NationStates Jolt Archive

Which country is the biggest threat to world peace? Is it the US with Cowboy Bush leading the way? Is it Israel with their invading neighbours and the continued occupation? Is it perhaps Iran with their so called nuclear program and threats to attack if Israel hits Syria? Or by chance is it N.Korea with their crazy murderous dictator and his dong missiles that threaten to throw the whole region into conflict? poll coming

Humans.

Lunatic Goofballs.

Humans.

Seconded. They never stop fighting.

Lack of Cookies


or lack of porn. Haven't decided which yet.

Seconded. They never stop fighting.

Thirded.

Everything is their fault.

Humans

after that, the most powerful entity countrolled by humans

the USA

Thirded.

Everything is their fault.

fourthed

yes it is

Lack of Cookies


or lack of porn. Haven't decided which yet.
lack of cookies with icing in the form of naked people

Which country is the biggest threat to world peace? Is it the US with Cowboy Bush leading the way? Is it Israel with their invading neighbours and the continued occupation? Is it perhaps Iran with their so called nuclear program and threats to attack if Israel hits Syria? Or by chance is it N.Korea with their crazy murderous dictator and his dong missiles that threaten to throw the whole region into conflict? poll coming

Iran, it's run by Islamofascist terrorists.

Most likely North Korea, on the basis of the fact that their government is not founded on so much as a shred of rationality. They desire international attention, and the only way they seem to be able to get any is to behave poorly, and not to mention unilaterally. All the other countries listed do not behave solely unilaterally. Only North Korea does.

Who would want world peace?

Seriously, what manner of immature doctrine does it take to try and acheive something so meaningless? World peace.. that doesn't sound human.. if the world is completely aligned with one another, how can change come about? How can problems be solved? War is a nesscarey tool to weedout the wrong from the right. It is the cycle of nature just on a differant scale. We are not above the law of Earth.

The only plausible way for world peace would be 1984. Or in liberal's case, A Brave New World. I suggest you read it. It's a very disturbing image and it seems more and more liberals are turning to that direction of trying ti innitate that kindof life for us.

Iran and its racist ways, or N.Korea and its ambitious missile program. After that Bush, and his desire to stop both of them

World Peace...

Because it's impossible. Just like a perfect version of Communism, as long as one man wants more than the other man, he'll do whatever it takes to get it. As long as one person hates how another person is, then there will be no Peace.

Which country is the biggest threat to world peace? Is it the US with Cowboy Bush leading the way? Is it Israel with their invading neighbours and the continued occupation? Is it perhaps Iran with their so called nuclear program and threats to attack if Israel hits Syria? Or by chance is it N.Korea with their crazy murderous dictator and his dong missiles that threaten to throw the whole region into conflict? poll coming
I am. My foolish ideals will destabalize the world permenantly once I come to power. The world will be plunged into a war like no human has ever witnessed...or will ever witness again.

I am. My foolish ideals will destabalize the world permenantly once I come to power. The world will be plunged into a war like no human has ever witnessed...or will ever witness again.
Your dastardly ideals of Civil Rights will be the end of all of us!

*waves arms wildly*

Your dastardly ideals of Civil Rights will be the end of all of us!

*waves arms wildly*
All we need now is a recording loop of my maniacle laughter.

...

Unfortunately, my throat hurts and I'm saving what little talking I can do for work. :(

USA. Sad, but true..Their current goverment is too narrow minded.

Cobra!

HISSSSSSSSSSSSS!

All we need now is a recording loop of my maniacle laughter.

...

Unfortunately, my throat hurts and I'm saving what little talking I can do for work. :(

You should have made the recording before. All good citizens of the World should have one.

You should have made the recording before. All good citizens of the World should have one.
Oh I intend to, once I can. Believe me, it shall be the most horrifying sound that shall ever grace your ears! It shall spawn nightmares beyond your wildest imagination, beyond anything you could ever concieve of! It...shall...be...wonderful!

Which country is the biggest threat to world peace? Is it the US with Cowboy Bush leading the way? Is it Israel with their invading neighbours and the continued occupation? Is it perhaps Iran with their so called nuclear program and threats to attack if Israel hits Syria? Or by chance is it N.Korea with their crazy murderous dictator and his dong missiles that threaten to throw the whole region into conflict? poll coming
North Korea. They have nothing but big mouth
Iran. Big mouth and military power but they are not idiots.
Israel. well, this week hasn't been that flattering but they wouldn't be anything without USA
USA. They do cause turmoil but the greatest threat? Don't think so.

Could be one of the former CCCP countries. Some looney launches an old nuke from Turkmenistan or something like that.

Oh I intend to, once I can. Believe me, it shall be the most horrifying sound that shall ever grace your ears! It shall spawn nightmares beyond your wildest imagination, beyond anything you could ever concieve of! It...shall...be...wonderful!

I look forward to being terrified.

Israel... they wouldn't be anything without USA.True.
Without the US weapons.. Israel would be paeceful. (they would have almost no army)

True.
Without the USA weapons.. Israel would be paeceful. (they would have almost no army)
Bullshit. They would have bought weapons from another source. They might not be AS powerful, but they would still be a force to be reckoned with. Israel lost their country once in history(or so it is said.) They're not going to lose it again.

True.
Without the US weapons.. Israel would be paeceful. (they would have almost no army)
Actually they would.

Included amongst Israeli weapons are the Merkava Tank, which is produced in country, the Uzi Submachine Gun, which is produced in country, their nuclear arsenal, which is produced in country, the Arrow Anti-Ballistic Missile, which is produced in country. Just a few examples.

The Kfir fighter...

no, bullshit to you, am sorry but who do you think would give or even sell weapons to Israel really am honestly curious, next time you come up rebuttal at support it a little fact

sorry, with a little fact

no, bullshit to you, am sorry but who do you think would give or even sell weapons to Israel really am honestly curious, next time you come up rebuttal at support it a little fact
Who?

Well, let's see here. From the start back in 1948, Britain and France would have been excellent sources for weaponry and other such devices. They might well have turned to Soviet Russia as well had they had no alternative.

Coming into modern times, China would be another excellent source, as would black market arms from the collapsed economy of Russia. You see, it's not that hard to come up with alternatives. The Israelies didn't care where they got their support and weapons: only that they got them.

no, bullshit to you, am sorry but who do you think would give or even sell weapons to Israel really am honestly curious, next time you come up rebuttal at support it a little fact

If the US didn't, the Soviet Union would have. They did the same thing to the local arab nations. You should have seen the SAM network in Egypt.

Oh, and the French sold them a bunch of Mirage fighters.

Bullshit. They would have bought weapons from another source. They might not be AS powerful, but they would still be a force to be reckoned with. Israel lost their country once in history(or so it is said.) They're not going to lose it again.
With what money?

also wepons produced in Israel are made where U.S. private and public funding, but it's a moot point because with U.S. Israel would have collasped soon after it's cratetion

We used to be scared about Nuclear attacks,now we're afraid of terrorist attacks...Well,at least or fear has be downgraded abit.

and isn't it nice that North Korea has a place to actually send there test missles now? (Isrial!)

