Well... I guess I look at the US response to 9-11 as an example. Off the top of my head, 15 of the 19 terrorists were identified as Saudi Arabian; yet, the US invades Afghanistan... and then moves to Iraq and it still hasn't left.
I understand all the reasons that were offered for such a response (such as the weapons of mass destruction myth and the 'terrorist training grounds'), but am I the only one to think the US retaliation efforts might have been misplaced?
I guess what I am saying is the 'common sense' rule should come into play when establishing a legitimate need to invade another country or not.
Both invasions were criminal acts, and both pretexts for invading were clear-cut bullshit. The perpetrators should have been hunted down the same as any dangerous criminal, and in the same way that the terrorists responsible for almost weekly skyjackings between the years 1968 and 1973 viewtopic.php?f=13&t=208751&start=75#p5068409 were hunted down.
To use an act of terrorism as justification for bombing and invading a country is Bullshit, with a capital B.
...You can win by helping when help is needed and by leaving countries alone that should be left alone.
and by whose criteria do 'we' determine which countries should be left alone? and define 'left alone'
Well... I guess I look at the US response to 9-11 as an example. Off the top of my head, 15 of the 19 terrorists were identified as Saudi Arabian; yet, the US invades Afghanistan... and then moves to Iraq and it still hasn't left.
I understand all the reasons that were offered for such a response (such as the weapons of mass destruction myth and the 'terrorist training grounds'), but am I the only one to think the US retaliation efforts might have been misplaced?
I guess what I am saying is the 'common sense' rule should come into play when establishing a legitimate need to invade another country or not.
see that's the thing isn't it? what the hell is the common sense rule? and if it exists then why is it so difficult to follow? is it that those 'in charge' are more interested in power than justice? is it indifference to 'the other' ? or is it that common sense is more a bullshit concept than actual 'fact' and rolled out purely to corral people to a certain, collective way of thinking?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
the US is by far the biggest threat to world peace ...
* global warming and the planet: as the biggest polluters per capita and home to big oil ... this worldwide problem is the single biggest threat to peace now and the US are the leaders in contribution in both a physical way and in their policy favouring corporations ...
* world's largest arms dealer: political instability is a key to US economic imperialism and war profiteering ... you can't be a country that bases their economy on arms expenditures and exploitation without political instability ... with the crux of the US economy (consumerism) being shown to be foolish - is it any wonder that the US is still at war in so many places?
* unconditional support for israel: the unconditional support for israel is only radicalizing and polarizing the world ... as the US allows israel to continue to commit crimes against humanity - the hatred for americans grows stronger and stronger ... imagine what most of you felt because of the explosion at the boston marathon that killed 3 people ... now, imagine that death rate occurring every hour because of US foreign policy ... terrorist organizations don't need to run ads to recruit anymore ...
Well... I guess I look at the US response to 9-11 as an example. Off the top of my head, 15 of the 19 terrorists were identified as Saudi Arabian; yet, the US invades Afghanistan... and then moves to Iraq and it still hasn't left.
I understand all the reasons that were offered for such a response (such as the weapons of mass destruction myth and the 'terrorist training grounds'), but am I the only one to think the US retaliation efforts might have been misplaced?
I guess what I am saying is the 'common sense' rule should come into play when establishing a legitimate need to invade another country or not.
see that's the thing isn't it? what the hell is the common sense rule? and if it exists then why is it so difficult to follow? is it that those 'in charge' are more interested in power than justice? is it indifference to 'the other' ? or is it that common sense is more a bullshit concept than actual 'fact' and rolled out purely to corral people to a certain, collective way of thinking?
You are asking me to explain or describe policy that sets appropriate conditions for military intervention. I'm not sure one can do that with any degree of thoroughness. You have described the problem accurately though when you refer to the leadership and its motivation. These decisions are ultimately are in the hands of the country's leadership and if that leadership is corrupt and acts poorly- to come full circle- we have the right to be critical. If that leadership acts on the behalf of a people in need... we can be grateful.
Well... I guess I look at the US response to 9-11 as an example. Off the top of my head, 15 of the 19 terrorists were identified as Saudi Arabian; yet, the US invades Afghanistan... and then moves to Iraq and it still hasn't left.
I understand all the reasons that were offered for such a response (such as the weapons of mass destruction myth and the 'terrorist training grounds'), but am I the only one to think the US retaliation efforts might have been misplaced?
