fighting in Afghanistan against the USSR during the Cold War didn't help put them in power at all.

Muslim extremists and they have already done that.
yes and you've bailed us out of that one alright.[/sarcasm] :rolleyes:
And how have they invaded us? they're pathetic to call them an invasion is rediculous. There's probably more chance of being hit by lightning then killed by terrorists

There is no realistic scenario where the US will be "bailing Europe out" even in the case of a return of the Soviet Union we are in a much better position then Russia for an arms race.

(note: if you don't agree with the person I quoted ignore this post)

Also, our military became ran down. Our military couldn't do simple missions anymore. Morale was at its lowest levels. And all thanks to Carter who promised to help the military and didn't. He backstabbed the military and he paid the price in the 1980 election.

I can see that, because the American soldiers don't want to go to Iraq. Iraq is like a death camp for American soldiers. Sad.......

Well..terrorists are the bone of society and they are the biggest threat to world peace with North Korea and Iran right behind them.

I'm actually going to have to say that North Korea and Iran would seem to be the biggest threat to America

Europe: Stupid Americans, you are a barbaric, uncivilized, war-mongering nation that.....*gets invaded* HELP HELP!!! SAVE US OH BLESSED AMERICA!!!!

Case in point. Without French assistance, America might have stayed a British colony. Or perhaps that is a bit of history that Americans would like to forget?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/ar/14312.htm
http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/america/war.htm

France helped ensure that America actually became a sovereign nation and America in a joint operation helped remove the occupation of France. Quid pro quo I think the saying went.

So why all this yak about Europe being useless as a whole not to mention the French bashing in general?

Must be because Americans have a tendency to forget their debts and double bill people. :rolleyes:

I can see that, because the American soldiers don't want to go to Iraq. Iraq is like a death camp for American soldiers. Sad.......
lol, I like how Corneilu calls himself a historian (I'll admit he does know more than me in most areas) but he fails to mention Bush's backstabbing of the military. That would be not telling them the truth as to why they are being sent into harms way, while underfunding VA and giving uber patriotic "mission accomplished" speeches when the mission isn't actually accomplished and pretending to have served honorably during Vietnam and sending attack dogs on those who actaully did serve honorably (John Kerry, and John McCain, a fellow Republican).

You do realize that Iraq didn't associate with Osama Bin Laden due to the difference in their denominations, if you will, in Islam.

You do realize that Saddam had ties to other terror networks right?

You know what's funny? A lack of weapons of mass destruction which was a major reason for going into Iraq in the first place.

You know whats even funnier? I didn't care if he had them or not. If he didn't have them, then why did he stonewall the UN Inspection efforts? Did he have something to hide? Why didn't he give everything over within 15 days (I think it was 15 days) of the end of hostilities. You know what the penalty was if he didnt? Resumption of war. In other words, it would've been construed as a violation of the Cease-Fire Agreement. He didn't comply with the cease-fire so its Bombs away.

Because providing funding and training to the Jihadists fighting in Afghanistan against the USSR during the Cold War didn't help put them in power at all.

Your right. We didn't. They put themselves in power and the people we helped, weren't the taliban. We assisted another group of people.

I can see that, because the American soldiers don't want to go to Iraq. Iraq is like a death camp for American soldiers. Sad.......
What? Sure, American soldiers are dying in Iraq, but the level is nowhere near that of almost any other past conflict.

I can see that, because the American soldiers don't want to go to Iraq. Iraq is like a death camp for American soldiers. Sad.......

Where the hell did this come from? Our moral is still up even after 2 years inside Iraq. How do I know? I have sources that are currently in the region.

You do realize that Iraq didn't associate with Osama Bin Laden due to the difference in their denominations, if you will, in Islam.
Terrorism is comprised of more than just al-Qaeda, you do realize?

America is the greatest threat to world peace because it feels it is its place to impose world peace upon the rest of the world.

What? Sure, American soldiers are dying in Iraq, but the level is nowhere near that of almost any other past conflict.
It sure isn't. We're making it up in innocent Iraqi casualties. ~25,000 dead and ~100,000 wounded last time I checked. They wouldn't be dead or wounded if the US had never invaded.

You do realize that Saddam had ties to other terror networks right?

ROFLMAO!!!! :D :D :D

Where did u get that from? Bush?

lol, I like how Corneilu calls himself a historian (I'll admit he does know more than me in most areas) but he fails to mention Bush's backstabbing of the military.

How did he backstab the military? Be advised, I do have more sources in and around the military than you can shake a stick at.

That would be not telling them the truth as to why they are being sent into harms way, while underfunding VA and giving uber patriotic "mission accomplished" speeches when the mission isn't actually accomplished and pretending to have served honorably during Vietnam and sending attack dogs on those who actaully did serve honorably (John Kerry, and John McCain, a fellow Republican).

Very interesting since VA is under a different (yes different) cabinet than the Department of Defense. Bush didn't knowingly lie to the our military forces. He had bad intel that sent them into Iraq and that is a rather known fact despite what the left tries to peddle that no one is actually buying anymore since we all know that it was bad intel. As for mission accomplished, that is also accurate. Phase 1 was removing Saddam and that has been accomplished. Bush also stated that the hard part was just beginning and that was rebuidling Iraq. He made no pretenses that this was going to be short and painless. He was right that it wasn't going to be short and was right that it wasn't going to be painless. So now I have to ask, where did Bush backstab the military because I'm not seeing it.

ROFLMAO!!!! :D :D :D

Where did u get that from? Bush?

Nope. Not from Bush. Just those that are more knowledgeable than I am regarding Saddam Hussien.

Where the hell did this come from? Our moral is still up even after 2 years inside Iraq. How do I know? I have sources that are currently in the region.
Who are your inside sources? The people living at Anaconda? Where they get three flavors of ice cream and tons of other unnecessary luxuries.

I refer you to here (http://www.duckdaotsu.org/suicide.html)

Who are your inside sources? The people living at Anaconda? Where they get three flavors of ice cream and tons of other unnecessary luxuries.

Oh just the people in the region. Our military personel that I know and people who interact with them.

I refer you to here (http://www.duckdaotsu.org/suicide.html)

I didn't say everyone's morale now did I? No! In General, it is still relatively high despite what people may think.

USA by far. Look at all the death we've created...but then look at what we may have prevented. Have to weigh it. And we havent prevented much since WWII and even then we let Germany be free.

Who are your inside sources? The people living at Anaconda? Where they get three flavors of ice cream and tons of other unnecessary luxuries.

I refer you to here (http://www.duckdaotsu.org/suicide.html)

"The Source"(formerly Radio Shack in Canada) is the shitiest electronic store ever, idiots who works there don't even have any knowledge about stuff they sell, especially computers (they're computer illiterate), MP3 players, etc. :mad:

sorry for the off topic, just expressing my anger.

How did he backstab the military? Be advised, I do have more sources in and around the military than you can shake a stick at.Good for you.

Very interesting since VA is under a different (yes different) cabinet than the Department of Defense. Bush didn't knowingly lie to the our military forces. He had bad intel that sent them into Iraq and that is a rather known fact despite what the left tries to peddle that no one is actually buying anymore since we all know that it was bad intel. As for mission accomplished, that is also accurate. Phase 1 was removing Saddam and that has been accomplished. And what was Phase 2? To lull the insurgents into a false sense of security? What about Phase 3? Are we still working on it or are we improvising? What does the VA not being under the DoD have to do with anything? It's not the military itself, that's doing great, it's getting plenty of funds, it's the fighting men and women he's backstabbing.

So now I have to ask, where did Bush backstab the military because I'm not seeing it.
How about him claiming he served honorably during Vietnam, and tearing down those who actually did serve honorably? And how much more can you insult the fighting men and women in Iraq by not telling them the full truth as to why they were sent in. It's not just bad intel. Don't give me that bullshit. It's part of it, but the Administration wanted to invade Iraq well before 9/11. The Downing Street memos further prove that something strange was going on in the inner workings of the Bush Administration. Perhaps the Bush Administration wanted to invade even before they were appointed to American leadership.

For more info to back up that claim I refer you to here (http://www.newamericancentury.org).

Oh just the people in the region. Our military personel that I know and people who interact with them.
YOU BELIEVE IN THESE GUYS!!! ROFLMAO!!! :D :D :D

Terrorism is comprised of more than just al-Qaeda, you do realize?

When have we been striking against countries that held non-Al-Qaeda terrorists? America really wanted Osama's head after 9/11 and yet we go after the guy who would have nothing to do with him?

I live in the US, and I blame "America" first because of its interventionist policy. The US hasn't gone fifty years without becoming involved in some sort of war since its inception. The nation was founded in the middle of a revolution, during which it resorted to terrorism to oust the British; Tripolitan War, 1801-1805; War of 1812; Mexican-American War, 1846-1848; Civil War, 1861-1865; Indian Wars, 15th-19th centuries, particularly 18th and 19th; Spanish-American War, 1898; World War I, 1914-1919; World War II, 1941-1945; Korean War, 1950-1953; Vietnam War, 1959-1975; attempted assistance to coup in Cuba(Bay of Pigs incident); assisted Afghanistan against USSR; Persian Gulf War, 1991; Iraqi War, present. I say the Iraqi War is still ongoing because of the insurgencies still active. Most of these wars were completely offensive in nature and were the result of little or no attempt at diplomatic resolution on the part of the US. Lately, the US, under right-wing leadership, has taken up the policy of pre-emptive striking "potential threats," which means anyone the US can make look like plans to harm the US. Essentially, the US may be inadvertantly weaking the world or keeping it weak for eventual conquest.

The reasons claimed for invading Iraq recently were the alleged weapons of mass destruction Iraq supposedly had. Some old missile casings from the last war were found, but the chemicals had long since been removed. As far as I have heard, no WMD's were found anywhere in Iraq. The only violation Iraq made was in not allowing the inspectors unrestricted access anywhere in Iraq at any time desired by the inspectors. As for Afghanistan, well, they were harboring known terrorists. But that is not to say the US should have installed a pro-US government. The Afghani people should have decided more what relationship their government was to have with the US. As of right now, the US is trying to get the Iraqis to kill each other so they stop killing US soldiers and looking for another nation on which to commence "Operation Bomb the Hell out of the Guy Who Hates the US." Add that to rising nationalism around the world, and what we get is a recipe for world war. One thing is needed now, an overly charismatic dictator. Just give me a few years. :D

You can easyly see that by checking the election results. Whoever said Carter is the biggest dolt.

1980
Reagan 489
Carter (incumbant mind you) 49

1984
Reagan 525
Mondale 13

both elections were blow outs.


1972 Electoral votes:
Nixon-520
McGovern-17
Hospers-1

Was nixon as liked as reagan?

LBJ got 486 in 1964. As liked as reagan?

Election results mean little, especially electoral college ones.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html

http://www.siena.edu/sri/results/95%20Presidency%20Survey.htm

http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=129
(He doesnt even get top two in the last 12 presidents)

The only poll I have seen putting reagan in the top two is the recent gallup poll. Almost every other public poll(and every historian poll) I have seen puts him inbetween 5-10.

snip

You forgot about the whole Panama Canal affair. Also worth mentioning is the ongoing broken promise we have with the French to remain remain their allies forever, or somesuch.

When have we been striking against countries that held non-Al-Qaeda terrorists? America really wanted Osama's head after 9/11 and yet we go after the guy who would have nothing to do with him?
Actually, we didn't even really want Osama. That's why we just put on a big show giving the illusion that America is working at the height of it's military firepower might to kill him, when really, this is what we thought of him:

"I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him [Osama bin Laden]."--White House, Mar. 13, 2002 That was in early 2002. Merely several months after the "hunt" started.