With what money?
With what money? Misuse of foreign aid support, of course. If we're assuming that Israel would be a much poorer country, they would of course be targeted for foreign aid. Thusly, they would simply misappropriate it for their army. Simple, really.

also wepons produced in Israel are made where U.S. private and public funding, but it's a moot point because with U.S. Israel would have collasped soon after it's cratetion
Very doubtful.

I am . I am become death . The sun will rise for millions of people tomarrow because of my good will .

With what money? Misuse of foreign aid support, of course. If we're assuming that Israel would be a much poorer country, they would of course be targeted for foreign aid. Thusly, they would simply misappropriate it for their army. Simple, really.
Oh yes, it would be on the same line with Kenya, Tanzania and Angola. Very threatening.

Oh yes, it would be on the same line with Kenya, Tanzania and Angola. Very threatening.
There's a difference. Israel's strategic location and religious importance(Jerusalem, anyone?) would have ensured someone propping it up no matter what happened. It is not the same as African nations. Regardless of which power supported it, Israel would have support. Period.

Bullshit. They would have bought weapons from another source.the US gov gives them 13.7 millions a Day.. How powerfull would Israel's Army be without US taxpayers money?

The biggest threat to world peace is Radical Islam both in sectarian Shiite/Sunni and Muslim against non-Muslim violence. This is war by ideaology not by a "state".


Which country is the biggest threat to world peace? Is it the US with Cowboy Bush leading the way? Is it Israel with their invading neighbours and the continued occupation? Is it perhaps Iran with their so called nuclear program and threats to attack if Israel hits Syria? Or by chance is it N.Korea with their crazy murderous dictator and his dong missiles that threaten to throw the whole region into conflict? poll coming

There's a difference. Israel's strategic location and religious importance(Jerusalem, anyone?) would have ensured someone propping it up no matter what happened. It is not the same as African nations. Regardless of which power supported it, Israel would have support. Period.
hmmm. Maybe, maybe not. Who would it be? UK, I'm pretty sure, wouldn't. (based on WWII). France? I don't think they are interested enough to make a big difference.
Israel's strategic location isn't so strategic for European countries.

I think a better question would be..."WHAT is the biggest threat to world peace?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Liberalism and Islam.

Of the countries on the poll, North Korea and US tie in first place, and Israel takes second.
Israel's in second because it has some sort of recognizeable reasoning behind it's erratic and bizare decisions - it's surrounded by enemies that are hellbent on wiping it off the map.
The US so far has caused more destruction in it's random rampages than North Korea, but it's arguable that if we had a competent president we would've saved all our military power for when it's needed rather than on some invasion to make the president feel like a big boy, and while North Korea's idiot acts as of late haven't caused nearly the destruction, it is doing them completely unprovoked, targeting more innocent nations, and it's messing with nukes.
I don't want to hear anything about how North Korea needs aid so badly - it managed to raise the world's 4th largest military, and South Korea has managed to become a prosperous industrial nation, so there's no reason why the North has to be in the kind of shape it's in. If it's government wasn't so weak that it had to resort to being a militaristic dictatorship then that place could be doing pretty well for itself.

So I tied the two based on how both countries have brought their troubles upon themselves, NK for going out of it's way to be retarded, and US for also having incompetent leadership where it counts, and while the US's meaningless invasion of Iraq has caused more widespread loss, it's not even close to the extent or danger of what North Korea's trying to cause.

Although I admit I don't criticize Bush for the way he's handling North Korea and Afghanistan nearly as much as I do for his handling of Iraq. The Taliban was asking to get their asses blasted, and North Korea is the kind of enemy you don't want to necessarily rush to war against but don't want to just sit back and take your own sweet time in dealing with either.

hmmm. Maybe, maybe not. Who would it be? UK, I'm pretty sure, wouldn't. (based on WWII). France? I don't think they are interested enough to make a big difference.
Israel's strategic location isn't so strategic for European countries.
The Soviet Union, and then China. Those are who would keep it afloat, if not the U.S.

Robot Flying Monkey Pirate Zombies. *nods*

The Soviet Union, and then China. Those are who would keep it afloat, if not the U.S.
Soviet Union? ;)

Soviet Union? ;)
Yes. We're speaking about no U.S. support ever. The Soviet Union, as amazing as it might seem, was a global power for a large portion of Israel's history. China would pick up the slack when the Soviet Union collapsed, since Israel would latch onto the nearest available significant source of funding, and China would be all too eager to take such a useful pawn in world affairs into its hands.

Yes. We're speaking about no U.S. support ever. The Soviet Union, as amazing as it might seem, was a global power for a large portion of Israel's history. China would pick up the slack when the Soviet Union collapsed, since Israel would latch onto the nearest available significant source of funding, and China would be all too eager to take such a useful pawn in world affairs into its hands.
But why they would have been so interested about Israel? For religious reasons? Obviously not. Soviet Union's strategic allies were Turkey and Egypt, they have also supported Palestinians' cause, PLO etc. (which, I admit, might not be the case if USA hadn't supported Israel)

Anyhow, USA would have supported one of the countries in the Middle East and Soviet Union would have supported some other country. It could have been Israel, I give you that.

But why they would have been so interested about Israel? For religious reasons? Obviously not. Soviet Union's strategic allies were Turkey and Egypt, they have also supported Palestinians' cause, PLO etc. (which, I admit, might not be the case if USA hadn't supported Israel)

Anyhow, USA would have supported one of the countries in the Middle East and Soviet Union would have supported some other country. It could have been Israel, I give you that.
The only reason the Soviet Union supported most Arabian countries in the first place was due to the U.S. support of Israel. We could just have easily ended up with a reverse outcome, where the U.S. supported most Arabian nations.(Which would definitely have been a rather odd situation. Makes one wonder if we'd have ever had to dealt with radical Islamic terrorists attacking the U.S.)

The only reason the Soviet Union supported most Arabian countries in the first place was due to the U.S. support of Israel. We could just have easily ended up with a reverse outcome, where the U.S. supported most Arabian nations.(Which would definitely have been a rather odd situation. Makes one wonder if we'd have ever had to dealt with radical Islamic terrorists attacking the U.S.)
I quote myself:
Anyhow, USA would have supported one of the countries in the Middle East and Soviet Union would have supported some other country. It could have been Israel, I give you that.

Russia has to deal with radical Islamic terrorists.

greatest threat? liberals

If we ever do have world peace, something would happen that would kill us all because we don't have weapons. We might produce new weapons to counter whatever happens, ending the peace.

Who is the greatest threat to world peace?


Islam

I'll take this as a serious proposition.

Who is the greatest threat to world peace?

I doubt any of the countries you mention would have the capacity to cause world decimation. They might be agents and fight the fight but they would not be the cause.