I guess what I am saying is the 'common sense' rule should come into play when establishing a legitimate need to invade another country or not.
see that's the thing isn't it? what the hell is the common sense rule? and if it exists then why is it so difficult to follow? is it that those 'in charge' are more interested in power than justice? is it indifference to 'the other' ? or is it that common sense is more a bullshit concept than actual 'fact' and rolled out purely to corral people to a certain, collective way of thinking?
You are asking me to explain or describe policy that sets appropriate conditions for military intervention. I'm not sure one can do that with any degree of thoroughness. You have described the problem accurately though when you refer to the leadership and its motivation. These decisions are ultimately are in the hands of the country's leadership and if that leadership is corrupt and acts poorly- to come full circle- we have the right to be critical. If that leadership acts on the behalf of a people in need... we can be grateful.
tbh ive never been grateful for any actions of my government.. cause I know they've never been on behalf of the people in need... but on behalf of a greater power... whether that be a foreign nation under the guise of or the govt itself acting as an omnipotent being disregarding the needs and wants of the people it imposed itself upon.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You are asking me to explain or describe policy that sets appropriate conditions for military intervention. I'm not sure one can do that with any degree of thoroughness. You have described the problem accurately though when you refer to the leadership and its motivation. These decisions are ultimately are in the hands of the country's leadership and if that leadership is corrupt and acts poorly- to come full circle- we have the right to be critical. If that leadership acts on the behalf of a people in need... we can be grateful.
tbh ive never been grateful for any actions of my government.. cause I know they've never been on behalf of the people in need... but on behalf of a greater power... whether that be a foreign nation under the guise of or the govt itself acting as an omnipotent being disregarding the needs and wants of the people it imposed itself upon.
The questions you posed were legitimate. I never got the impression you were being defensive. I think we can agree (as you have essentially stated it here) that the presidency's role has shifted to become somewhat of a puppet for big business.
You are asking me to explain or describe policy that sets appropriate conditions for military intervention. I'm not sure one can do that with any degree of thoroughness. You have described the problem accurately though when you refer to the leadership and its motivation. These decisions are ultimately are in the hands of the country's leadership and if that leadership is corrupt and acts poorly- to come full circle- we have the right to be critical. If that leadership acts on the behalf of a people in need... we can be grateful.
tbh ive never been grateful for any actions of my government.. cause I know they've never been on behalf of the people in need... but on behalf of a greater power... whether that be a foreign nation under the guise of or the govt itself acting as an omnipotent being disregarding the needs and wants of the people it imposed itself upon.
The questions you posed were legitimate. I never got the impression you were being defensive. I think we can agree (as you have essentially stated it here) that the presidency's role has shifted to become somewhat of a puppet for big business.
I can never be defensive when discussing the actions of other. im not responsible for them. and tbh I do not believe I am responsible for the actions of politicians I vote for when my decision was predicated on 'truths' they stated yet later reneged on, once they gained the power they sought.
I can not agree with your supposition in this instance about my views of the presidents role vis a vis big business cause my comments as stated were relation to the australian govt.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I can never be defensive when discussing the actions of other. im not responsible for them. and tbh I do not believe I am responsible for the actions of politicians I vote for when my decision was predicated on 'truths' they stated yet later reneged on, once they gained the power they sought.
I can not agree with your suppostion about my views of the presidents role vis a vis big business cause my comments as stated were relation to the australian govt.
I can never be defensive when discussing the actions of other. im not responsible for them. and tbh I do not believe I am responsible for the actions of politicians I vote for when my decision was predicated on 'truths' they stated yet later reneged on, once they gained the power they sought.
I can not agree with your suppostion about my views of the presidents role vis a vis big business cause my comments as stated were relation to the australian govt.
Well call me a moron!
not gonna happen.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I take issue with him using the term "apocalypse", and while I didn't read the whole article, I'm wondering where China is in this equation? Because China is certainly a major factor with this topic. But other than that, I think that's all a given. I thought it was common knowledge. :lolno:
(and I'm not disagreeing strongly, but I think it's a mistake to just flatly group Canada with the US here.... still. If Harper and the Conservatives stick around much longer, that won't be the case)
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
uhhh ... any of you two would like to discuss the points i made as to why i believe so? ... north korea!? ... really ... :fp:
nah, you are already convinced the US is evil so not really worth the effort getting into it when there is no chance to change your mind. good luck though.
nah, you are already convinced the US is evil so not really worth the effort getting into it when there is no chance to change your mind. good luck though.