Actually, we didn't even really want Osama. That's why we just put on a big show giving the illusion that America is working at the height of it's military firepower might to kill him, when really, this is what we thought of him:

"I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him [Osama bin Laden]."--White House, Mar. 13, 2002 That was in early 2002. Merely several months after the "hunt" started.


Tell that to the huge number of people who want him dead who live in Virginia and then look at the reward we have posted for his capture. I'd have to say that we want him. Bush saying that proves how out of touch he is with the "common man"

You're absolutely right, Jervengad. But I was focusing more on military conflict, but those could lead to military....complications. :headbang:

Corneliu, there is no excuse for bad intel in the modern world, especially when life and death are involved.

Tell that to the huge number of people who want him dead who live in Virginia and then look at the reward we have posted for his capture. I'd have to say that we want him. Bush saying that proves how out of touch he is with the "common man"
But if you look at the facts, we should really be going after Osama, right? After all he was the guy that orchestrated the attack on American soil that killed 3,000 people. Yet, we go in with a half assed effort, and move the center of attention to Iraq--a country that had nothing to do with the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans. Oh wait, "After all, this is a guy [Saddam] that tried to kill my dad at one time."
-- Houston, Texas, Sep. 26, 2002

So George H.W. Bush > 3,000 Americans.

russia - all those poorly guarded nuclear weapons are a danger to the world.

any way to change your vote? I originally voted America because... well, we're becoming imperialistic.

May I ask why people think Canada is so dangerous?

But if you look at the facts, we should really be going after Osama, right? After all he was the guy that orchestrated the attack on American soil that killed 3,000 people. Yet, we go in with a half assed effort, and move the center of attention to Iraq--a country that had nothing to do with the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans. Oh wait, "After all, this is a guy [Saddam] that tried to kill my dad at one time."
-- Houston, Texas, Sep. 26, 2002

So George H.W. Bush > 3,000 Americans.

You forget. George W. Bush is from Texas, so he assumes anyone with at least a 12 guage is responsible to help him avenge an alleged threat to his interests, in this case, his father.

I agree... America. but not for the reasons you state.

America is the last remaining Superpower. Sure China will get up there but not yet, and the Soviet Union is rebuilding.

so, with America Standing tall, all the little jelous Nations will continually snipe and attack the US. Fringe groups will continuously attack her citizens and America will be forced to retaliate.

If they attack us - isn't the peace broken? The United States doesn't start wars for no reason.

Most of you people think you're so smart but you don't think about things common-sensically. We DID and ARE going after Osama as we speak - we never left Afghanistan.

Do you think that Saddam would just wake up one day and decide to stop killing people and stop being a tyrant? No.

Think of the things that have come out of the war in Iraq. The younger people in the nations around Iraq are pressuring their governments to give them more liberties and rights. Some are having free elections for the first time. Others are ousting tyrannical leaders.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals see the word 'war' and think of death and destruction while conservatives see it and think of freedom and liberation.

russia - all those poorly guarded nuclear weapons are a danger to the world.

any way to change your vote? I originally voted America because... well, we're becoming imperialistic.

May I ask why people think Canada is so dangerous?

Canada is probably the least dangerous nation in the world. But anyway, Russia isn't a threat to world peace; their power is spent. However, the people buying Russian nukes on the black market are a threat.

If they attack us - isn't the peace broken? The United States doesn't start wars for no reason.

Most of you people think you're so smart but you don't think about things common-sensically. We DID and ARE going after Osama as we speak - we never left Afghanistan.

Do you think that Saddam would just wake up one day and decide to stop killing people and stop being a tyrant? No.

Think of the things that have come out of the war in Iraq. The younger people in the nations around Iraq are pressuring their governments to give them more liberties and rights. Some are having free elections for the first time. Others are ousting tyrannical leaders.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals see the word 'war' and think of death and destruction while conservatives see it and think of freedom and liberation.

First of all, the reasons aren't always good. Secondly, there is no longer the focus there once was in Afghanistan, but it isn't needed anymore anyway. If anyone important was there, he's probably gone to Ethiopia or somewhere like that. The reason for invading Iraq was not to stop tyranny; it was to stop Saddam from attacking the US with WMD's which he didn't have. If humans were more humane, it would have been a war of liberation. Essentially, what the US is doing is turning the Middle East into a huge collection of little model-US's, almost exactly like puppets....or children....I hate children....and I still am one....Another difference between liberal and conservatives is that liberals look at the world and see a collection of diverse peoples and cultures that could benefit from each other with some cultural enlightenment; conservatives look at the world and see two types of nation--those under great influence, if not control, of the US and those who still need to be crushed.

If they attack us - isn't the peace broken? The United States doesn't start wars for no reason. You're absolutely right. The reasons are believable to warmongering fascist neocons. Why don't you read up on the Bush Administration--his familiy, and his gang of neocons before you make your case for war in Iraq, if none of the facts change your views, then nothing I say will either.

Most of you people think you're so smart but you don't think about things common-sensically. We DID and ARE going after Osama as we speak - we never left Afghanistan. A perfect example. We aren't going after Osama, the real villian, as hardcore as we went after Saddam, the guy who tried to kill Bush's daddy at one point.

Do you think that Saddam would just wake up one day and decide to stop killing people and stop being a tyrant? No.Who put Saddam in power in the first place? I'll give you a hint. It starts with "C" and ends in "IA." Another hint, It's part of the U.S. government.

Think of the things that have come out of the war in Iraq. The younger people in the nations around Iraq are pressuring their governments to give them more liberties and rights. Some are having free elections for the first time. Others are ousting tyrannical leaders.
What about N. Korea?

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals see the word 'war' and think of death and destruction while conservatives see it and think of freedom and liberation.lol! perfect! reality vs. fantasy respectively.

"Ummurrika" is the greatest threat to world peace, now that it has successfully consumed its' host nation, the United States of America.

...

Think of the things that have come out of the war in Iraq. The younger people in the nations around Iraq are pressuring their governments to give them more liberties and rights. Some are having free elections for the first time. Others are ousting tyrannical leaders.

...

Are you kidding me? Iran has elected an ultra nationalistic leader exactly because of the U.S threat.
And the lebanon case has nothing to do with the U.S presence, it has with the murder of a regional leader.

________________________________________________________________

U.S is clearly the greatest threat to world security because of its imperialistic ways of ruling the world and its way of acting:"we want it, we take it."

"Ummurrika" is the greatest threat to world peace, now that it has successfully consumed its' host nation, the United States of America.

Quite so, quite so. :(

U.S is clearly the greatest threat to world security because of its imperialistic ways of ruling the world and its way of acting:"we want it, we take it."

Actually, it's more like: "we want it, we take it, go to hell." ;)

I agree... America. but not for the reasons you state.

America is the last remaining Superpower. Sure China will get up there but not yet, and the Soviet Union is rebuilding.

so, with America Standing tall, all the little jelous Nations will continually snipe and attack the US. Fringe groups will continuously attack her citizens and America will be forced to retaliate.

So wait, are you saying that the Us is the most dangerous country because of jealosy? Wow How dumb is that!

N. korea and iran

Are you kidding me? Iran has elected an ultra nationalistic leader exactly because of the U.S threat.
And the lebanon case has nothing to do with the U.S presence, it has with the murder of a regional leader.

________________________________________________________________

U.S is clearly the greatest threat to world security because of its imperialistic ways of ruling the world and its way of acting:"we want it, we take it."

The Us does not have an imperialistic mindset. It simply went into Iraq to remove a regime that threatened international stability, peace and SURVIVAL! yes it turned out that the US couldnt find ny weapons, but at the time, the 2 best intelligence agencies in the world were telling them that they were there. So, acting in the best interests for the world, they overthrew the regime a d created democratic society in Iraq.

The Us does not have an imperialistic mindset. It simply went into Iraq to remove a regime that threatened international stability, peace and SURVIVAL! yes it turned out that the US couldnt find ny weapons, but at the time, the 2 best intelligence agencies in the world were telling them that they were there. So, acting in the best interests for the world, they overthrew the regime a d created democratic society in Iraq.

Threatened international stability? SURVIVAL?
If intelligence agencies commited errors by such a huge gap I'd tell you that the cold war would've lasted 10 years.

It's pretty clear that the information was created by the government to serve as an excuse to invading it, and thus allowing U.S corporations to step in Iraq and make huge amounts of money.

If it were in the best interest for the world I'd be pretty sure that U.N would have approved its invation, did it? NO.

Are you kidding me? Iran has elected an ultra nationalistic leader exactly because of the U.S threat.

Not to mention that the secular Prime Minister was overthrown in 1953 by a coup engineered by the CIA and MI6 because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry, which was the last remains of British colonialism in Iran, of which the US got a 40% cut for their assistance.

The Us does not have an imperialistic mindset. It simply went into Iraq to remove a regime that threatened international stability, peace and SURVIVAL! yes it turned out that the US couldnt find ny weapons, but at the time, the 2 best intelligence agencies in the world were telling them that they were there. So, acting in the best interests for the world, they overthrew the regime a d created democratic society in Iraq.

Then why was the US supporting the very same regime and giving it weapons during the 80s, at the apex of Saddam's crimes?

How dare you are think the United States is the biggest threat to world peace! Having the best military and creatively inventive minds in the world does not make it dangerous. We have been a tool of peace, power and freedom since our creation. The US provides the most humanitarian aide and has created the United Nations after World War II and most of the financial support to the UN comes from the United States. We have stood for Israel when all the Arab countries bordering Israel wouldn't and we have such a great economy that our military budget accounts for only 3.7% of our GDP even though it makes up 47% of the world's military spending.

The real biggest threat comes from Iran the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, it is also a haven to Hezbollah and other Islamic extremists.
We have just cause to not want Iran a radical fundalmentalist theocricy with nuclear weapons.

We also do not want North Korea, an unpredictable dictatorship with nuclear weapons as it would make the world even more dangerous.

I think this anti-americanism is mostly unfounded as we may have made mistakes in invading Iraq and Vietnam but America as a whole stands for all that is good in the world.

The other greatest nation on earth is the United Kingdom.
Yes, the U.S. and the U.K. have long been the best of allies as we exchange technology, information, as well as goods.

The Us does not have an imperialistic mindset. It simply went into Iraq to remove a regime that threatened international stability, peace and SURVIVAL! yes it turned out that the US couldnt find ny weapons, but at the time, the 2 best intelligence agencies in the world were telling them that they were there. So, acting in the best interests for the world, they overthrew the regime a d created democratic society in Iraq.

Survival!? Are you saying Iraq posed a threat to the US? I fail to see the threat. The US has enough money and conventional weapons to lay waste to the whole wasteland region of the Middle East. Besides which, it's half-way around the world. If Iraq had a navy, it never could have gotten past Africa or through the Pacific. That the "2 best intelligence agencies in the world" were wrong means that either they were very, very wrong or they lied because there was a conspiracy to begin a war. The US invaded mostly for financial interests. The pro-US government now in Iraq is likely to repay the US with oil. Probably an under-the-table deal, like when Reagan sold AT missiles to Iran to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.

How dare you are think the United States is the biggest threat to world peace! Having the best military and creatively inventive minds in the world does not make it dangerous. We have been a tool of peace, power and freedom since our creation. The US provides the most humanitarian aide and has created the United Nations after World War II and most of the financial support to the UN comes from the United States. We have stood for Israel when all the Arab countries bordering Israel wouldn't and we have such a great economy that our military budget accounts for only 3.7% of our GDP even though it makes up 47% of the world's military spending.