Countries will not use nukes. They cannot. Any nation using nukes would be obliterated so fast that you would not be able to say 'duck and cover'. This is the reality. Even North Korea will not use nukes. Sure they could concievabley hit a few population centres but the retaliation would be complete. Not even a nuclear retalitation. Understand that North Korea exists due to the Chinese not wanting to have to deal with Koreans inside of China. The rest of the Korean saga such as the DMZ and the American presence in the region is secondary to this understanding.

Who would stop China from invading North Korea? They have a track record of invasion to boot!

That is all that can be said of North Korea. A smoke screen.

Is China a possibility? To be honest I would have to say that I wonder if the China we know today will be the same in 20 or 30 years time. There is much stress in that country between citizens and government. Add a dash of capitalism...well we've seen China's economy grow year by year by roughly 8% or 9% for at least the last 6 years.

China is the largest investor in Africa. Now how's that for geopolitics?

The main problem I can see with China is its sheer size. There are already provinces that are unstable with Islamic activities. The huge rural economy is in upheaval and yet the government has purchased a number of mobile execution vehicles. These are the real deal when it comes to death on wheels. They even have uplinks so that state officials can witness executions remotely.

Makes Gitmo sound like heaven.

China will either break apart or become more restrictive. Either way will dispose China from looking for global hegemony.

A break up would involve a civil war. That would be catastrophic for China as an entity. It would also be horrifically bloody. This could also raise the spectar of the ultimate horror. A government turning a nuke on one of thier own cities. China has the nukes. Has it the cajones to do that to restore order?

Because that is the only way that the Communist Party could retain control ultimately. Of course this is a last stand scenario.

Would other countries intervene before things escalated to that level? Now hows that for a can of worms?

If China becomes more restirctive, which it seems it is with its 'death on wheels' project, it will become introspective. This is the way of Communists. Think East Germany on an even larger scale.

Of course they can kiss any capitalism projects goodbye and Hong Kong will become a resort for the party elite.

Think high tech feudal....

Ultimately China is hard to predict but I don't think they are a threat to world peace.

My hope is that a middle course is steered and that over the long term capitalism brings the freedoms it needs to thrive.

Russia. Ahh Russia. I think the Sov thing is dead in the water. I really don't see Russia using nukes. Pretty much for the reasons I gave for North Korea.

Nukes assure your death. You do not use them. Anyway Russia has its own backyard to clean up first.

There is one aspect that does make pause for thought. Gas. Russia will be the EU's main gas supplier sooner or later. North Sea gas is running out.

Please forgive this train of thought but please bear with me. The UK is currently thinking of its energy strategy. Do you think market forces or strategic resource? Do you minimise risk but increase cost or go the other way?

These little nuances are part of the global geopolitical game. However all games have rules and using nukes is out.

So the UK is thinking if becoming tied to Russia for its energy needs while still maintaining its 'special relationship' with the US is feasible. I hasten to add that I hope this is the case but I have seen little evidence of joined up thinking in the current New Labour regeme.

So the game gets complex. Thats how war comes into the game. Its the way we conclude disputes. Of course war is waged on many fronts. From culture to economic and military.

Back to the countries.

Iran. A threat in so much any terror sponsoring country is a threat. They can cause an awfull lot of damage. But as a threat to world peace? No. If peace was wanted in that region there would be.

As the dance of politics flows through our world one can observe that this is so. Even on both sides the talkingheads say they want peace. The region will explode eventually and I doubt there is much anyone can do about that. Even without American interference I still think that is the case.

Are there chances of nukes? Possible. Not aimed at the US though. If anything another Arab city. Or a European city. After Isreal has been dealt with. When push comes to shove the Saudi's will let loose their F-15's against the Isreali F-15's etc etc etc.

But once again I don't think this will happen. Isreal will not get nuked. Iran nukes Isreal. With what...one or two? Isreal strikes back. The US would not allow anything out of any other country in the region until Isreal was finished. Even the Saudi's. Remember...The US has Iraq now. It does not need the Saudi's. In the long term that is.

What about Iraq? Not as a threat but the question of oil. The US is staying there long term. A US company even developed chocolate that does not melt!

Of course the US will stay until it is thrown out. If that happens the US will find another source. South America looks inviting.

I'm rambling now LOL

Suffice it to say that the truely greatest threat to world peace are ideas...

US, you complain about Kim Jong-il being a nut wanting missiles. And Iran trying to get nukes.

But the US is the nut with missiles and nukes, policing the world with george bush's giant american marine corp shaped dick.

Iran, it's run by Islamofascist terrorists.


What in the hell is Islamofacists?? That is such a stupid term.

Islam


Wow I didnt know one religion is the biggest threat, You could say Christianity because of the actions of Bush. If you look at the countries that could cause problems,

US- Predominatally Christian
N Korea- Cult of Kim Jong Il
Isreal- Jewish
Iran- Muslim
China- In theory athestic

So how are you going to just blame on religion for the worlds ills?

Israel has more votes than North Korea.....very true...the way israel will bomb you if you look at them badly

People that think America is a danger to world peace. :rolleyes:

BTW: It's obviously Denmark, their cartoons started all the violence in the Middle East! They even caused the 9/11 attacks!


(NOTE: That BTW is SARCASM people. The US is as much a danger to peace as the UK or Canada: Not at all.)

Which country is the biggest threat to world peace? Is it the US with Cowboy Bush leading the way? Is it Israel with their invading neighbours and the continued occupation? Is it perhaps Iran with their so called nuclear program and threats to attack if Israel hits Syria? Or by chance is it N.Korea with their crazy murderous dictator and his dong missiles that threaten to throw the whole region into conflict? poll coming
Kinda of a toss up between the US and Israel. Instead of driving tanks into Iraq, and threatening Iran and NK, the Bush-kebab should have been developing that "road map" to peace.

Has anyone seen that "Compassionate Conservative (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020430-5.html)"?

Kinda of a toss up between the US and Israel. Instead of driving tanks into Iraq, and threatening Iran and NK, the Bush-kebab should have been developing that "road map" to peace.

Has anyone seen that "Compassionate Conservative (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020430-5.html)"?


There *is* a roadmap to peace. It involves taking out all those that keep attacking the rest of the world.

The world has slowly become a much more peaceful place since the Spanish American War. However, since everything is reported so well these days, it seems much worse...

2500 American dead in Iraq over 3 years? Tragic.
But consider the standards a mere 90 years back (1 July 1916): 19,240 Britons dead in ONE DAY. What do you call that? Monsterous?

The Middle East & Venezuela: OPEC is all about the terrorism!

To me, it really isn't about countries or nations or terrorists or 'ebul corporations'.

Until the very last shred of hatred, ignorance and greed is gone from the world, there will never be world peace. I'm not spouting some kind of New Age idea, it's just that true peace must be both internal and external. Even if there was no physical war, 'world peace' would not be guaranteed.