... here we go again ... now, i know why the phillies threads go the way they do ...
uhhh ... any of you two would like to discuss the points i made as to why i believe so? ... north korea!? ... really ... :fp:
I consider any nation lead by a crazy person who is currently into developing nuclear weapons in the face of sanctions and testing long distance missiles and threatening to use them on other nations a pretty serious threat to world peace, but that's... just me? :?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I consider any nation lead by a crazy person who is currently into developing nuclear weapons in the face of sanctions and testing long distance missiles and threatening to use them on other nations a pretty serious threat to world peace, but that's... just me? :?
has North Korea invaded any country in the last 2 decades? ... has North Korea supplied arms to terrorist groups in Syria? ... and you do know that North Korea is great at issuing threats and then entertaining the likes of Dennis Rodman? ...
if you are getting your global geo-politics via sound bites from cnn and fox ... you're really just playing into the propaganda ... is north korea disney world in disguise? ... of course not but there are no facts that could remotely put it on the top of the list of countries that threaten world peace ...
I consider any nation lead by a crazy person who is currently into developing nuclear weapons in the face of sanctions and testing long distance missiles and threatening to use them on other nations a pretty serious threat to world peace, but that's... just me? :?
has North Korea invaded any country in the last 2 decades? ... has North Korea supplied arms to terrorist groups in Syria? ... and you do know that North Korea is great at issuing threats and then entertaining the likes of Dennis Rodman? ...
if you are getting your global geo-politics via sound bites from cnn and fox ... you're really just playing into the propaganda ... is north korea disney world in disguise? ... of course not but there are no facts that could remotely put it on the top of the list of countries that threaten world peace ...
I don't listen to sound bites (I usually don't even watch TV news, and don't even get Fox news), and I'm not an idiot. You've got your views and I've got mine. You don't have to be so fucking condescending about it. North Korea is destabilizing that entire region politically, and I consider them a real threat, and think that you are underestimating what they may be willing to do. Just because the leader is also an eccentric weirdo doesn't mean you should laugh him off. But I'm not being a jackass about stating my opinions - you might want to try it. And in any case, I listed some other countries, like Pakistan, Syria, and Iran, but you are focusing on the one that you don't agree with.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't listen to sound bites (I usually don't even watch TV news, and don't even get Fox news), and I'm not an idiot. You've got your views and I've got mine. You don't have to be so fucking condescending about it. North Korea is destabilizing that entire region politically, and I consider them a real threat, and think that you are underestimating what they may be willing to do. Just because the leader is also an eccentric weirdo doesn't mean you should laugh him off. But I'm not being a jackass about stating my opinions - you might want to try it. And in any case, I listed some other countries, like Pakistan, Syria, and Iran, but you are focusing on the one that you don't agree with.
sorry ... i apologize if my posts are condescending but all i'm reading is the same old talking points the US uses to drum up it's wars against all those countries ... i don't read any facts or reason ... just throwing out the same axis of evil stuff ... i mean syria? ... you have the US funding al qaeda rebels (apparently not terrorists anymore because they are doing the US's bidding) and Syria is a threat to global peace? ... the fact that the US spends probably 10 x the amount on weapons as all your countries combined should be indication enough that they are small potatoes ... do you think iran would be searching for nukes if the US hadn't allowed israel to go nuclear?
are these countries utopic - hell no but they don't come close to the US when it comes to being a threat to world peace ...
I don't listen to sound bites (I usually don't even watch TV news, and don't even get Fox news), and I'm not an idiot. You've got your views and I've got mine. You don't have to be so fucking condescending about it. North Korea is destabilizing that entire region politically, and I consider them a real threat, and think that you are underestimating what they may be willing to do. Just because the leader is also an eccentric weirdo doesn't mean you should laugh him off. But I'm not being a jackass about stating my opinions - you might want to try it. And in any case, I listed some other countries, like Pakistan, Syria, and Iran, but you are focusing on the one that you don't agree with.
sorry ... i apologize if my posts are condescending but all i'm reading is the same old talking points the US uses to drum up it's wars against all those countries ... i don't read any facts or reason ... just throwing out the same axis of evil stuff ... i mean syria? ... you have the US funding al qaeda rebels (apparently not terrorists anymore because they are doing the US's bidding) and Syria is a threat to global peace? ... the fact that the US spends probably 10 x the amount on weapons as all your countries combined should be indication enough that they are small potatoes ... do you think iran would be searching for nukes if the US hadn't allowed israel to go nuclear?
are these countries utopic - hell no but they don't come close to the US when it comes to being a threat to world peace ...