The real biggest threat comes from Iran the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, it is also a haven to Hezbollah and other Islamic extremists.
We have just cause to not want Iran a radical fundalmentalist theocricy with nuclear weapons.

We also do not want North Korea, an unpredictable dictatorship with nuclear weapons as it would make the world even more dangerous.

I think this anti-americanism is mostly unfounded as we may have made mistakes in invading Iraq and Vietnam but America as a whole stands for all that is good in the world.

The other greatest nation on earth is the United Kingdom.
Yes, the U.S. and the U.K. have long been the best of allies as we exchange technology, information, as well as goods.

I HAD to laugh with that thing of America is the tool of peace, freedom, etc.
One guy here already posted most of the conflicts of the U.S.A on its history anyway I'll say a thing or two about some of the ones I know more.

In the middle of "America for americans" thing U.S takes texas from mexico to protect the freedom... err freedom for the farmers of having slaves is it?(mexico had abolished slavery earlier)
well that was not military at the beggining, just dirt diplomacy, but after it went military and they conquered all those lands it seems that the US would never bother to try to go diplomatic again.

All the dictatorships put out in latin america(especially south america) in the 50s-60s-70s as its people have elected more left-wing governments that were trying to minimize their countries economical dependence with the US, but you have really acted in favor of liberty, yes liberty for your companies to explore 3rd world countries... if that means putting extremely violent governments in power, so be it.

I'm going to sleep(2:45 a.m. here) so I won't make this post any longer...

I think this anti-americanism is mostly unfounded as we may have made mistakes in invading Iraq and Vietnam but America as a whole stands for all that is good in the world.

I disagree. The US stands for global hegemony, with or without the consent of the indiginous peoples of other lands (or, come to think of it, their own lands). Lets see here, in the last 60 years alone, the US has overthrown Mossadegh in Iran in order to replace him with the Shah, overthrown the democratically elected President of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, and plunged the country into a 30+ year civil war with over 200,000 killed, was an accomplice to the murder of Patrice Lumumba, helped overthrow then prevent from returning to power the first democratically elected President of the Dominican Republic, Juan Bosch, assisted the overthrow of democratically elected President Salvador Allende in Chile and his replacement with Augusto Pinochet on Sept. 11, 1973, funded the mujahedin in order to incite a Soviet invasion and overthrow a secular government in Afghanistan, supported Saddam in the '80s, funded the contras to attack soft targets (schools, hospitals, etc.) in Nicaragua to overthrow the democratically elected Sandinistas, mined the harbor in Managua, and bombed a factory that was providing most of the perscription drugs to the Sudanese.

Unfounded you say? Hardly

How dare you are think the United States is the biggest threat to world peace! Having the best military and creatively inventive minds in the world does not make it dangerous. We have been a tool of peace, power and freedom since our creation. The US provides the most humanitarian aide and has created the United Nations after World War II and most of the financial support to the UN comes from the United States. We have stood for Israel when all the Arab countries bordering Israel wouldn't and we have such a great economy that our military budget accounts for only 3.7% of our GDP even though it makes up 47% of the world's military spending.

The real biggest threat comes from Iran the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, it is also a haven to Hezbollah and other Islamic extremists.
We have just cause to not want Iran a radical fundalmentalist theocricy with nuclear weapons.

We also do not want North Korea, an unpredictable dictatorship with nuclear weapons as it would make the world even more dangerous.

I think this anti-americanism is mostly unfounded as we may have made mistakes in invading Iraq and Vietnam but America as a whole stands for all that is good in the world.

The other greatest nation on earth is the United Kingdom.
Yes, the U.S. and the U.K. have long been the best of allies as we exchange technology, information, as well as goods.


You are a naive idealist. I was born and live in the US, and I hate the place. That's sayin' something. The US has been selfish and warmongering throughout most of its history. Great, the US has the most money. How? By exploiting its own people as well as other nations. And the US didn't create the UN numbnuts; the UN was the alliance created between the world wars by Britain with France and Belgium and maybe Holland, but they were called the Allies because that was what they were called in the first world war. After World War II, the UN changed from an alliance to a peace-keeping organization, a League of Nations with an army. The Arabs and Moslims never supported Israel because the land was taken from them and given to the Jews so the Jews could have their holy city of Jerusalem. The US and UK were predominately Christian, including government officials, which leads me to believe they wanted to check the rise of Moslim nationalist groups in the Middle East. Wow, the US can spend more money, but a low percentage of its product. Yay, exploitist methods of capitalism. Of course the US doesn't want anyone else to have nuclear weapons; that would detract from the US's ability to threaten other nations with them. The truth is, nuclear weapons are what Thomas Edison referred to as an unimaginable weapon sprung forth from the brain of science when he predicted the development of WMD's. And the UK is not great because of its relationship with the US. There are no more great nations. The times of greatness have long passed. No nation has been great since the fall of Rome.

You are a naive idealist. I was born and live in the US, and I hate the place. That's sayin' something. The US has been selfish and warmongering throughout most of its history. Great, the US has the most money. How? By exploiting its own people as well as other nations. And the US didn't create the UN numbnuts; the UN was the alliance created between the world wars by Britain with France and Belgium and maybe Holland, but they were called the Allies because that was what they were called in the first world war. After World War II, the UN changed from an alliance to a peace-keeping organization, a League of Nations with an army. The Arabs and Moslims never supported Israel because the land was taken from them and given to the Jews so the Jews could have their holy city of Jerusalem. The US and UK were predominately Christian, including government officials, which leads me to believe they wanted to check the rise of Moslim nationalist groups in the Middle East. Wow, the US can spend more money, but a low percentage of its product. Yay, exploitist methods of capitalism. Of course the US doesn't want anyone else to have nuclear weapons; that would detract from the US's ability to threaten other nations with them. The truth is, nuclear weapons are what Thomas Edison referred to as an unimaginable weapon sprung forth from the brain of science when he predicted the development of WMD's. And the UK is not great because of its relationship with the US. There are no more great nations. The times of greatness have long passed. No nation has been great since the fall of Rome.

I agree with most of what you're saying except your last statement. CHINA HAS BEEN GREAT SINCE THE BEGINNING OF WORLD HISTORY AND HAS ONLY SLOWED DOWN A LITTLE IN THE 19TH CENTURY. WE'RE CATCHING UP! :cool:

Which country is the greatest threat to world peace?

Sweden. Frickin Fascists.

I HAD to laugh with that thing of America is the tool of peace, freedom, etc.
One guy here already posted most of the conflicts of the U.S.A on its history anyway I'll say a thing or two about some of the ones I know more.


That was me. I contended and still contend that the US hasn't gone fifty years without being involved in some kind of war.

I agree with most of what you're saying except your last statement. CHINA HAS BEEN GREAT SINCE THE BEGINNING OF WORLD HISTORY AND HAS ONLY SLOWED DOWN A LITTLE IN THE 19TH CENTURY. WE'RE CATCHING UP! :cool:

Sorry, China was great, but I needed a dramatic flare, and the mention of Rome's fall usually works. You are catching up, and very fast. I just wish I spoke Chinese.... ;)

I really didn't want to get involved in this one...but after reading most of this thread I couldn't help it. I sometimes wonder if people around the world are all living on the same planet? We get condemned for going into iraq because it is not involved with "the war on terror". Excuse me, did I miss something here.....did I miss out on the history lesson talking about saddam's social welfare programs, and his funding for schools and incredible policies on civil rights and political freedom. Is everybody else in this world that fu&*ed up that they take up for a man who took over a country illegally, killed people by the thousands, invaded another nation, started war with every country around him,........and oh yeah, HE KILLED THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WHICH NOBODY SEEMS TO CARE ABOUT OR TAKE UP FOR!!!! It's easy for you know-it-all pricks to sit in your homes in germany, and france, etc... and take up for these kind of people because it's not happening in your backyard. Do you think someone like saddam would last 5 seconds in germany (and I don't mean 50 years ago, i mean now), or france, or italy. Could you imagine the uproar if france's government suddenly decided to gas thousands of it's own people because they didn't agree with them. Whether people on this damn planet want to accept it or not, we have certain people that are beyond help, beyond talking to or rationalizing with. Saddam not part of a war on terror, that's like saying our retaliation on japan in world war 2 was completely unfounded afer pearl harbor because the real threat was germany......what a crock of shit. Yes, I can see how America is so horrible.......when was the last time you saw suicide bombers from america blowing up trains in london, or places in france, or italy. When was the last time we used our military to influence policy in norway, or canada, or britain, but because we choose to reject people and nations that throw personal freedom's out the window, we are horrible. I get sick to my stomach when I see how cowardly and blatantly some countries get in bed with terrorists because they think that if they act neutral or give them shelter, they will be left out of it. Sure, if america stopping bombing everyone right now.....and completely got rid of it's military, their would be peace for a short time. Mostly because chickenshit countries and leaders would prefer to run and hide from the problem hoping it won't hit them in the face rather than stand up for one damn solid moral belief in their lives. Not long down the road things would fall apart anyway as the radical factions would push further and further into the remaining modern countries and decide that they had no resistance to taking whatever they wanted by force and fear. What a great world that would be, and all because a majority of the people around the world think it is horrible to stand up for something that is right, to look something in the face and say "we will not stand for this, and we will not live this way!" Has this world become that f*#&'ed up that we can't even agree on the fact that mass murdering dictators who brainwash the young into strapping bombs to their chests is wrong, that we need to stand up against that..........we actually argue over whether we should take out one murderer because he technically wasn't murdering anyone at the time we went in, or that he happened to get rid of (or hide in my opinion) the weapons that everyone clearly knows he did have and did use to carry these acts out. Some of you people are using logic that is so skewed it amazes me that you have any rational thought whatsoever. Using your logic, if japan had destroyed all it's planes after pearl harbor and said "oops, my bad".......you would have actually had a problem with striking back, doesn't that sound stupid to you, it's the same principle you use to attack our situation with iraq. You would rather side with a mass murdering f&%k-head, than wiith the people that live oppressed by him everyday. I'm actually tired of typing so I'm going to wrap up with this:

1. Not everything america has done is honorable.....but we forgave and forgot nazi germany, so don't tell me that a mistake here and there is unforgivable.....my god!!! we haven't tried to exterminate (and almost succeed i might add) an entire class of people while forceibly taking over the world, you want to talk about a screw-up.....cut us some damn slack every now and then.

2. Grow some balls and take a stand for people around the world who can't defend themselves, you put yourselves in their positions. You imagine yourself living in iraq, or afghan, and watching your husband or wife dragged off, tortured, and killed, because they said something derogatory about the government. To watch your son or daughter blow themselves up in london because some crazy guy didn't have the balls to do it himself but he was smart enough to corrupt and poison your child into doing it. Imagine not knowing whether you were going to live another day becuase you might starve to death, and even if you don't, you might be jailed and killed any day just because your dictator down the street was having a bad day. When any of you people live in a situation like that, then I'll listen to everthing you have to say about whether america should have come into your town and leveled the playing field!

Face the facts you bush lovein/brainwashed moron's, He is threatoning world peace and he is the main reason for many nuclear buildups right now. I bet you bush lovers are going crazy right now but he did attack iraq without reasoning, Now your going to say that he was an evil dictator who needed to be kicked out of power, but guess what in africa massive genocides and endless slaughter is going on that is far worse then what Saddam was doing but instead of attacking or being willing to get our noses bloody to help save millions of people who would love our help we ignore it all because they don't have Oil there or anything else bush thinks is important (Also his dad never had a failed war aginst them).