Now you see why the idea seems implausible to say the least, but I do not think it is impossible.

Hmm... Yes, humans, but it implied countries. Therefore I chose Israel.

What in the hell is Islamofacists?? That is such a stupid term.

No better or worse than neocons.

Jebus....the evil clone of Jesus. you know the lazy good for nothing son of god, the one who gets all the chicks and plays the music that makes you want to kill a puppy with you bare hands......BEWARE OF JEBUS BECAUSE HE ALSO HAS THE POWER OF INVISIBILITY!

Finally, I ask the question, since when is there any world peace?

Finally, I ask the question, since when is there any world peace?

http://www.northernsun.com/images/thumb/5781VisualizeWhirledPeas.jpg

US, no question. I'm almost ashamed to admit on this thread that I live in the US. Our country has a very nasty habbit about meddling in other countries business, where we don't belong. Our country thinks that it runs the world, and has the right to dictate what happens in other countries etc, and our government is by no means perfect, it's getting more courrupt and messed up by the minute, but ever more powerful. Bad combination.:(

Kinda of a toss up between the US and Israel. Instead of driving tanks into Iraq, and threatening Iran and NK, the Bush-kebab should have been developing that "road map" to peace.

Has anyone seen that "Compassionate Conservative (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020430-5.html)"?


Unbelievable. Besides you are wanted in another thread that you suddenly disappeared from when you were proven wrong.

HERE IT IS!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11360224&postcount=119

Yeah I voted Israel but count me for US too.

World Peace must be established before it can be threatened. Think of World Peace as a baby and these "threats" as a Dingo. The Dingo can't eat the baby when it is in the womb. And if you ask me, world peace hasn't even been concieved yet. Except in the minds of wishful thinkers.:(

Unbelievable. Besides you are wanted in another thread that you suddenly disappeared from when you were proven wrong.

HERE IT IS!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11360224&postcount=119



owned boy *hi-fives USalpen*

World Peace must be established before it can be threatened. Think of World Peace as a baby and these "threats" as a Dingo. The Dingo can't eat the baby when it is in the womb. And if you ask me, world peace hasn't even been concieved yet. Except in the minds of wishful thinkers.:(



humans will never have world peace....because we are the only animals born with logic, but are the most unlogical.

owned boy *hi-fives USalpen*


Thank you. I am so sick and tired of the lies that seem to be so prevelent in the world today. It unjustifiably harms my country and the World.

No better or worse than neocons.
Except that Neoconservatism is an actual ideology, defined and known as neoconservatism.
The prefix "neo" can denote that many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism, but can also refer to the comparatively recent emergence of this "new wave" of conservative thought, which coalesced in the early 1970s from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II. It also serves to distinguish the ideology from the viewpoints of "old" or traditional American conservatism.

Islamofascism is a made-up word, a giant Godwin if you will.
Islamofascism is a neologism and political epithet used to compare the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism. Organizations that have been labeled Islamofascist include Al-Qaeda, the current Iranian government,[1] the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah. None label themselves fascist, however, and critics of the term argue that associating the religion of Islam with fascism is both offensive and historically inaccurate.

There *is* a roadmap to peace. It involves taking out all those that keep attacking the rest of the world.
No, it means taking the bull by the horn and wrestling it to the ground. It has to begin with a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The US by invading Iraq, and sabre rattling with Iran and NK, certainly avoids the process that should be taking place.

The world has slowly become a much more peaceful place since the Spanish American War.
I guess you know nothing of two world wars that killed tens of millions of people? Plus all the other sundry of wars that killed tens of millions more. Yup, real peaceful.

2500 American dead in Iraq over 3 years? Tragic.
But consider the standards a mere 90 years back (1 July 1916): 19,240 Britons dead in ONE DAY. What do you call that? Monsterous?
What will be the death toll when the whole Middle East erupts into one gigantic war? BTW, nice of you to minimize the effects of the Iraq War by only declaring the number of US troops that have died. How about the tens of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed....or don't they fit into your equation?

The Middle East & Venezuela: OPEC is all about the terrorism!
Nice try, perhaps you should reading a little history?

U.S. Intervention in the Middle East (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6308.htm)

History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America (http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html)

owned boy *hi-fives USalpen*
Oh great....a noob who believes I have been owned even though I haven't replied to USalpen's post yet.

My best guess is that you are a recycled NS regular in hiding, or another of Alpen's puppets. Just a guess mind you. :D

Unbelievable. Besides you are wanted in another thread that you suddenly disappeared from when you were proven wrong.

HERE IT IS!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11360224&postcount=119
At a quick glance, you certainly haven't proven me wrong and I stand by my original statement that your numbers are skewed.

However, I do know in advance that you will not like my response, when I do get the chance to respond to it.

Lack of Cookies


or lack of porn. Haven't decided which yet.

Porn, definitely.

After that, the average American.

On my scale? North Korea and Iran weigh about the same when it comes to disturbing Pax Americana, what with Iran's never ending chanting of "Death to USA and Israel", and their willingness to do just that...

And North Korea...doesn't really get along with South Korea, but they do have some nice history with China...And with South Korea being an ally of the US and the US being an ally of every major nation on the planet...could they start WWIII?

No, it means taking the bull by the horn and wrestling it to the ground. It has to begin with a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The US by invading Iraq, and sabre rattling with Iran and NK, certainly avoids the process that should be taking place.

What negotiated peace would this be? The one that involves Israel being picked up and moved out of the Middle East? Because you and I both know that that is the ONLY acceptable solution to most of the Arabs. :rolleyes:

Actually, I'd posit that the US waving the sabre put bin Laden back into hiding, killed off tens of thousands of people that hate you, me, women's rights, tolerance, and the various freedoms you and I take for granted every day.

No I guess you know nothing of two world wars that killed tens of millions of people? Plus all the other sundry of wars that killed tens of millions more. Yup, real peaceful.

Yes, and let's look at their aftermaths: today the world boasts a relatively peaceful and united Europe for the first time since Rome, but under self governance. There hasn't been a big war in Asia since Korea, and that in many respect was housekeeping from WW2.

Humans cannot always settle things in negotiation. :(

Compare that to centuries past: The Tartars, the Huns, the Huns. Napoleon. Most areas couldn't go a decade without a conflict.
But don't take just my word for it: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13597853/

What will be the death toll when the whole Middle East erupts into one gigantic war? BTW, nice of you to minimize the effects of the Iraq War by only declaring the number of US troops that have died. How about the tens of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed....or don't they fit into your equation?

Good question, and only time will tell.
However, given that Europe and Asia are BOTH more peaceful as a result of the major wars, and that parts of the Middle East have been since the various Israeli conflicts (ie: Egypt and Jordan), I take it as an unfortunate necessity.

Let's face it: history has been one big run of man trying to define the world, shape it in his image. Often these images clashed, and there was conflict.
The world of today is at an interesting point: with the exceptions of 5 Communist states and a chunk of the Middle East, the world has mostly agreed on a kind of government. That's huge.