Okay, well, I disagree that the US is the greatest threat to world peace. If I had to pick one, I'd say that Iran is. We can say it all leads back to the US all we want, but that doesn't mean the US is the threat... If you really want to bring it back to who caused the problem that lead to the problem that lead to the problem, then Britain would be the best option when you're talking about Iran, not to mention Russia's involvement in supplying weapons in the Middle East, etc etc etc. We could do that all day without ever knowing if we're right or not (i.e. Iran very well may have gone nuclear for any number of other reasons if Israel hadn't). But in the end, it's IRAN who is the bigger threat to world peace, not the US.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Okay, well, I disagree that the US is the greatest threat to world peace. If I had to pick one, I'd say that Iran is. We can say it all leads back to the US all we want, but that doesn't mean the US is the threat... If you really want to bring it back to who caused the problem that lead to the problem that lead to the problem, then Britain would be the best option when you're talking about Iran, not to mention Russia's involvement in supplying weapons in the Middle East, etc etc etc. We could do that all day without ever knowing if we're right or not (i.e. Iran very well may have gone nuclear for any number of other reasons if Israel hadn't). But in the end, it's IRAN who is the bigger threat to world peace, not the US.
based on what??
is Iran invading other countries? ... sure they are engaged in proxy wars but nothing on the scale of the US ... give me something to prove your point ... the US allowing Israel to go nuclear in the region is not some colonial piece of history ... it's relative recent and that's what we're talking about ... i'm not even going into the CIA overthrow of Iran that has led us to the hardline country that it is now ...
you do realize that with the only real threat Iran has made is to the zionist jews right? ... and those people are second on my list on threats to global peace ...
Okay, well, I disagree that the US is the greatest threat to world peace. If I had to pick one, I'd say that Iran is. We can say it all leads back to the US all we want, but that doesn't mean the US is the threat... If you really want to bring it back to who caused the problem that lead to the problem that lead to the problem, then Britain would be the best option when you're talking about Iran, not to mention Russia's involvement in supplying weapons in the Middle East, etc etc etc. We could do that all day without ever knowing if we're right or not (i.e. Iran very well may have gone nuclear for any number of other reasons if Israel hadn't). But in the end, it's IRAN who is the bigger threat to world peace, not the US.
based on what??
is Iran invading other countries? ... sure they are engaged in proxy wars but nothing on the scale of the US ... give me something to prove your point ... the US allowing Israel to go nuclear in the region is not some colonial piece of history ... it's relative recent and that's what we're talking about ... i'm not even going into the CIA overthrow of Iran that has led us to the hardline country that it is now ...
you do realize that with the only real threat Iran has made is to the zionist jews right? ... and those people are second on my list on threats to global peace ...
I'm not sure, but it kind of seems like you and I are thinking of the word "threat" differently?? While the US is winding down their war and attempting diplomacy (making some attempt at least of cleaning up their own mess, basically), Iran and N. Korea are threatening to escalate tensions, and possibly escalate enough to create large scale war. To me, that makes them more of a current threat to world peace. If we're talking about having a history lesson, then the US has been a bigger threat in the past, but not currently. I also think it's a mistake to think that Iran is only threatening Zionist Jews. They are also threatening their allies and THEIR allies. And that Iran openly uses anti-antisemitism as a justifiable reason to make threats is a major warning sign in and of itself. Just to be clear, I don't make this argument with any anti- or pro-Israeli biases. I think EVERYONE is fucked over there, and don't pick sides on that matter. I personally think that we should all butt the fuck out and let the Middle East self-destruct, which it would do, with Iran at the helm. So anyway, if you want to say that the US is a threat to world peace simply because of who their allies are, fine, but I don't look at it that way, even though the US should certainly not align itself with anyone over there at all... and that would put the US and Britain and Canada, etc at less risk of being dragged into something messy.
(oh, and PS - I actually think that Islamic extremists are the biggest threat to world peace right now, but since we're talking nations, I didn't include them)
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I am curious, if America is the greatest threat to world peace what do people think the world would look like if the US disappeared tomorrow? Would the world be more or less safe? What nation or nations would fill the vacuum left by the US? Would that nation or nations be better or worse? Would the Middle East find peace?