If Bush wasn't such an unjust war monger all these countrys getting nuclear weapon's wouldn't be so much of a problem, because as we learned from the cold war if 2 countrys that want to kill eachother both have nukes neither one wants to realy attack the other and have the other's nukes dropped onto them. Heck! If Saddam realy had WMD we probably wouldn't of gone to war with him because we wouldn't want the weapon to be used on us, but since he didn't have any we weren't worryed. In otherwords if you don't have a WMD we will lie about you haveing one and go to war with you, if you have one we will ask you to unarm it and make a big fuss about it but never attack you so which would a country choose.... Hum... Of corse they would choose to have a nuke were giveing them no other choice -.-

We never had a good reason to attack except for oil and personal revenge, oh sure they may of been training terrorists but their are loads of countrys with terrorist training anymore but we don't care about them we only care about saddam, we also forget all about Ben Ladin after the saddam campaign because bush thinks he is not a threat anymore. (It turns out that Ben Ladin's family has ties to bushes family too, isn't that convient)

Also if you think that America realy is the land of the free and everyone is and has been equal your dead wrong, We started this country with slavery, We slaughtered the Indian's because we wanted their land and what we want we get if you try to resist we blow the liveing hell out of you, we were very late on abolishing slavery and even treated blacks bad after they were freed, and We move all people that has Japanese ansestry to Concentration camps during WW2 (Also called something less sever to look better but I forget the name currently) But at lease we seem to finnaly after about 200 years of haveing a false title seem to be getting around to the equality part

I really didn't want to get involved in this one...but after reading most of this thread I couldn't help it. I sometimes wonder if people around the world are all living on the same planet? We get condemned for going into iraq because it is not involved with "the war on terror". Excuse me, did I miss something here.....did I miss out on the history lesson talking about saddam's social welfare programs, and his funding for schools and incredible policies on civil rights and political freedom. Is everybody else in this world that fu&*ed up that they take up for a man who took over a country illegally, killed people by the thousands, invaded another nation, started war with every country around him,........and oh yeah, HE KILLED THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WHICH NOBODY SEEMS TO CARE ABOUT OR TAKE UP FOR!!!! It's easy for you know-it-all pricks to sit in your homes in germany, and france, etc... and take up for these kind of people because it's not happening in your backyard. Do you think someone like saddam would last 5 seconds in germany (and I don't mean 50 years ago, i mean now), or france, or italy. Could you imagine the uproar if france's government suddenly decided to gas thousands of it's own people because they didn't agree with them. Whether people on this damn planet want to accept it or not, we have certain people that are beyond help, beyond talking to or rationalizing with. Saddam not part of a war on terror, that's like saying our retaliation on japan in world war 2 was completely unfounded afer pearl harbor because the real threat was germany......what a crock of shit. Yes, I can see how America is so horrible.......when was the last time you saw suicide bombers from america blowing up trains in london, or places in france, or italy. When was the last time we used our military to influence policy in norway, or canada, or britain, but because we choose to reject people and nations that throw personal freedom's out the window, we are horrible. I get sick to my stomach when I see how cowardly and blatantly some countries get in bed with terrorists because they think that if they act neutral or give them shelter, they will be left out of it. Sure, if america stopping bombing everyone right now.....and completely got rid of it's military, their would be peace for a short time. Mostly because chickenshit countries and leaders would prefer to run and hide from the problem hoping it won't hit them in the face rather than stand up for one damn solid moral belief in their lives. Not long down the road things would fall apart anyway as the radical factions would push further and further into the remaining modern countries and decide that they had no resistance to taking whatever they wanted by force and fear. What a great world that would be, and all because a majority of the people around the world think it is horrible to stand up for something that is right, to look something in the face and say "we will not stand for this, and we will not live this way!" Has this world become that f*#&'ed up that we can't even agree on the fact that mass murdering dictators who brainwash the young into strapping bombs to their chests is wrong, that we need to stand up against that..........we actually argue over whether we should take out one murderer because he technically wasn't murdering anyone at the time we went in, or that he happened to get rid of (or hide in my opinion) the weapons that everyone clearly knows he did have and did use to carry these acts out. Some of you people are using logic that is so skewed it amazes me that you have any rational thought whatsoever. Using your logic, if japan had destroyed all it's planes after pearl harbor and said "oops, my bad".......you would have actually had a problem with striking back, doesn't that sound stupid to you, it's the same principle you use to attack our situation with iraq. You would rather side with a mass murdering f&%k-head, than wiith the people that live oppressed by him everyday. I'm actually tired of typing so I'm going to wrap up with this:

1. Not everything america has done is honorable.....but we forgave and forgot nazi germany, so don't tell me that a mistake here and there is unforgivable.....my god!!! we haven't tried to exterminate (and almost succeed i might add) an entire class of people while forceibly taking over the world, you want to talk about a screw-up.....cut us some damn slack every now and then.

2. Grow some balls and take a stand for people around the world who can't defend themselves, you put yourselves in their positions. You imagine yourself living in iraq, or afghan, and watching your husband or wife dragged off, tortured, and killed, because they said something derogatory about the government. To watch your son or daughter blow themselves up in london because some crazy guy didn't have the balls to do it himself but he was smart enough to corrupt and poison your child into doing it. Imagine not knowing whether you were going to live another day becuase you might starve to death, and even if you don't, you might be jailed and killed any day just because your dictator down the street was having a bad day. When any of you people live in a situation like that, then I'll listen to everthing you have to say about whether america should have come into your town and leveled the playing field!


-.- We only went to war for Oil and personal revenge, if we truely wanted to help people we would be fighting in countrys who desperately need our help and want our help such as countrys in africa and other countrys around the world

USA...?:confused:

I don't see us starting mass genocides and flat out ignoring Africa.

I suppose it's the recent bit of wars. Ahh well.

So you all hate the United States just because of the Cold War and Capitalism and the fact that the Soviet Union is no more?

Believe it or not but Capitalism is the ultimate system of business and economies. Just about every economicly powerful nation uses some form of Capitalism. There is nothing wong about competition bringing out the best in all of us.

Communism is perhaps the most unrealistic form of economic and governmental system ever created. Not only has Communism failed but it will also never work due to human nature. It has always sucked, soon afterwards it always results in famine, poverty, and deterioration in human rights.

Is it not noticable that every time a Communist system rises to power that a naton's economy always plummets?

People due not want to work for the same wages no matter how well they have acheived. People want to be able to raise their standards of living by acquiring skills, opening businesses, competing, investing in the stock market and ecetera.

Israel had every right to exist as there was no such thing as a state of Palestine and that the UN set aside it. Anti-semitism is unjustified and they deserved a homeland after the Holocaust.

Calling me numbnuts only disproves your argument, if I am wrong please correct me. I am not a 'naive idealist' I am only trying to stick up for my country. I am sure you would if people continually criticised your country but maybe not.

The US is one of the founding members as the UN has five permanent members. I at least am right about the US funding more humanitarian aide.

Just because the Bush Administration is in the White House does not mean that it is the end of the world. Presidents come and go, many change and repeal changes made and they can be impeached if the nation so desires.

I never meant to imply that the UK is a great country because of its ties to the US. I am saying that overall, the most modern countries on earth are the US and the UK.

Also, you seem to only list the wrongs of the US when in fact it has done some good.

The US only used atomic bombs to save the lives of American Troops as an invasion of Japan would of caused extreme causalties.

After Japan was bombed the US occupied it, rebuilt it, then set up their own government. Now Japan is one of the most powerfully economic nations on earth all thanks to the United States.

You also must keep in mind, Japan was the one who attacked us forever sending United States out of an isolationist mood.

As far as I know the United States NEVER in its history bullied any nation by threatening to use nuclear weapons. Your reasoning that the US only wants a monopoly on nukes because of that is clearly unfounded and based on opinion.
Letting Iran and North Korea possess them is clearly not an option due to these countries insability and irresponsibility.

The Soviet Union also had wrongdoings of its own. It has a legacy of pollution and it had no right to keep expanding its territory by invading Afghanistan, the local people of that nation didn't like the takeover so the US was willing to help at the time.

If you think that it was wrong for the US to take Texas from Mexico then it was also wrong for the Soviet union to try and conquer Afghanistan.

The US is not as bad as it is made out to be. It falls victim to media criticism and sterotypes because of its status as the world's remaining military superpower.

I live in America. And I agree that my nation is the biggest threat to world peace. Though you should have added Israel to the list. Most wars get fought over that little speck of land these days.

if provoking the US into attacking them is not a threat to world peace, but the US (being Provoked) attacking is considered a 'threat' then, my theory of the US being a 'target' is also Viable.
The provocation may be a threat, but the important thing is the choice the US makes in response. Additionally, I personally don't see anything any of those countries could do that would be a viable excuse to attack them, short of actually firing missiles at you guys (which they won't/can't do).
Otherwise we can also go by probabilities.
If there are three likely war scenarios in the future, then they are
US vs Iran
US vs DPRK
US vs Syria
See a pattern emerging yet?

In that case, North Korea or Iran. Pick your nation.
I get North Korea (although they haven't done anything for 50 years, I don't see why they'd start now), but who would Iran attack?

Your right. We didn't. They put themselves in power and the people we helped, weren't the taliban. We assisted another group of people.
Well, it wasn't exactly like you tried to stop them. Maybe once you started getting involved, you should have seen it through to the end...
And then there was that pipeline business too.

USA by far. Look at all the death we've created...but then look at what we may have prevented. Have to weigh it. And we havent prevented much since WWII and even then we let Germany be free.
Finally someone reckons we're dangerous! :D

USA...?:confused:

I don't see us starting mass genocides and flat out ignoring Africa.

I suppose it's the recent bit of wars. Ahh well.
It is about recent events I guess. As with trend analysis, you give the most weight to the most recent events.
But less recently, there were the genocides of Native Americans and I think you do ignore Africa to a pretty big extent.
But I assume you were sarcastic anyways.... ;)

So you all hate the United States just because... *snips mercifully* ...of its status as the world's remaining military superpower.

Whoops.

Hook, line, sinker.

Whoops, reel. Tacklebox. Boat. Beer. Beer!

Whoops.

Since the question relates to "World peace" and not "peace" in general, I'd have to say the United States of America. The only other country with a similar potential to the USA in global intervention is Russia, and it clearly doesn't do anything of the sort. The US involves itself in conflicts all around the world, so on an objective basis, yes the US is the greatest threat to world peace.

I think an important detail that has been missed in this discussion is that to have a threat to world peace, one must first have obtained world peace. That being said, historically, I'd say Germany...Tricky buggers. In modern times however, I would say North Korea is the greatest threat to "world peace". Why? Well yes, they certainly cant sustain a prolonged fight (on their own), but the point is not who can go on a worldwide conquest (as America and China can and have in the past)--Rather who can cause the greatest disruption in the international community. That doesn't even have to mean war: Look at how Serbia has disrupted continental Europe in the past (assasination of Archduke Ferdinand, Muslim cleansing). They weren't very important before those events, and frankly, aren't very important now. The point is, they were a volitile country that did something relatively...crazy. It was because they had no real military power that they did something like that. Thats why I say North Korea probobly, but definatly a small volitile state with a small but fanatic military.

If you think that it was wrong for the US to take Texas from Mexico then it was also wrong for the Soviet union to try and conquer Afghanistan.

I agree with you on everything you said up to the above point. More of a historical gripe really. Texas won its own independence and existed as its own nationfor 9 years. The Republic of Texas was authorized to be annexed by the United States. Texas gives up some of its northern territory to the United States in exchange for deferment of debts, blah, blah blah. The U.S. stepped in in response to the Rio Grande vs. Nueces boundry dispute, well after annexation, and basically just took that time to whoop up on Mexico. But no, the U.S. did not "take" Texas from Mexico.