I don't give an Iraqi death toll because it's disputed. It certainly isnt anywhere near the 100.000 or more some would claim. However, how many Iraqis did Saddam kill yearly? How many killed in Iraq are foreign fighters?

Nice try, perhaps you should reading a little history?

U.S. Intervention in the Middle East (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6308.htm)

History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America (http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html)

Um: Number of non-OPEC countries that have citizens lead suicide attacks on the West: ZERO. Try reading the headlines.

You can make a case of US policy being a cause for Muslims to attacking. Fine. So what? A nation's doing things in its best interest is DEFINED as its policy. I can just as easily point to Norwegian whaling or Canadian seal clubbing as being reasons why those countries are anti-environemental (if I believed that) and it would not make it a reason to go out and kill whalers or furriers.

That the Muslim terrorists attack the US, Spain, UK, Russia, France, and THEIR OWN PEOPLE doesn't make what they are doing right. How can one square Muslims killing Muslims in terrorist acts (Jordan or Iraq, etc)?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
...here you can find lists to all Muslim terrorist attacks.

And, since ALL of these people come from OPEC nations. Show me an OPEC nation that has spent it's petrodollars to improve the lot of its people.
The only example I can think of is Dubai in the UAE, and that was because of one man who realized that the oil will go dry one day: Sheikh Mohammed.
http://www.sheikhmohammed.co.ae/english/biography/crown.asp

So: OPEC is ALL ABOUT THE TERRORISM.

At a quick glance, you certainly haven't proven me wrong and I stand by my original statement that your numbers are skewed.

However, I do know in advance that you will not like my response, when I do get the chance to respond to it.


Why, because Human Rights Watch is a tool of the Bush administration??? Do you want more examples - they are not hard to find.

You cannot admit that Saddam was an evil person, and that we did the Iraqis a HUGE favor - by the way you avoided the poll I posted on that subject also.


HERE it is!!!!!!!



The Iraqis want you gone yesterday. The longer you stay, the greater the cost, and more you will lose.

This is not the case! The Iraqi's want us to leave when the Iraqi govt. is able to handle things themselves. THAT is what the (again) misreported polls say. Actually here is a quote from ABC news regarding this:Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now" and another 19 percent say they should go after the government chosen in this week's election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent).http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228
Notice they try to spin a 52-45% spread as almost equal. Disregard the fact that try to lump the "leave after elections" in the "leave iraq now" figures. Those that wanted us to wait after the elections (19%) - apparantly saw we were doing some good there! Only 26% wanted us to leave immediately.

Religion.

What negotiated peace would this be? The one that involves Israel being picked up and moved out of the Middle East? Because you and I both know that that is the ONLY acceptable solution to most of the Arabs. :rolleyes:

Actually, I'd posit that the US waving the sabre put bin Laden back into hiding, killed off tens of thousands of people that hate you, me, women's rights, tolerance, and the various freedoms you and I take for granted every day.



Yes, and let's look at their aftermaths: today the world boasts a relatively peaceful and united Europe for the first time since Rome, but under self governance. There hasn't been a big war in Asia since Korea, and that in many respect was housekeeping from WW2.

Humans cannot always settle things in negotiation. :(

Compare that to centuries past: The Tartars, the Huns, the Huns. Napoleon. Most areas couldn't go a decade without a conflict.
But don't take just my word for it: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13597853/



Good question, and only time will tell.
However, given that Europe and Asia are BOTH more peaceful as a result of the major wars, and that parts of the Middle East have been since the various Israeli conflicts (ie: Egypt and Jordan), I take it as an unfortunate necessity.

Let's face it: history has been one big run of man trying to define the world, shape it in his image. Often these images clashed, and there was conflict.
The world of today is at an interesting point: with the exceptions of 5 Communist states and a chunk of the Middle East, the world has mostly agreed on a kind of government. That's huge.

I don't give an Iraqi death toll because it's disputed. It certainly isnt anywhere near the 100.000 or more some would claim. However, how many Iraqis did Saddam kill yearly? How many killed in Iraq are foreign fighters?



Um: Number of non-OPEC countries that have citizens lead suicide attacks on the West: ZERO. Try reading the headlines.

You can make a case of US policy being a cause for Muslims to attacking. Fine. So what? A nation's doing things in its best interest is DEFINED as its policy. I can just as easily point to Norwegian whaling or Canadian seal clubbing as being reasons why those countries are anti-environemental (if I believed that) and it would not make it a reason to go out and kill whalers or furriers.

That the Muslim terrorists attack the US, Spain, UK, Russia, France, and THEIR OWN PEOPLE doesn't make what they are doing right. How can one square Muslims killing Muslims in terrorist acts (Jordan or Iraq, etc)?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
...here you can find lists to all Muslim terrorist attacks.

And, since ALL of these people come from OPEC nations. Show me an OPEC nation that has spent it's petrodollars to improve the lot of its people.
The only example I can think of is Dubai in the UAE, and that was because of one man who realized that the oil will go dry one day: Sheikh Mohammed.
http://www.sheikhmohammed.co.ae/english/biography/crown.asp

So: OPEC is ALL ABOUT THE TERRORISM.



Excellent post. BRAVO!

all I can say is, think of the last two big wars the world saw. Now remember those war mongering Americans and how they didn't want to be a part of either of them until they were forced to? It was after we had to save France and UK from the Evil Germans twice that we deceided that it was apparently our job to keep peace in the world

Andorra, that tiny country between Spain and France must be plotting something, I think they are the puppet masters for The Koreans and the Iranians

Korea. Everybody has nukes, North Korea is the only one with a government stupid enough to launch them. After that I'd say no country but the entire philosophy behind terrorism...it's almost impossible to fight.

Humans.

1. Dick Cheney
2. Fox News
3. National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families
4. Other Christian Fundies who are subverting the U.S.
5. Iran
6. North Korea
7. Israel
8. American states south of the Mason-Dixon line
9. Michael Moore
10. Cyber-Robespierre: brought back from the dead by French scientists deprived of Brie for too long and generally pissed off. Cyber-Robespierre now has a plasma guillotine grafted to his left arm.


EDIT: Belgium should be on this list, preferably near the top. You never know whats in those waffles...

Andorra, that tiny country between Spain and France must be plotting something, I think they are the puppet masters for The Koreans and the Iranians

Are you nuts? Its the Belgians! One day they'll poison all the waffles and we'll be helpless to stop it!

World Peace...

Because it's impossible. Just like a perfect version of Communism, as long as one man wants more than the other man, he'll do whatever it takes to get it. As long as one person hates how another person is, then there will be no Peace.

The only way for world peace to ensue if for the nuclear war, to kill e1, so there is no way to fite, as long as there r atleast 2ppl on the planet there will not b world peace.

Margaret Thatcher - you never know what that woman is going to do next!