I don't believe the US is the greatest threat to world peace there is and I don't think there is any guarantee that whatever comes next will be much better. Probably a likelihood that it will be much worse, actually, but I am probably in the minority on that here. So I am curious to hear how people envision a post-American global world.
Why America and Israel Are the Greatest Threats to Peace
Imagine if Iran -- or any other country -- did a fraction of what American and Israel do at will
Noam Chomsky
September 3, 2012
'...Like its patron, Israel resorts to violence at will. It persists in illegal settlement in occupied territory, some annexed, all in brazen defiance of international law and the U.N. Security Council. It has repeatedly carried out brutal attacks against Lebanon and the imprisoned people of Gaza, killing tens of thousands without credible pretext.
Thirty years ago Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, an act that has recently been praised, avoiding the strong evidence, even from U.S. intelligence, that the bombing did not end Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program but rather initiated it. Bombing of Iran might have the same effect.
Iran too has carried out aggression – but during the past several hundred years, only under the U.S.-backed regime of the shah, when it conquered Arab islands in the Persian Gulf.
Iran engaged in nuclear development programs under the shah, with the strong support of official Washington. The Iranian government is brutal and repressive, as are Washington’s allies in the region. The most important ally, Saudi Arabia, is the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime, and spends enormous funds spreading its radical Wahhabist doctrines elsewhere. The gulf dictatorships, also favored U.S. allies, have harshly repressed any popular effort to join the Arab Spring.
The Nonaligned Movement – the governments of most of the world’s population – is now meeting in Teheran. The group has vigorously endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium, and some members – India, for example – adhere to the harsh U.S. sanctions program only partially and reluctantly.
The NAM delegates doubtless recognize the threat that dominates discussion in the West, lucidly articulated by Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command: “It is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East,” one nation should arm itself with nuclear weapons, which “inspires other nations to do so.”
Butler is not referring to Iran, but to Israel, which is regarded in the Arab countries and in Europe as posing the greatest threat to peace In the Arab world, the United States is ranked second as a threat, while Iran, though disliked, is far less feared. Indeed in many polls majorities hold that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons to balance the threats they perceive...'
'...The brutal clerical regime is doubtless a threat to its own people, though it does not rank particularly high in that respect in comparison to U.S. allies in the region. But that is not what concerns the military and intelligence assessments. Rather, they are concerned with the threat Iran poses to the region and the world.
The reports make it clear that the Iranian threat is not military. Iran's military spending is "relatively low compared to the rest of the region," and minuscule as compared to the U.S. Iranian military doctrine is strictly "defensive…designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities." Iran has only "a limited capability to project force beyond its borders." With regard to the nuclear option, "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."
Though the Iranian threat is not military aggression, that does not mean that it might be tolerable to Washington. Iranian deterrent capacity is considered an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that interferes with U.S. global designs. Specifically, it threatens U.S. control of Middle East energy resources, a high priority of planners since World War II. As one influential figure advised, expressing a common understanding, control of these resources yields "substantial control of the world" (A. A. Berle).
But Iran's threat goes beyond deterrence. It is also seeking to expand its influence. Iran's "current five-year plan seeks to expand bilateral, regional, and international relations, strengthen Iran's ties with friendly states, and enhance its defense and deterrent capabilities. Commensurate with that plan, Iran is seeking to increase its stature by countering U.S. influence and expanding ties with regional actors while advocating Islamic solidarity." In short, Iran is seeking to "destabilize" the region, in the technical sense of the term used by General Petraeus. U.S. invasion and military occupation of Iran's neighbors is "stabilization." Iran's efforts to extend its influence in neighboring countries is "destabilization," hence plainly illegitimate. It should be noted that such revealing usage is routine. Thus, the prominent foreign policy analyst James Chace, former editor of the main establishment journal Foreign Affairs, was properly using the term "stability" in its technical sense when he explained that in order to achieve "stability" in Chile it was necessary to "destabilize" the country (by overthrowing the elected Allende government and installing the Pinochet dictatorship)...'
Well, I've kept kind of quiet on this thread (despite starting it) but I'll jump in. I understand why some of you believe North Korea and Iran are threats to world peace- and yes, I think they are- but the biggest? This is hard for me to fathom. The biggest? Compared to the super powers that hold the safety of the world in their hands? Maybe I'm missing something. I just don't see it. The article Byrnzie posted above pretty much spells it out but I would also think Russia and China must fit in there as well.