Sorry about that, had to say it.

Sorry about that, had to say it.It was still wrong considering that it was American immigrants that didn't feel like giving up their right to own slaves that declared Texas independent.

I am glad that you noticed that the US didn't actually take Texas from Mexico.

I am tired of all the bias, myths, and sterotypes against the United States as it is my country and nationality.

We didn't invade Iraq for oil, that is based on opinion and can't be proven.
The US really did think Iraq was a threat but turned out to be wrong in its intelligence.

The gas prices certainly did not drop after the invasion and is not cheap today and there is no guarentee that they will give us any oil after the new Iraqi Government is established as it is completely their choice in what to do with their resources. To keep it or to sell it to other nations.

I am glad that you noticed that the US didn't actually take Texas from Mexico.

I am tired of all the bias, myths, and sterotypes against the United States as it is my country and nationality.

We didn't invade Iraq for oil, that is based on opinion and can't be proven.
The US really did think Iraq was a threat but turned out to be wrong in its intelligence.

The gas prices certainly did not drop after the invasion and is not cheap today and there is no guarentee that they will give us any oil after the new Iraqi Government is established as it is completely their choice in what to do with their resources. To keep it or to sell it to other nations.
I don't agree with the "threat" hypothesis. The British knew that there wasn't any change in the threat level of Iraq after September 11th and the Americans were aware of it too.
My personal opinion is that Bush wanted to get done what his daddy had not (for personal reasons) and to free lots of money from the treasury and dish it out to American companies for rebuilding Iraq.

Haveing enough oil doesn't mean you will get it cheap, if buisness is allowed/have a cruddy reason to raise the price they will

AUSTRALIA!! mainly bcause no one else said it....

but im sure some how in 2 or three years Australia will become the major super power and take over the world :)

:sniper: :sniper:

AUSTRALIA!! mainly bcause no one else said it....

but im sure some how in 2 or three years Australia will become the major super power and take over the world :)

:sniper: :sniper:
Go austraila and use your Kangaroo warfare to jump your troops behind your enemy and flank them easily!!! YE-HAW!!! :p :D

Arghh... I had lots of threads open, including which country is the safest to live in, so I voted Australia... but not thinking it was this thread :confused:

Oh, lol, im sorry, i was being nagged by my girlfriend whislt doing that. GErmany and iran should of been added, sorry
Which makes your girlfriend the biggest threat to world peace ;)

Lashie is the greatest threat to world peace!

:headbang: :sniper: shouldnt israel be on that list
belive me probably most of the others meant israel
...i mean, israel is an over the law state, no matter how many UN acts are put, it can still do whatever it wants, like (the no settelments in pre-67 lands)
completly ignored
this titanic concrete wall, totaly ignored, and israel is probably the only country in the world that went into war with all of its neighbors, and lets not forget that the foundation of israel all started illigal, without giving the palistinians the right to chose, because they were under british rule then...
and by the way, the whole promised land thing is just zioninst hogus, the real people of this land are palistinians, since they first moved there, they became jews and founded israel and judea thousands of years ago, later when jesus came, a huge population of these jews turned to christianity, then islam came so another population from jews and christians turned to islam, tis true that some of these jews immigrated to Europe, but that doesnt give them the right to take anothers land...plus the hiarchy of races in israel is as followed European jews-Arab jews-african jews-Arab israels

so how can it not be seen as occupation, for the arab jews and the arab israelis...
anyways whats done is done...

the second threat in my view would be North Korea
USA
China
Western EU
Iran
Pakistan

The major threat to world peace at the moment are the Americans, not because of the usual knee-jerk reason of "omg tehy r doin teh bombingz!!!" but because their activities in the middle-east have done nothing but lead Iraq into near-civil war, and have deposed a leader who, while he deserved to be removed from power because of his treatment of his people, certainly managed to hold the entire region stable a lot better than the Americans seem to be able to, as we watch a region that was just beginning to calm down - albeit under the rule of non-democratic leadership - descend into a cess-pool of terrorist activity and violence that we can proudly wave the flag of 'democracy' over, provided we keep it out of the flames rising from the battles below.

Of course, Israel is also to blame for riling up the Islamic nations around it - they can't help living there, every Israeli is not going to up and move overnight, but the slaughter of innocent Palestinians and the constant militant posturing - while needed to keep the more aggressive elements of the surrounding nations at bay - far too frequently oversteps the mark, and threatening to overfly Iran to destroy any nuclear reactor they put into action was an extremely stupid move. The Israelis need to keep themselves to themselves for a long while, and keep any such discussion very much on the low - when the people of the nations surrounding yours already hate you, threatening to blow things in their country up is not the best diplomatic route to take.

I don't feel Iran is too much of an actual risk, and I feel North Korea isn't either - I don't think China is stupid enough to let their little peninsula pitbull get too out of hand, and I don't think Jong-il is quite mad enough to consider doing anything that would see a serious response from the Chinese, and the Chinese are quite happy to have the US as their economic bitch as they continues their surge into capitalism and wouldn't want to stir that up too much, and Russia is still too corrupt and fragmented in terms of it's powerbases to muster any sort of significant threat.

If you want to see the biggest threat to world peace, look to the Arab world, but if you want to see the reasons why, look no further than the good ol' U-S-of-A and their good buddies Israel, with Britain along for the ride as well - It's as simple as that.

Peace? What is peace? Is peace simply the state of being calm and serene? or the act of not gogin to war? and if so does war no bring peace? war is peace? If there was no war how could there be peace? Does a shadow not require the light, and does a light not always cast a shadow? --oh boy, now i'm dizzy :headbang:

Manaco isn't a country. Monaco tho could be a potential world threat. Just think if the King doesn't have a 'legitimate' son then the wonderful principality will return to France..the wealthy may not be pleased at having to pay proper taxes!

No one country can stand a threat unless they have some form of help/support from another country. And where did you get this idea of world peace?? Bombs going off everywhere, civil wars, kids carrying arms.

People are the biggest threat to world peace.

:headbang: :sniper: shouldnt israel be on that list
belive me probably most of the others meant israel
...i mean, israel is an over the law state, no matter how many UN acts are put, it can still do whatever it wants, like (the no settelments in pre-67 lands)
completly ignored
this titanic concrete wall, totaly ignored, and israel is probably the only country in the world that went into war with all of its neighbors, and lets not forget that the foundation of israel all started illigal, without giving the palistinians the right to chose, because they were under british rule then...
and by the way, the whole promised land thing is just zioninst hogus, the real people of this land are palistinians, since they first moved there, they became jews and founded israel and judea thousands of years ago, later when jesus came, a huge population of these jews turned to christianity, then islam came so another population from jews and christians turned to islam, tis true that some of these jews immigrated to Europe, but that doesnt give them the right to take anothers land...plus the hiarchy of races in israel is as followed European jews-Arab jews-african jews-Arab israels

so how can it not be seen as occupation, for the arab jews and the arab israelis...
anyways whats done is done...

the second threat in my view would be North Korea
USA
China
Western EU
Iran
Pakistan

Israel?! Israel are only in the situation they are in because of the biggest allie. How is the EU more dangerous then 2 countries that like to get jiggy with nuclear arms?

China's military is still modernising, and would hardly be able to sustain a long, large war.

But doesn't it have the world's largest air force.

North Korea, apart from nuclear missiles, will only be able to trample bits of South Korea, because they've got no food nor logistics to support any operation of size. All they have is a load of propaganda, and that can't fill stomachs the way grain does.

N. Korea has over 1.5 million soldiers in it's army (and a mad leader).

Britain - what a joke. Isn't there a report saying that the RN can't sustain another Falklands War?

They could but the way the government is cutting the defence budget is appalling. But Britian would only start a war if America was starting it with them.

PS: Why is Australia in there, they wouldn't start a war.
PSS: You've put Manaco when it should be Monaco.

2. Grow some balls and take a stand for people around the world who can't defend themselves, you put yourselves in their positions. You imagine yourself living in iraq, or afghan, and watching your husband or wife dragged off, tortured, and killed, because they said something derogatory about the government. To watch your son or daughter blow themselves up in london because some crazy guy didn't have the balls to do it himself but he was smart enough to corrupt and poison your child into doing it. Imagine not knowing whether you were going to live another day becuase you might starve to death, and even if you don't, you might be jailed and killed any day just because your dictator down the street was having a bad day. When any of you people live in a situation like that, then I'll listen to everthing you have to say about whether america should have come into your town and leveled the playing field!



If this is how much america cares about people, why didnt it stop the salughter in rwanda in 1994? a million people were slaughtered, and america, and europe , abandoned them.

So, now, your statement is wrong, if america has nothing to gain, it wont help.

One of the reasons America AND the rest of the world did nothing in Rwanda is that Rewanda was considered under Frances' sphere of influence. Yes the US should have done something, as well as the UN, NATO and the EU. To this day in infuriates me to hear that Bill Clinton only sent in troops to help after he had 'seen the tears of an Irishman on CNN' of course the tears of nation didn't move him at all. (sorry brief rant).

I shan't deny it. When there is nothing to gain why go to war? why risk the lives of people when there is nothing to gain?Every "civilized" nation swore after WWII that they would never let another genecide happen, but there have been 14, including the one in Rwanda. But what is there to gain in Rwanda? there was nothing there except 800,000 dead tu-tus and a lot of angry wutus. besides the last UN lead fight in Korea was left almost completly up to the US. As a Machiavellian Malthusian Darwinist I can honestly say, if they can't protect themselves why should I protect them? We need oil and a free Iraq will surely help since we will be able to gain leverage against the evil OPEC(which is a monopoly, which are illegal in most nations). Once the hydrogen fuel cell is perfected and cars can run on water, we won't need anyone and America can go back to being isolationist and watch the world fall apart and come back crying for our billions in foreign aid, and our thousands of well trained and well armed troops, so to the rest of the world who won't stand with us. FUK YOU.

-.- We only went to war for Oil and personal revenge, if we truely wanted to help people we would be fighting in countrys who desperately need our help and want our help such as countrys in africa and other countrys around the world


We would be if it wasn't for the fact that we were attacked and had to focus ourselves on protecting our people first. And you know that we would get criticized for going into those countries also even if it was just to help people. It's completely ludacris to put the US down on one hand for all the stuff we are doing and then complain on the other that we aren't doing enough, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

If this is how much america cares about people, why didnt it stop the salughter in rwanda in 1994? a million people were slaughtered, and america, and europe , abandoned them.

So, now, your statement is wrong, if america has nothing to gain, it wont help.


Another "want it both ways" person. You can't order us around with your damn UN to the places that "YOU" decide are worthy, and then yell at us for going into other places to stop terrorist attacks for our own protection. BUT, you do prove one thing for me that I will agree with.......Bill clinton was one of the worst presidents I have ever seen (I'm sure I'll get a response on that one), and completely tarnished the rep of the US and the presidency. One final point to everyone who thinks we are off the tracks on the war on terror. Since 9/11 there hasn't been another attack in the US, period!! Madrid....yes.....london...yes....other parts of the world...yes. Say what you will, we are obviously doing something right. (although I do concede it is really only a matter of time before we get attacked again, this thing can't be won overnight and people need to realize that)

YOU BELIEVE IN THESE GUYS!!! ROFLMAO!!! :D :D :D

Yes I do. Why? Because they are in the region. I trust them more than I trust the American Media.

Corneliu, there is no excuse for bad intel in the modern world, especially when life and death are involved.