If there is a 3rd world war the US WILL start it no doubt about it

Who is the greatest threat to world peace?
To all the dimwits who answered "The US" to this: :upyours:

You really do need to get a firmer grip on the reality of the world. How many times does America have to save your sorry butts for you to think, "Well, you know ... maybe saving my ass was a pretty good thing."

To all the dimwits who answered "The US" to this: :upyours:

You really do need to get a firmer grip on the reality of the world. How many times does America have to save your sorry butts for you to think, "Well, you know ... maybe saving my ass was a pretty good thing."


Thank you!!!

The only way for world peace to ensue if for the nuclear war, to kill e1, so there is no way to fite, as long as there r atleast 2ppl on the planet there will not b world peace.
Free Advice: learn to type in English, not some demented variant of L33tsp33k!

you forgot Irak,the mother of all battle
you forgot Pakistan,Democratie's best dictator
you forgot afganistan,these bloddy taliban(they did fought well against the reds)
You forgot mankind,it,s like a teenager getting amok, never stop to burnitself.
I'm for trial and error learning curve,but,it is now becomin' ridiculous

Free Advice: learn to type in English, not some demented variant of L33tsp33k!
an other sms freak

an other sms freak
English, please. It helps raise the abysmal comprehension level here. :p

greatest threats to world peace .

Iran ..state sponsored terrorism and trying to aquire Nukes with an unstabl leader.
Syria state sponsored terrorism and a conduit for terrorist and weapons to all surrounding countries.
North korea..because they are North korea and have an insane and unpredictable leader..along with some nuclear capability...will it work ? will they just blow themselves up ? who knows ...
Kasmir - India - Pakistan..two counries with nukes aimed at each other and a region that destabilises them both ..equals a recipe for disaster .


All the EU countries with their heads stuck firmly up their collective ass's watching while the world burns on a slow fuse .

The UN for proving itself ineffective to do most anything.

China and Russia ...for using the situation to their benifit and attempting to play the middle ground when there should NOT be a middle ground .


The rest of the world for not UNITING against the treats to peace .

To all the dimwits who answered "The US" to this: :upyours:

You really do need to get a firmer grip on the reality of the world. How many times does America have to save your sorry butts for you to think, "Well, you know ... maybe saving my ass was a pretty good thing."

Oh piss off, America declares war on anyone that looks at them funny (especially if they have oil)

Oh piss off, America declares war on anyone that looks at them funny (especially if they have oil)

Yes, flying airplanes into buildings and killing thousands of people had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

;) wach out for the maquis one day we'll will get real power after all power is often achived at the barrel of the gun or phase pistol

Yes, flying airplanes into buildings and killing thousands of people had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

That was a small terrorist group (most of whom were from Saudi Arabia not Iraq btw) not the country of Iraq

Everytime I come across this thread, I find myself wishing "Your Mom" was an option on the poll for greatest threat to world peace.

The question seems a bit idiotic to me, because it implies that there is currently world peace to be threatened. Obviously this is not the case. Perhaps "who will start WWIII" would've been a better way of phrasing it. As it is, there is no serious answer to this question. Hence, why I'd vote for "Your Mom"

PS - No actual disrespect to anyones mothers.

To all the dimwits who answered "The US" to this: :upyours:

You really do need to get a firmer grip on the reality of the world. How many times does America have to save your sorry butts for you to think, "Well, you know ... maybe saving my ass was a pretty good thing."
Given that the US has drawn up a list of an "axis of evil" and has already invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and has been making threatening noises towards Iran, the suggestion that American is going to be the major warring coutry in the near future seems very reasonable.

That was a small terrorist group (most of whom were from Saudi Arabia not Iraq btw) not the country of Iraq

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you meant all of the other countries the US has attacked for oil. Like Afghanistan. Oops, no oil there. Just like there is no oil in Japan...
Or Panama!
Or Grenada!
Or Cuba!
Or the whole of continental Europe TWICE! (1916-1918; 1942-1945)
Or Viet Nam!
Or Jugoslavia!
Or Spain!
Or Haiti!
Or North Korea! (1950-1953)

Ah, yes, those pesky post Spanish-American War Americans. Always going to war for oil. :headbang:

To all the dimwits who answered "The US" to this: :upyours:

You really do need to get a firmer grip on the reality of the world. How many times does America have to save your sorry butts for you to think, "Well, you know ... maybe saving my ass was a pretty good thing."
erm...let me think...none? :rolleyes:


(I didn't vote at all)

Edit
Just curious. You really think that good old Americans have saved everyone's ass? You could cut your insulting gestures until you stop talking out of your arse.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you meant all of the other countries the US has attacked for oil. Like Afghanistan. Oops, no oil there. Just like there is no oil in Japan...
Or Panama!
Or Grenada!
Or Cuba!
Or the whole of continental Europe TWICE! (1916-1918; 1942-1945)
Or Viet Nam!
Or Jugoslavia!
Or Spain!
Or Haiti!
Or North Korea! (1950-1953)

Ah, yes, those pesky post Spanish-American War Americans. Always going to war for oil. :headbang:
LOLZ
NOW I really think that USA is just a terrific country!

greatest threats to world peace .

Iran ..state sponsored terrorism and trying to aquire Nukes with an unstabl leader.
Syria state sponsored terrorism and a conduit for terrorist and weapons to all surrounding countries.
North korea..because they are North korea and have an insane and unpredictable leader..along with some nuclear capability...will it work ? will they just blow themselves up ? who knows ...
Kasmir - India - Pakistan..two counries with nukes aimed at each other and a region that destabilises them both ..equals a recipe for disaster .


All the EU countries with their heads stuck firmly up their collective ass's watching while the world burns on a slow fuse .

The UN for proving itself ineffective to do most anything.

China and Russia ...for using the situation to their benifit and attempting to play the middle ground when there should NOT be a middle ground .


The rest of the world for not UNITING against the treats to peace .


This is a perfect example of American arrogance, yes its the worlds fault.
And like all good Americans you get all your info from Fox news even though most of it is made up dribble.

How many times does America have to save your sorry butts for you to think, "Well, you know ... maybe saving my ass was a pretty good thing."
They'd have to save my sorry butt:

- every time I take a dump after having pizza with hot banana peppers.
- every day before and after breakfast, lunch, dinner and coffee-breaks.
- all the special times of the year, including birthdays, public holidays, observances of the solstii and equinoxes, and lunar eclipses.
- whenever I miss the streetcar on the way into work.
- every leap year.
- in the event of rabid zebra attacks.
- when I've got to shovel the snow off my deck.
- during blackouts, when there's only transistor radios kicking around for entertainment.
- after first putting everybody on the planet at great risk of being vapourized, or similarly made dead and/or uncomfortable.

Which is pretty much 24/7, so their work is cut out for them. Chop-chop, America!

LOLZ
NOW I really think that USA is just a terrific country!

Glad I could reinforce that idea for ya. ;)

Which is pretty much 24/7, so their work is cut out for them. Chop-chop, America!