Looking at the bigger picture, it also seems to me that the stability of the world- at least in terms of human viability- rests on the environmental changes being propagated but the largest of the developed countries of the world. These are the ones eating up the most resources, causing the most pollution, having the greatest affect on climate change, as well as being large in their (our) responsibility for rapid species decline. The "apocalypse" is not just a nuclear war issue.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
Both invasions were criminal acts, and both pretexts for invading were clear-cut bullshit. The perpetrators should have been hunted down the same as any dangerous criminal, and in the same way that the terrorists responsible for almost weekly skyjackings between the years 1968 and 1973 viewtopic.php?f=13&t=208751&start=75#p5068409 were hunted down.
To use an act of terrorism as justification for bombing and invading a country is Bullshit, with a capital B.
see that's the thing isn't it? what the hell is the common sense rule? and if it exists then why is it so difficult to follow? is it that those 'in charge' are more interested in power than justice? is it indifference to 'the other' ? or is it that common sense is more a bullshit concept than actual 'fact' and rolled out purely to corral people to a certain, collective way of thinking?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
* global warming and the planet: as the biggest polluters per capita and home to big oil ... this worldwide problem is the single biggest threat to peace now and the US are the leaders in contribution in both a physical way and in their policy favouring corporations ...
* world's largest arms dealer: political instability is a key to US economic imperialism and war profiteering ... you can't be a country that bases their economy on arms expenditures and exploitation without political instability ... with the crux of the US economy (consumerism) being shown to be foolish - is it any wonder that the US is still at war in so many places?
* unconditional support for israel: the unconditional support for israel is only radicalizing and polarizing the world ... as the US allows israel to continue to commit crimes against humanity - the hatred for americans grows stronger and stronger ... imagine what most of you felt because of the explosion at the boston marathon that killed 3 people ... now, imagine that death rate occurring every hour because of US foreign policy ... terrorist organizations don't need to run ads to recruit anymore ...
You are asking me to explain or describe policy that sets appropriate conditions for military intervention. I'm not sure one can do that with any degree of thoroughness. You have described the problem accurately though when you refer to the leadership and its motivation. These decisions are ultimately are in the hands of the country's leadership and if that leadership is corrupt and acts poorly- to come full circle- we have the right to be critical. If that leadership acts on the behalf of a people in need... we can be grateful.
tbh ive never been grateful for any actions of my government.. cause I know they've never been on behalf of the people in need... but on behalf of a greater power... whether that be a foreign nation under the guise of or the govt itself acting as an omnipotent being disregarding the needs and wants of the people it imposed itself upon.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The questions you posed were legitimate. I never got the impression you were being defensive. I think we can agree (as you have essentially stated it here) that the presidency's role has shifted to become somewhat of a puppet for big business.
I can never be defensive when discussing the actions of other. im not responsible for them.
I can not agree with your supposition in this instance about my views of the presidents role vis a vis big business cause my comments as stated were relation to the australian govt.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well call me a moron!
not gonna happen.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Bingo! What is 3 billion on poppies a year???
(and I'm not disagreeing strongly, but I think it's a mistake to just flatly group Canada with the US here.... still. If Harper and the Conservatives stick around much longer, that won't be the case)
ummm ok. :roll: .
nah, you are already convinced the US is evil so not really worth the effort getting into it when there is no chance to change your mind. good luck though.
has North Korea invaded any country in the last 2 decades? ... has North Korea supplied arms to terrorist groups in Syria? ... and you do know that North Korea is great at issuing threats and then entertaining the likes of Dennis Rodman? ...
http://nation.time.com/2013/06/06/north ... mushrooms/
if you are getting your global geo-politics via sound bites from cnn and fox ... you're really just playing into the propaganda ... is north korea disney world in disguise? ... of course not but there are no facts that could remotely put it on the top of the list of countries that threaten world peace ...
sorry ... i apologize if my posts are condescending but all i'm reading is the same old talking points the US uses to drum up it's wars against all those countries ... i don't read any facts or reason ... just throwing out the same axis of evil stuff ... i mean syria? ... you have the US funding al qaeda rebels (apparently not terrorists anymore because they are doing the US's bidding) and Syria is a threat to global peace? ... the fact that the US spends probably 10 x the amount on weapons as all your countries combined should be indication enough that they are small potatoes ... do you think iran would be searching for nukes if the US hadn't allowed israel to go nuclear?