Yep correct but you cannot blame the President for the Bad intel. You have to blame the people that gather it. In this case it is the CIA that is at falt and Tenet paid a price for it by getting canned.

-.- We only went to war for Oil

And yet, one more inaccurate statement throughout this whole ordeal. If we went to war for oil then why is the price of things that is made from oil still up and not down here in the states?

The US only used atomic bombs to save the lives of American Troops as an invasion of Japan would of caused extreme causalties.


I don't know if you know that Japan was ready to surrendrer after the first nuke, but the second one (new type) had to be tested somewhere and show russians how powerfull America is :)

The provocation may be a threat, but the important thing is the choice the US makes in response.

So we get shot at and we punish them for shooting at us, are we a threat to world peace or are we doing the right thing by retaliating in response to being shot at?

Additionally, I personally don't see anything any of those countries could do that would be a viable excuse to attack them, short of actually firing missiles at you guys (which they won't/can't do).

And why we won't be doing anything to them unless they do fire at us.

Otherwise we can also go by probabilities.
If there are three likely war scenarios in the future, then they are
US vs Iran
US vs DPRK
US vs Syria
See a pattern emerging yet?

Yep. Three nations that are a threat to world peace doing their best not to become the target of the US military assault.

I get North Korea (although they haven't done anything for 50 years, I don't see why they'd start now), but who would Iran attack?

How about I-S-R-A-E-L?

Well, it wasn't exactly like you tried to stop them. Maybe once you started getting involved, you should have seen it through to the end...
And then there was that pipeline business too.

Ahh my friend. Your starting to show political ignorance. In case you have noticed the geography, there are nations that we would've had to fly through or stage out of in order to do anything about it. They wouldn't give us permission.

Whcih country in your opinion is the greatest threat to world peace?


I personaly beleive america, as its military budget is something like the size of the next 33 military budgets combined.

As im new, i tried to get a poll, but my computer went weird, so i didnt do one, anyway, let your opinion be known!

I know I am quoting something from page one, but it is the first thing I read and I can´t let it slide. The only reason america spends such a disproportionate amount on the military compared to the rest of the world is because we gotta do all of the work. If the USA cut funding on its military the repurcussions would be the opposite of peace. Without a world superpower to keep rogue countries in line and support UN military action.(we carry most of the burden.) the world would be in chaos.

So people can complain about the USA and be jealous of it all day but the fact is the only thing holding world peace together right now is America.

We don't have world peace, but the biggest road block to getting it is America.

A) it is the only nation financially capable of sustaining prolonged conflict
B) it is a nation of paranoid people, a government willing to break international laws by making pre-emptive strikes on other nations
C) they have WMDs at their disposal and a jumpy President with his finger on the big red button
D) it is a nation of corporations willing to go to war over resources
E) it is a nation in defiance of UN regulations (someday that has to be a problem, someone will do something about it)
F) it is a nation led by power-hungry businessmen who have proven they will do pretty much anything to get more power and have the resources to do so
G) they have introduced new laws that threaten their own population and violate their own constitution, removing civil liberties left right and centre, this causes civil unrest and conflict between government and people. For a nation already paranoid, power hungry and trigger-happy that's a very tenuous situation!

Note, the UK and other nations also fit into one or more of the above categories, but the sheer amount that apply to the USA makes them the greatest threat.

And yet, one more inaccurate statement throughout this whole ordeal. If we went to war for oil then why is the price of things that is made from oil still up and not down here in the states?

*Sigh* not that old cheap oil for the consumer thing again? Look, the basic premise for the existence of a corporation is to make money by exchanging goods for it on a large scale right?

Oil companies are the same. They won't charge you low prices just because its cheap for them. Hell no, a company will always charge the highest possible price so long as they still have a competitive edge. With oil prices as they currently are, why on earth would you charge a lower price than anybody else if you can still keep your market share?

The only difference is that whoever is controlling them oil wells will be able to supply a little longer than those who don't. But you're still not going to see prices drop. Not in your lifetimes. It doesn't matter if you've drill a trillion barrels of oil a day or a million. You want to keep those prices high for as long as you can squeeze the consumer for.

And they'll pay. Why? Because nobody else is lowering their prices. Why the hell should you?

I don't know if you know that Japan was ready to surrendrer after the first nuke, but the second one (new type) had to be tested somewhere and show russians how powerfull America is :)

I don't know if you know but did you know that they approached the USSR and the USSR declared war? If they truly wanted to surrender, they would've gone to the US and not to the USSR.

I know I am quoting something from page one, but it is the first thing I read and I can´t let it slide. The only reason america spends such a disproportionate amount on the military compared to the rest of the world is because we gotta do all of the work. If the USA cut funding on its military the repurcussions would be the opposite of peace. Without a world superpower to keep rogue countries in line and support UN military action.(we carry most of the burden.) the world would be in chaos.

So people can complain about the USA and be jealous of it all day but the fact is the only thing holding world peace together right now is America.

I couldn't agree more.

Whcih country in your opinion is the greatest threat to world peace?


I personaly beleive america, as its military budget is something like the size of the next 33 military budgets combined.

As im new, i tried to get a poll, but my computer went weird, so i didnt do one, anyway, let your opinion be known!

I blame Canada! Just like the good people of South Park. Time to launch Operation Get Behind the Darkies!

*Sigh* not that old cheap oil for the consumer thing again? Look, the basic premise for the existence of a corporation is to make money by exchanging goods for it on a large scale right?

Last time I had a business class and that was back in highschool.

Oil companies are the same. They won't charge you low prices just because its cheap for them. Hell no, a company will always charge the highest possible price so long as they still have a competitive edge. With oil prices as they currently are, why on earth would you charge a lower price than anybody else if you can still keep your market share?

Well then you have a problem. If gas prices go up, people don't travel and therefore, the oil companies aren't making money. Lower the gas prices, and you'll be making money hand over fist because people will travel and they'll need the gas to do it. Why do you think Gas prices drop when the price of oil drops and rise when the price of oil go up?

The only difference is that whoever is controlling them oil wells will be able to supply a little longer than those who don't. But you're still not going to see prices drop. Not in your lifetimes. It doesn't matter if you've drill a trillion barrels of oil a day or a million. You want to keep those prices high for as long as you can squeeze the consumer for.

Then the people won't travel and the company starts to lose money. I price shop for everything I buy (especially for computer games) I don't by the most expensive item, nor the cheapest item. I go in the middle between the two.

And they'll pay. Why? Because nobody else is lowering their prices. Why the hell should you?

To make money. Once people see that your making more than they do, they'll lower their prices too in order to keep up with competition. Now that we've exercised our brains in the matters of business, this doesn't prove that the War in Iraq is about Oil. It isn't.

I concor excellent hypothosis.
I agree... America. but not for the reasons you state.

America is the last remaining Superpower. Sure China will get up there but not yet, and the Soviet Union is rebuilding.

so, with America Standing tall, all the little jelous Nations will continually snipe and attack the US. Fringe groups will continuously attack her citizens and America will be forced to retaliate.

I know I am quoting something from page one, but it is the first thing I read and I can´t let it slide. The only reason america spends such a disproportionate amount on the military compared to the rest of the world is because we gotta do all of the work. If the USA cut funding on its military the repurcussions would be the opposite of peace. Without a world superpower to keep rogue countries in line and support UN military action.(we carry most of the burden.) the world would be in chaos.

So people can complain about the USA and be jealous of it all day but the fact is the only thing holding world peace together right now is America.

Look at what the USA has spent its military budget on though... starting wars, invading countries, building more bombs. I'll be blunt, other countries commit troops to the UN, they use diplomacy to forge peace between nations and they try to get along with other nations, for the most part. America don't do this, the government claims it is trying to make the world more peaceful, but seriously, how is killing people and pissing everyone off actually achieving that?!

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the idiots out there said America. Can't you see its China? They have the biggest population in the world and have no problem sending all of them out with a to attack and then nuke everything. They are sucking up the economy of the Western nations and are using it to further their Communist military. They need to be stopped. Now. By any and all means necessary.

Look at what the USA has spent its military budget on though... starting wars, invading countries, building more bombs.

Funny. I thought we spend our money for defending Freedom.

I'll be blunt, other countries commit troops to the UN, they use diplomacy to forge peace between nations and they try to get along with other nations, for the most part.

And yet there isn't any peace. There isn't peace in the Middle East. No peace in Balkans, no peace in Africa. So tell me where the Peace is?

America don't do this, the government claims it is trying to make the world more peaceful, but seriously, how is killing people and pissing everyone off actually achieving that?!

How about finishing what was started back in 1991 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait then was tossed out. He then violated an international cease-fire which allowed us to go back in and take him out. This we have done. How about losing 3000 of our own citizens! We have the right to strike back. How did killing American Civilians achieve world peace?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the idiots out there said America. Can't you see its China? They have the biggest population in the world and have no problem sending all of them out with a to attack and then nuke everything. They are sucking up the economy of the Western nations and are using it to further their Communist military. They need to be stopped. Now. By any and all means necessary.

I don't see China invading or attacking any countries especially based on false excuses.
Their only problem is Taiwan which doesn't compare to U.S' actings because it is a former chinese territory, and has chinese people there, so is pretty much like their own business, like if Hawaii declared independency O.o

Last time I had a business class and that was back in highschool.

And the point of that being? You learn about stuff in business class. Then you learn about stuff in the real world. Then you laugh at how different the two things are. Busines ethics for one. What a hoot.


Well then you have a problem. If gas prices go up, people don't travel and therefore, the oil companies aren't making money. Lower the gas prices, and you'll be making money hand over fist because people will travel and they'll need the gas to do it. Why do you think Gas prices drop when the price of oil drops and rise when the price of oil go up?


You really think that private people travelling and that rot really affects the business? Do you have any idea how dependent the economy is on oil? Transportation on just about every mass scale requires oil/gas. Industries crave oil to keep things running. Power companies need oil because that's how most of them generate power. The plastics industry eats oil like a baleen whale eats krill. Agriculture concerns need oil to run the machines they use to farm large tracts of land.

They can't do without oil. They need oil. And they'll damn well pay whatever they can afford for that oil if they want to stay in business.

Face it. Society as a whole desires, no, requires oil to stay intact. The oil companies know this. Anybody who follows the basic flowcharts will be able to find out just how much oil ties in with a functional economy, and its just about everywhere. Show me a single large scale industry or commercial venture that exists in a first world country and I'll be able to show you a tie into oil consumption somewhere. Private travel is not the sole source of oil consumption. In fact, its a puny amount when compared to everything else.


Then the people won't travel and the company starts to lose money. I price shop for everything I buy (especially for computer games) I don't by the most expensive item, nor the cheapest item. I go in the middle between the two.


And people won't travel you say? Do you use a motorized transport currently? Because if you do, then that means the prices today are deemed acceptable to you. And if thats the case, why on earth should any oil company lower their prices? Basic economics rule 101. Supply and demand. Oil demand has been constantly on the rise ever since people found out how darned useful it was and Henry Ford started the basic ideas of mass manufacturing. In fact, so far as I can see, its STILL rising. Supply won't really go up, there's a finite supply after all. So if you can just increase the supply by minimal amounts to satisfy demand, you sure as hell can keep your prices up. Prices only drop when supply exceeds demand, and that's not going to happen.


To make money. Once people see that your making more than they do, they'll lower their prices too in order to keep up with competition. Now that we've exercised our brains in the matters of business, this doesn't prove that the War in Iraq is about Oil. It isn't.