We're on it.

Glad I could reinforce that idea for ya. ;)
But of course. Have I ever disagreed with you? ;)

hint: every single time (but not throughoutly as most of them who usually disagrees with you)

They'd have to save my sorry butt:

- in the event of rabid zebra attacks.


http://www.taurususa.com/imagesMain/H_30CSS10.jpg
http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?model=30CSS10&category=Revolver


...fires EIGHT 30 caliber carbine rounds. Certified to halt any zebra on impact. :D

To all the dimwits who answered "The US" to this: :upyours:

You really do need to get a firmer grip on the reality of the world. How many times does America have to save your sorry butts for you to think, "Well, you know ... maybe saving my ass was a pretty good thing."
In the last 40 years which country has started, or taken part in the most wars. other than Israil, which you could argue was 1 long war.

In the last 8 years which country has invaded the most sovrign coutnrys.

Which country claims that it guards 'freedom and democracy' and then proceeds to attempt to pull down other democratically elected goverments.

Which country has named an 'axis of evil' and has invaded one of those 3 countrys on extreamly questionable motives, which seem to have more to do with the fact that the said coutnry has oil than the fact the country actually had WMD's.

Which country is now making very, very agressive noises at another member of this axis of evil.

Which coutnry constantly supports a hostile and imperialistic power in the Middle East, no matter what human rights violations they carry out.

Which country has the highest millitary funding in the world.

Which country hads a close freind to there president that says 'Wiping all the towel-heads out would be a good thing.'

Any answers?

Oh, and Britian/the Ludendoff Offensive saved everyones asses in WW1 and russia saved us in WW2, arguyably it could be said that the US saved Berlin from communist occupation via the Marshall plan and the BErlin airlift but thats only arguable.

LOLZ
NOW I really think that USA is just a terrific country!
Hey! Guess what!

We don't give a shit! :D

Hey! Guess what!

We don't give a shit! :D
Hey! Guess what!

Everybody knows you don't give a shit!

Which is why we can't figure it out when, at the same time, you seem to so very badly want the rest of the world to swear unflinching obeisance to you in perpetuity.

Hey! Guess what!

We don't give a shit! :D
Yes you do, on almost every single thread.

Especially you.

Dear Eutrusca,
On the International "Defenders of the Earth (Defenders!)" front, the USA is the perennial slacker. Your country should stop sitting around blaming everyone else for its traumatic childhood and get a job.
Regards,
Refused Party Program.

P.S.

And your country fights like a girl.

And your country fights like a girl.
:D

p.s. Why on earth you eat your friends?
edit: äsch, I missed inte in that sentence

To all the dimwits who answered "The US" to this: :upyours:

You really do need to get a firmer grip on the reality of the world. How many times does America have to save your sorry butts for you to think, "Well, you know ... maybe saving my ass was a pretty good thing."


Eutrusca,

I have a deep respect for you, and everything you have done. Thank you for your service to the United States. This probably means jack shit to you, but I am honored to be able to debate with someone who has had your experiences.

We have many times saved the world, however, I personally feel that the current administration has made a mockery of what the US stands for, and I feel that they are a destabilizing factor.

The US in its self is not a hazard, but those who run it are.

:D

p.s. Why on earth you eat your friends?
edit: äsch, I missed inte in that sentence
Skäms på sig!

World peace is a myth, like King Arthur. There has never been such a practice and without serious socail devolpment on a world wide scale it never will be. One can not threaten something that does not exist.

In the last 40 years which country has started, or taken part in the most wars. other than Israil, which you could argue was 1 long war.

Which country has been called upon to help fight communist insurgents. Who answered that call.

In the last 8 years which country has invaded the most sovrign coutnrys.

Nice time frame selection and way to ignore the reasons behind it.

Which country claims that it guards 'freedom and democracy' and then proceeds to attempt to pull down other democratically elected goverments.

Not the U.S. - guess again.

Which country has named an 'axis of evil' and has invaded one of those 3 countrys on extreamly questionable motives, which seem to have more to do with the fact that the said coutnry has oil than the fact the country actually had WMD's.


Extremely Questionable????

Lets look - North Korea!!!! Population starving to death while their "dear leader" aggressively move to threaten Japan and South Korea with Nuclear weapons and oh by the way - is one of the main sponsors of terrorists.

Next on the list: Iraq - now here we had a real peach of a leader. In ONLY four instances, the death toll from this WONDERFUL regime killed enough people to average more than 71,000 violent deaths per year. (and not of the car accident type - they were killed by Saddam) He twice invaded his neighbors without any justification, hired assasins to kill other world leaders, gassed his own people with Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction, Sought more powerful WMD's and fired on planes who were protecting the Kurdish people from certain slaughter. He hid his weapons programs and sought to reconstitute them the minute he weakened the sanctions enough to allow it.

Finally - Iran. Gee you seem to have an afinity for the most vile individuals on the planet. THis person has sworn to completely eradicate another Nation, who has not attacked them in any way. They deny that the Holocaust ever happened and are desperately seeking a Nuclear weapon with which to carry out it's promise to eliminate the aforementioned country. OH! I almost forgot, they are the absolute leader in state sponsored terrorism and without them, nearly every terrorist organization in the world would either cease to exist or be drastically reduced in their effectiveness.


No, I think the U.S. President pretty much nailed it.



Which country is now making very, very agressive noises at another member of this axis of evil.

Which country is once again, leading the fight against evil? Or perhaps you approve of slaughtering a whole Nation?


Which coutnry constantly supports a hostile and imperialistic power in the Middle East, no matter what human rights violations they carry out.

I thought you were against anyone interfering in soveriegn nations????? We are working in this country - diplomatically because we DO have the ability to affect policy in that manner in this case. In the ones you critisize the US for, there is NO basis for negotiations - UNLESS you want to stall so that the terrorist supporting country can gain a Nuclear weapon.

Which country has the highest millitary funding in the world.

And which country does everyone call for when disaster/war/etc hits thier country??? Which country serves as the de-facto military for damn near the whole western world. (with some very notable exceptions)

Yea! Just what we need, another anti-Bush, anti-American thread. ....leaves to get a whiskey and soda....

Afghanistan, Al-Qaida, & the Taliban

Oh great....a noob who believes I have been owned even though I haven't replied to USalpen's post yet.

My best guess is that you are a recycled NS regular in hiding, or another of Alpen's puppets. Just a guess mind you. :D



puppet nope,recycled nah....noob hell yep pretty much, i am a french-canadian noob and i aprove this message lol

Which country has been called upon to help fight communist insurgents. Who answered that call.

The Vietnamise people elected the Communists as there goverment over Diem. The US refused to let that stand and instead propped up Diems goverment, commiting countless atrocities. This is of no offense to the US verrens, bu that war was comletly unjustified.


Nice time frame selection and way to ignore the reasons behind it.

Afganistan was justified, but Iraq? It always seems like your falling from one branch to another...