Have you actually paid attention to how oil/gas prices work? Stations don't regularly patch into the home company network for constant updates for nothing you know. Its an oligopoly, and that means these things are extremely price sensitive. If one person lowers a price and the others do, as you so kindly pointed out, you end up making less at no real benefit in terms of market share OR sales. Instead, all you end up doing is undercutting your profits.

And profits are important to every CEO's portfolio.

So why lower your prices? Nobody else is going to. Lowering your prices means losing profit and no real market share gain. So keep it up at the same level as everybody else. Squeeze the consumer for everything he's got. Don't forget the industry too.

Now that I've excercised my brains on business, I can tell that yours is real dusty. You might need a refresher course.

Funny. I thought we spend our money for defending Freedom.

that's what's being debated here



And yet there isn't any peace. There isn't peace in the Middle East. No peace in Balkans, no peace in Africa. So tell me where the Peace is?

Certainly not in Iraq or afghanistan where violence was used but there should be peace right?


How about finishing what was started back in 1991 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait then was tossed out. He then violated an international cease-fire which allowed us to go back in and take him out. This we have done. How about losing 3000 of our own citizens! We have the right to strike back. How did killing American Civilians achieve world peace?

There you go again saying that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 pif...

By the way I don't see how throwing a big middle eastern country into chaos has done anything to achieve world peace...

I don't see China invading or attacking any countries especially based on false excuses.
Their only problem is Taiwan which doesn't compare to U.S' actings because it is a former chinese territory, and has chinese people there, so is pretty much like their own business, like if Hawaii declared independency O.o

I understand your point, however they do attack other people, look at the Korean war, they got involved and helped attack us. They have already threatened us. One of their own generals threatened to nuke us if we got involved in Taiwan. China is the one being imperialist, first they won't allow Hong Kong to be free, now they won't allow Taiwan to be free. Who's next? They accept the USA's factories and preach anti-americanism. They support nations which were fighting wars against us, they supported both overtly and covertly. They are a threat to world peace. Any rogue nation which has 1/3 of the world population, who is trying to keep other nations from being free, which is spending extreme amounts on its military instead of helping its citizens, and has attacked us in the past, is a threat in my opinion. If you disagree still, then I respect your opinion, but I still think they are a threat.

Funny. I thought we spend our money for defending Freedom.

Whos? Yours? What freedom do you have now that your government have gone all George Orwell on your arse? Other peoples? By destroying their homes and businesses and taking their lives? I'm not just talking about Iraq, I'm talking about your nation's whole history of "defending freedom".

And yet there isn't any peace. There isn't peace in the Middle East. No peace in Balkans, no peace in Africa. So tell me where the Peace is?

No, if you read what I said before, I said we didn't have world peace. But many people in this world don't believe that war leads to peace. Europe has had internal peace for 60 years now, the longest period in history and that is because we talk to each other. You might like to try it. The IRA have agreed to go further than the Good Friday Agreement and lay down their weapons because in the end, talking solves the problems, fighting each other doesn't, it furthers the hostility.

How about losing 3000 of our own citizens! We have the right to strike back. How did killing American Civilians achieve world peace?

If you're talking about 9/11 then you just blamed the civilians of Afghanistan and Iraq for the terrorist activity of a handfull of extremeists from many different countries. Nice one, that's the way to get people to see you positively!

that's what's being debated here

What's to debate?

Certainly not in Iraq or afghanistan where violence was used but there should be peace right?

I agree there should be peace but why don't the other nation's in the region assist in bringing peace to the region? They're not doing so and thus the problems of the Middle East continue.

There you go again saying that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 pif...

Funny thing is.... I didn't say that nor did I implied it.

By the way I don't see how throwing a big middle eastern country into chaos has done anything to achieve world peace...

Funny thing is, I don't see how the United Nations is achieving world peace.

We don't have world peace, but the biggest road block to getting it is America.

A) it is the only nation financially capable of sustaining prolonged conflict
B) it is a nation of paranoid people, a government willing to break international laws by making pre-emptive strikes on other nations
C) they have WMDs at their disposal and a jumpy President with his finger on the big red button
D) it is a nation of corporations willing to go to war over resources
E) it is a nation in defiance of UN regulations (someday that has to be a problem, someone will do something about it)
F) it is a nation led by power-hungry businessmen who have proven they will do pretty much anything to get more power and have the resources to do so
G) they have introduced new laws that threaten their own population and violate their own constitution, removing civil liberties left right and centre, this causes civil unrest and conflict between government and people. For a nation already paranoid, power hungry and trigger-happy that's a very tenuous situation!

I completely agree with this post. The reason I voted America the biggest threat was because of its seemingly very gullibe and easily manipulated population. We have people like this:
If they attack us - isn't the peace broken? The United States doesn't start wars for no reason.

Most of you people think you're so smart but you don't think about things common-sensically. We DID and ARE going after Osama as we speak - we never left Afghanistan.

Do you think that Saddam would just wake up one day and decide to stop killing people and stop being a tyrant? No.

Think of the things that have come out of the war in Iraq. The younger people in the nations around Iraq are pressuring their governments to give them more liberties and rights. Some are having free elections for the first time. Others are ousting tyrannical leaders.


The voluntary ignorance of the average American in the name of patriotism is causing the popular world view that they are the biggest threat. In regard to the above quote, did anyone notice how easily the Americans forgot the reason for going to war? The bait and switch works, and now everyone thinks 'Oh, forget about WMD, we got Saddam out of power! Yeah!' Are there no repurcussions for lying in front of the U.N. to justify going to war, but if you lie in court about a BJ it causes you to get impeached?

This turned into a more negative post than I had intended, but this is a prickly issue. Before I submit, I just wanted to comment of the relative ages of the civilizations here. America is a relatively new civization, barely a few hundred years. The place they choose to attack has been around for thousands of years, some even call it the 'cradle of civilization'.

Funny thing is.... I didn't say that nor did I implied it.

Saame way as a Bond film doesn't imply sex and violence. You said you were striking back for the loss of 3000 citizens. In other words, revenge for the destruction of the World Trade Centre.

Whos? Yours? What freedom do you have now that your government have gone all George Orwell on your arse?

All the freedoms that I was born with plus those that I received when I hit the proper age to have those rights.

Other peoples? By destroying their homes and businesses and taking their lives? I'm not just talking about Iraq, I'm talking about your nation's whole history of "defending freedom".

Welcome to warfare dude. War is not pretty. Not by a long shot. You can't have a zero casualty, zero damage war. It is impossible to have.

No, if you read what I said before, I said we didn't have world peace.

Damn straight we don't. I doubt we'll ever see world peace in our lifetimes either.

But many people in this world don't believe that war leads to peace. Europe has had internal peace for 60 years now, the longest period in history and that is because we talk to each other.

Internal peace my butt. Look at the Balkans. That is still a mess and if it wasn't for the US, it would've been an even bigger mess. Internal peace. Now that's rich.

You might like to try it. The IRA have agreed to go further than the Good Friday Agreement and lay down their weapons because in the end, talking solves the problems, fighting each other doesn't, it furthers the hostility.

And I applaud it but what does this prove? Absolutely nothing. Btw, you do know that is an internal affair with britain right? Yea that is what I thought and on top of that, they were willing to negotiate. What if you run across people that won't negotiate?

If you're talking about 9/11 then you just blamed the civilians of Afghanistan and Iraq for the terrorist activity of a handfull of extremeists from many different countries. Nice one, that's the way to get people to see you positively!

No actualy, I blame the government of Afghanistan for supporting the person that launched the attack. We told him to hand him over and we'll leave you alone. They didn't and we supported the Northern Alliance and ousted the Taliban from power. Nice isn't it? We promised to leave them alone if they just turned over Bin Laden. We didn't have to do that you know. We could've just launched a full scale offensive and even when we did, it wasn't on a massive scale.

Funny thing is.... I didn't say that nor did I implied it.


How about losing 3000 of our own citizens! We have the right to strike back. How did killing American Civilians achieve world peace?

If that was not 9/11 then I seriously apologize.

Saame way as a Bond film doesn't imply sex and violence. You said you were striking back for the loss of 3000 citizens. In other words, revenge for the destruction of the World Trade Centre.

In Afghanistan it was since that was the last known location of Bin Laden. For Iraq, it was his refusal to follow the United Nations Resolutions as well as violating a Cease-Fire agreement.

If that was not 9/11 then I seriously apologize.

Losing 3000 was on 9/11 but I never implied that Iraq was attacked because of 9/11.

I understand your point, however they do attack other people, look at the Korean war, they got involved and helped attack us. They have already threatened us. One of their own generals threatened to nuke us if we got involved in Taiwan. China is the one being imperialist, first they won't allow Hong Kong to be free, now they won't allow Taiwan to be free. Who's next? They accept the USA's factories and preach anti-americanism. They support nations which were fighting wars against us, they supported both overtly and covertly. They are a threat to world peace. Any rogue nation which has 1/3 of the world population, who is trying to keep other nations from being free, which is spending extreme amounts on its military instead of helping its citizens, and has attacked us in the past, is a threat in my opinion. If you disagree still, then I respect your opinion, but I still think they are a threat.

My concern over China lies with the Tibetan people, another nation occupied by China. Not that China isn't a dangerous nation, I think it is, especially considering the environment and the growing population expecting to be modernised in the same way as America. But they don't have anywhere near the military capability of America, and they can't afford to boost it more.

But think about how many of your statements could be applied to the USA! You support wars against other nations, you supply weapons to nations so they can fight wars, you arrange coups to oust democratically elected officials then install dictators you like, you attack other countries openly. And you could most certainly be described as a "rogue nation" as you continually go against the UN.

I think it's really important that you put aside your patriotism and listen to why the rest of the world dislikes your government. Why are you so afraid to do that? Don't you think that reasonable people all over the world might have a point? A nation with as much money and power as America could be the key to establishing world peace if they would learn other methods of striving for it.

My concern over China lies with the Tibetan people, another nation occupied by China. Not that China isn't a dangerous nation, I think it is, especially considering the environment and the growing population expecting to be modernised in the same way as America. But they don't have anywhere near the military capability of America, and they can't afford to boost it more.

But think about how many of your statements could be applied to the USA! You support wars against other nations, you supply weapons to nations so they can fight wars, you arrange coups to oust democratically elected officials then install dictators you like, you attack other countries openly. And you could most certainly be described as a "rogue nation" as you continually go against the UN.

I think it's really important that you put aside your patriotism and listen to why the rest of the world dislikes your government. Why are you so afraid to do that? Don't you think that reasonable people all over the world might have a point? A nation with as much money and power as America could be the key to establishing world peace if they would learn other methods of striving for it.

Very well said

clap clap clap...

My concern over China lies with the Tibetan people, another nation occupied by China. Not that China isn't a dangerous nation, I think it is, especially considering the environment and the growing population expecting to be modernised in the same way as America. But they don't have anywhere near the military capability of America, and they can't afford to boost it more.

Thank God!

And you could most certainly be described as a "rogue nation" as you continually go against the UN.

The UN does nothing to prevent war. It sits on its butt and watches the world go assunder. No wonder UN popularity in the States is plummeting. It does absolutely nothing. As for being a rogue state, we don't fit that definition.

I think it's really important that you put aside your patriotism and listen to why the rest of the world dislikes your government.

Why should we? Sorry but I don't care what the rest of the world thinks about our government. It isn't their government.

Why are you so afraid to do that? Don't you think that reasonable people all over the world might have a point?

They might but since it is our government, I don't give a hoot in hell what the rest of the world thinks about it. We're not afraid to listen but since the rest of the world doesn't have a say in American Politics, I don't care.

A nation with as much money and power as America could be the key to establishing world peace if they would learn other methods of striving for it.

When the rest of the world actually starts doing something then we'll talk. Until then, not a chance.

Face the facts you bush lovein/brainwashed moron's, He is threatoning world peace and he is the main reason for many nuclear buildups right now.


Thanks, I needed a nice Monday morning laugh. :p

-.- We only went to war for Oil and personal revenge, if we truely wanted to help people we would be fighting in countrys who desperately need our help and want our help such as countrys in africa and other countrys around the world


Where is all of that sweet Iraqi black gold?

Where is all of that sweet Iraqi black gold?

I refer you to post #210.

[QUOTE=Corneliu]
They might but since it is our government, I don't give a hoot in hell what the rest of the world thinks about it. We're not afraid to listen but since the rest of the world doesn't have a say in American Politics, I don't care.
QUOTE]

Its exackly that pig headed arrogant attitude that turns me agasint america.

They might but since it is our government, I don't give a hoot in hell what the rest of the world thinks about it. We're not afraid to listen but since the rest of the world doesn't have a say in American Politics, I don't care.


Its exackly that pig headed arrogant attitude that turns me agasint america.

What? That I would rather listen to the people of my own nation regarding our government and not those of foreigners? That's pig headed of me? Excuse me while I die laughing.

What? That I would rather listen to the people of my own nation regarding our government and not those of foreigners? That's pig headed of me? Excuse me while I die laughing.

And this at the same time, gives America the right to dictate national policy to other governments?

I also note a lack of rebuttal regarding my post on oil prices.

What? That I would rather listen to the people of my own nation regarding our government and not those of foreigners? That's pig headed of me? Excuse me while I die laughing.


Well, excuse me whislt i quote spider man, with great power, comes great reponsibility. America has great power, but hell is it responsible, it SHOULD set an example and work with the world, not ignore it. Like you say. America's actions effects the entire world, to do what u want without consulting the world will only breed hate for america which is more then evident in these forums.

Dont get me wrong, my GF hopefully soon to be fiancee is from huron, south dakota, i like american people, expet the arrogant attitude.

And this at the same time, gives America the right to dictate national policy to other governments?

Since when can a nation go against a Cease-Fire without getting punished? A cease-fire that (if memory serves me right) was approved by the UN and then violated by Iraq.

Since when can a nation go against a Cease-Fire without getting punished? A cease-fire that (if memory serves me right) was approved by the UN and then violated by Iraq.

i aplogise, i forgot the name but, there is an international arms treaty, that america signed, agreeing not to make nuclear weapons UNDER 5 megatons, america is now making them to destry underground bunker, seen as your now violating an international weapons treaty, would other countrys be justified in invading? its the same logic.

All the freedoms that I was born with plus those that I received when I hit the proper age to have those rights.

Oh, so you start wars with other nations to protect the rights of American civilians? Interesting.

Welcome to warfare dude. War is not pretty. Not by a long shot. You can't have a zero casualty, zero damage war. It is impossible to have.

Firstly, "dude"? Not a term I particularly relate to. And secondly, I'm glad we agree. No warfare isn't clean, I never said it was. The difference bewteen a pacifist like me and someone like you is that we see the casualties and damage as unacceptable, prefering to find another solution. You see them as acceptable losses in order to get what you want.

Internal peace my butt. Look at the Balkans. That is still a mess and if it wasn't for the US, it would've been an even bigger mess. Internal peace. Now that's rich.

And I applaud it but what does this prove? Absolutely nothing. Btw, you do know that is an internal affair with britain right? Yea that is what I thought and on top of that, they were willing to negotiate. What if you run across people that won't negotiate?

Ok, I used the wrong word there, I meant we hadn't fought in wars with each other. You can turn it around all you want, you're avoiding the fact that European countries have found ways of living with each other without invading each other every five years. No, we don't have a perfect society, there are still people who are unhappy, but we're talking about world peace and the potential routes to it. You cannot deny that so far, communication is working between European countries.

As for running across countries that won't negotiate, there are several steps to take, although economic sanctions are awful because they only impact the people, not the leaders. In all honesty I don't know the solution, but I believe that international pressure, if tweaked to affect those in power, has to be explored. If absolutely all else fails, UN sanctioned intervention is the best thing we have. Not you going on crusades all over the place.

You claim to have the right to retaliate against nations for individual terrorists. I'd argue that you have the right to be pissed off about it and rethink your own security systems, but I don't think anyone has the right to fight a war unless their own territory is actively invaded by another nation, then it has a right to defend itself.

No actualy, I blame the government of Afghanistan for supporting the person that launched the attack. We told him to hand him over and we'll leave you alone. They didn't and we supported the Northern Alliance and ousted the Taliban from power. Nice isn't it? We promised to leave them alone if they just turned over Bin Laden. We didn't have to do that you know. We could've just launched a full scale offensive and even when we did, it wasn't on a massive scale.


When the IRA had a crusade against my coutry (britian) many of the terroists escaped to america, and we asked that you send them back to be tried , america refused, so under ure logic, we would be more then justified to invade america to get the IRA terroisits

i aplogise, i forgot the name but, there is an international arms treaty, that america signed, agreeing not to make nuclear weapons UNDER 5 megatons, america is now making them to destry underground bunker, seen as your now violating an international weapons treaty, would other countrys be justified in invading? its the same logic.

Incase you haven't noticed Rougu, we already had nukes that were under 5 megatons. The Bunker Buster nuke is going to have a nuke (from our stockpiles we have alreaedy) as its warhead and I doubt those bombs will be over a megaton.

When the IRA had a crusade against my coutry (britian) many of the terroists escaped to america, and we asked that you send them back to be tried , america refused, so under ure logic, we would be more then justified to invade america to get the IRA terroisits

And you would've been tossed right back out as you were the last 2 times you invaded this country.

When the IRA had a crusade against my coutry (britian) many of the terroists escaped to america, and we asked that you send them back to be tried , america refused, so under ure logic, we would be more then justified to invade america to get the IRA terroisits
Ahh but you won't....will you? ;)

I don't see how China's military build up to a force to be reckoned with by the U.S. isn't considered a threat to world peace, considering they seem hesitant yet willing to wage war for Taiwan against the U.S. and yet we're still considered a threat to world peace because of a stupid nuclear bomb in WW2. Jesus Christ...

And you would've been tossed right back out as you were the last 2 times you invaded this country.


hahahahahaha, the blind pig headed arrogant response, you completely ignore my point and go macho cos u know ure wrong. Yep, ure one of those arogant americans that cant see reason at all.

And you would've been tossed right back out as you were the last 2 times you invaded this country.
Dammit dammit dammit, don't start another War of 1812 debate as you know very well a lot of them refuse to admit losses and just point the loss at us even though we know we're not the ones at loss.

hahahahahaha, the blind pig headed arrogant response, you completely ignore my point and go macho cos u know ure wrong. Yep, ure one of those arogant americans that cant see reason at all.

Take a joke. If you cant laugh at yourself, others will. Thats always a good motto for people to follow

Dammit dammit dammit, don't start another War of 1812 debate as you know very well a lot of them refuse to admit losses and just point the loss at us even though we know we're not the ones at loss.

on the contary, i aknowlage that was a victory for your nation. I actually admit when my country is wrong or has lost.

Take a joke. If you cant laugh at yourself, others will. Thats always a good motto for people to follow

I can take a joke, but ahy must he reply with such a stupid reply when he's been proved wrong?

Oh, so you start wars with other nations to protect the rights of American civilians? Interesting.

And the rights of freedom everywhere.

Firstly, "dude"? Not a term I particularly relate to. And secondly, I'm glad we agree. No warfare isn't clean, I never said it was. The difference bewteen a pacifist like me and someone like you is that we see the casualties and damage as unacceptable, prefering to find another solution. You see them as acceptable losses in order to get what you want.

I don't like losing any lives. However, I know you can't win wars without casualties. I may not like it (and I don't) but that is a fact of life.

Ok, I used the wrong word there, I meant we hadn't fought in wars with each other. You can turn it around all you want, you're avoiding the fact that European countries have found ways of living with each other without invading each other every five years. No, we don't have a perfect society, there are still people who are unhappy, but we're talking about world peace and the potential routes to it. You cannot deny that so far, communication is working between European countries.

Not as well as you might think since cultural differences are always coming to a head in Europe. That is why I don't think the EU will last. To many cultural differences for it to survive.

As for running across countries that won't negotiate, there are several steps to take, although economic sanctions are awful because they only impact the people, not the leaders. In all honesty I don't know the solution, but I believe that international pressure, if tweaked to affect those in power, has to be explored. If absolutely all else fails, UN sanctioned intervention is the best thing we have. Not you going on crusades all over the place.

Ok then. WHat if the UN doesn't cooperate? What if a veto welding nation like China vetos it but you know it is the only option? What do you do?

You claim to have the right to retaliate against nations for individual terrorists. I'd argue that you have the right to be pissed off about it and rethink your own security systems, but I don't think anyone has the right to fight a war unless their own territory is actively invaded by another nation, then it has a right to defend itself.

Excuse me but we lose 3000 civilians, I expect the US to launch a full scale war on the people that did it or those that support those that did it. In this case, Afghanistan supported the people that launched 9/11 and due to this, we launched an attack on Afghanistan. We are not going to sit back and shrug our sholders. We're going to act. That is why, you shouldn't piss us off.

I can take a joke, but ahy must he reply with such a stupid reply when he's been proved wrong?

Yeah but you can be the bigger person by ignoring it and not rising to the bait

Dammit dammit dammit, don't start another War of 1812 debate as you know very well a lot of them refuse to admit losses and just point the loss at us even though we know we're not the ones at loss.

Nor did we win 1812 either! But your right. That is another debate.

Nor did we win 1812 either! But your right. That is another debate.
Actually I was gonna say it was a draw too but...yeah. Let's not discuss it....

hahahahahaha, the blind pig headed arrogant response, you completely ignore my point and go macho cos u know ure wrong. Yep, ure one of those arogant americans that cant see reason at all.

Oh I see reason considering I studied both the Revolutionary War AND the War of 1812. But this isn't about Britain's wars with the US but about threat to world peace and the US is NOT a threat to world peace.

I can take a joke, but ahy must he reply with such a stupid reply when he's been proved wrong?

And where have I been proven wrong? Surely you ain't talkin about the 2 wars we fought. Last I've studied, we beat you in the Revolutionary War and that 1812 was a draw so tell me where I have been proven wrong?

...

Ok then. WHat if the UN doesn't cooperate? What if a veto welding nation like China vetos it but you know it is the only option? What do you do?
Go to the General Assembly and present your case. The Uniting for Peace Resolution of 1950 allows anyone to do that in case of the Council's deadlock.



Excuse me but we lose 3000 civilians, I expect the US to launch a full scale war on the people that did it or those that support those that did it. In this case, Afghanistan supported the people that launched 9/11 and due to this, we launched an attack on Afghanistan. We are not going to sit back and shrug our sholders. We're going to act. That is why, you shouldn't piss us off.
A rare moment when I'm in agreement with Corneliu--the Afghanistan affair was legal under international law, even the right to collective self-defence applies to it (restoring a lawful government to power--almost no one recognized the Taliban as such).

Go to the General Assembly and present your case. The Uniting for Peace Resolution of 1950 allows anyone to do that in case of the Council's deadlock.

One minor problem in this! General Assembly Resolutions are non-binding

A rare moment when I'm in agreement with Corneliu--the Afghanistan affair was legal under international law, even the right to collective self-defence applies to it (restoring a lawful government to power--almost no one recognized the Taliban as such).

:eek: Olantia agrees with me! Its the end of the world as we know it :p