"The Iraqies have WMDs and want to attack us!" Erm....no they don't

"Saddam Supports Al-Quieda" No he didn't.

"saddam is a bloodtirsty dictator" Coprrect, but there are far, far worse dictators in the world-Murgaba, Castro... Why not attack them.

Oh, I forgot, they don't have oil.
[qoute=USalpenstock]
Not the U.S. - guess again.
[/quote]
Ever heard your president speak, all that crap about guarding democracy and bringing freedom to the Middle East, "Freedom is on the march." how about saying you wehre looking after democracy during the cold war, while simulatiously trying to topple Democratically elected Communist goverments and propping up brutel regimes in other parts of the world.


Extremely Questionable????

Lets look - North Korea!!!! Population starving to death while their "dear leader" aggressively move to threaten Japan and South Korea with Nuclear weapons and oh by the way - is one of the main sponsors of terrorists.
I'd like some everdense of that, mate. So far I havn't seen any everdense of NK supporting terrorism. And your threatening them with Nukes as well. if I was udner consatant threat from Regime Change and being nuked, I'd want my own weapons. I'm no supporter for Nk but the best way to deal with them is deplomacy, not saying there evil.

Next on the list: Iraq - now here we had a real peach of a leader. In ONLY four instances, the death toll from this WONDERFUL regime killed enough people to average more than 71,000 violent deaths per year. (and not of the car accident type - they were killed by Saddam) He twice invaded his neighbors without any justification, hired assasins to kill other world leaders, gassed his own people with Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction, Sought more powerful WMD's and fired on planes who were protecting the Kurdish people from certain slaughter. He hid his weapons programs and sought to reconstitute them the minute he weakened the sanctions enough to allow it.
I'd like to see everdense orf those figures, please. And why didn't you take him out in the 1st gulf war.At the time you attacked him he no longer had any chemical weapons, hadn't gassed his own people, and wasn't seeking more powerful WMDs. Oh, and he didnt have a secret weapons program, unless it was extramly well hidden.

Amd I didn't see any everdense of him firing on the planes protecting the Kurds, as that would be an act of war.

Finally - Iran. Gee you seem to have an afinity for the most vile individuals on the planet. THis person has sworn to completely eradicate another Nation, who has not attacked them in any way. They deny that the Holocaust ever happened and are desperately seeking a Nuclear weapon with which to carry out it's promise to eliminate the aforementioned country. OH! I almost forgot, they are the absolute leader in state sponsored terrorism and without them, nearly every terrorist organization in the world would either cease to exist or be drastically reduced in their effectiveness.
Everdense of them supporting terrorism please? Incidentally Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest breeding grounds of terrorists as well, as is Pakistan. But there US allies so you wouldn't go after them...

And Iran was heading towards Liberalisation before the "Axis of evil" statements which have driven it further into religious bigomay. and if the most powerful nation in the world was threatening me with attacks, I'd want to defend myself.




Which country is once again, leading the fight against evil? Or perhaps you approve of slaughtering a whole Nation?

Leading the fight against evil? I'd leave Iran for a while instead of making them more paranoid. nagotiate, try to smuggle some contra-band in to help the srong 'freedom' movement amnoung the youth of Iran. everyone knows that this dictaorship won't be able to survive more than 10 years as most of the youths in Iran are against the current regime. You want to support this youth movement, rarther than threaten a entire country.



I thought you were against anyone interfering in soveriegn nations????? We are working in this country - diplomatically because we DO have the ability to affect policy in that manner in this case. In the ones you critisize the US for, there is NO basis for negotiations - UNLESS you want to stall so that the terrorist supporting country can gain a Nuclear weapon.
Your the only nation in the G8 summet that hasn't critised Irsrail for there attacks on Lebanon and perticually there attacks on a innocent civillian convoy that only hours before israil had ordered out of there hoems. You provide them with weapons and money. And I very much doubt that iran, or North Korea have enough uranium to create a bomb (Though NK claim to have one alread). Simply put sanctions on them via the UN and don't give them any uranium. Simple.


And which country does everyone call for when disaster/war/etc hits thier country??? Which country serves as the de-facto military for damn near the whole western world. (with some very notable exceptions)
The UN? Thast what it's there for. Usually when theres a disaster or war it's UN peacekeepers that move in to sort things out, in Rawanda for instance. But it was the US that refused to let any more UN troops into Rawanda thus allowing that massicar to coninue.

As for the millitary of the whole wesern world-are you saying, biritan, France, spain, italy, german, Russia, Canada and all those other nations can't defend themselves? Just because they don't go running around showing off there strength dosn't mean they don't have it.

Iran and North Korea tie for #1.

Thankfully, we have men in the White House who are prepared to eliminate these threats.

*horror music*

Elmo

he does this to children: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

and does this to me: :upyours:

Probably secret service. They sit by and watch people die, even when its a matter of national security.

Which country has been called upon to help fight communist insurgents. Who answered that call.)

No idea. The yanks destroyed land reform, any moves at social justice, and sponsored whole sale slaughter for years though.



Next on the list: Iraq - now here we had a real peach of a leader. In ONLY four instances, the death toll from this WONDERFUL regime killed enough people to average more than 71,000 violent deaths per year. (and not of the car accident type - they were killed by Saddam) He twice invaded his neighbors without any justification, hired assasins to kill other world leaders, gassed his own people with Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction, Sought more powerful WMD's and fired on planes who were protecting the Kurdish people from certain slaughter. He hid his weapons programs and sought to reconstitute them the minute he weakened the sanctions enough to allow it.


And during that time his attacks on the Kurds were aided by the US (Kissinger closing the Turkish borders 75/76) and his first invasion and war against Iran was also backed heavily by America. He never seriously challenged the no fly zone over the Kurds and had dismantled his weapons programs as concluded by the ISG.


Finally - Iran. Gee you seem to have an afinity for the most vile individuals on the planet. THis person has sworn to completely eradicate another Nation, who has not attacked them in any way. They deny that the Holocaust ever happened and are desperately seeking a Nuclear weapon with which to carry out it's promise to eliminate the aforementioned country. OH! I almost forgot, they are the absolute leader in state sponsored terrorism and without them, nearly every terrorist organization in the world would either cease to exist or be drastically reduced in their effectiveness.


And who sponsored the dictator whose attempts to forcibly westernise his country led to the Islamic revival and revolution?



Which country is once again, leading the fight against evil?

Can't be America..they're part of the problem...Brits just follow orders from Washington.....

I give up - who is it?

Isreal. The bastards can't stop attackin' people.

I see ignorant neocons/hippiecommies, trying to discuss like sain people. Dicussions between opposites can never be won. If one side doesn't have a good reply on a statement, it just highlightens something else. People should be more open-minded in these repetitive discussions, because everyone has flaws. I do like to read them, though.

And
"Fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity."

I don't know what the greatest threat to "world peace" is, but it's not a country.