are these countries utopic - hell no but they don't come close to the US when it comes to being a threat to world peace ...
based on what??
is Iran invading other countries? ... sure they are engaged in proxy wars but nothing on the scale of the US ... give me something to prove your point ... the US allowing Israel to go nuclear in the region is not some colonial piece of history ... it's relative recent and that's what we're talking about ... i'm not even going into the CIA overthrow of Iran that has led us to the hardline country that it is now ...
you do realize that with the only real threat Iran has made is to the zionist jews right? ... and those people are second on my list on threats to global peace ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-r04SQ97_Q
(oh, and PS - I actually think that Islamic extremists are the biggest threat to world peace right now, but since we're talking nations, I didn't include them)
Agreed.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I don't believe the US is the greatest threat to world peace there is and I don't think there is any guarantee that whatever comes next will be much better. Probably a likelihood that it will be much worse, actually, but I am probably in the minority on that here. So I am curious to hear how people envision a post-American global world.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
No it isn't.
Contrary to all logic.
Why America and Israel Are the Greatest Threats to Peace
Imagine if Iran -- or any other country -- did a fraction of what American and Israel do at will
Noam Chomsky
September 3, 2012
'...Like its patron, Israel resorts to violence at will. It persists in illegal settlement in occupied territory, some annexed, all in brazen defiance of international law and the U.N. Security Council. It has repeatedly carried out brutal attacks against Lebanon and the imprisoned people of Gaza, killing tens of thousands without credible pretext.
Thirty years ago Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, an act that has recently been praised, avoiding the strong evidence, even from U.S. intelligence, that the bombing did not end Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program but rather initiated it. Bombing of Iran might have the same effect.
Iran too has carried out aggression – but during the past several hundred years, only under the U.S.-backed regime of the shah, when it conquered Arab islands in the Persian Gulf.
Iran engaged in nuclear development programs under the shah, with the strong support of official Washington. The Iranian government is brutal and repressive, as are Washington’s allies in the region. The most important ally, Saudi Arabia, is the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime, and spends enormous funds spreading its radical Wahhabist doctrines elsewhere. The gulf dictatorships, also favored U.S. allies, have harshly repressed any popular effort to join the Arab Spring.
The Nonaligned Movement – the governments of most of the world’s population – is now meeting in Teheran. The group has vigorously endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium, and some members – India, for example – adhere to the harsh U.S. sanctions program only partially and reluctantly.
The NAM delegates doubtless recognize the threat that dominates discussion in the West, lucidly articulated by Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command: “It is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East,” one nation should arm itself with nuclear weapons, which “inspires other nations to do so.”
Butler is not referring to Iran, but to Israel, which is regarded in the Arab countries and in Europe as posing the greatest threat to peace In the Arab world, the United States is ranked second as a threat, while Iran, though disliked, is far less feared. Indeed in many polls majorities hold that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons to balance the threats they perceive...'
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-iran ... -chomsky-1
The Iranian Threat
Noam Chomsky
July 2010
'...The brutal clerical regime is doubtless a threat to its own people, though it does not rank particularly high in that respect in comparison to U.S. allies in the region. But that is not what concerns the military and intelligence assessments. Rather, they are concerned with the threat Iran poses to the region and the world.
The reports make it clear that the Iranian threat is not military. Iran's military spending is "relatively low compared to the rest of the region," and minuscule as compared to the U.S. Iranian military doctrine is strictly "defensive…designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities." Iran has only "a limited capability to project force beyond its borders." With regard to the nuclear option, "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."
Though the Iranian threat is not military aggression, that does not mean that it might be tolerable to Washington. Iranian deterrent capacity is considered an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that interferes with U.S. global designs. Specifically, it threatens U.S. control of Middle East energy resources, a high priority of planners since World War II. As one influential figure advised, expressing a common understanding, control of these resources yields "substantial control of the world" (A. A. Berle).
But Iran's threat goes beyond deterrence. It is also seeking to expand its influence. Iran's "current five-year plan seeks to expand bilateral, regional, and international relations, strengthen Iran's ties with friendly states, and enhance its defense and deterrent capabilities. Commensurate with that plan, Iran is seeking to increase its stature by countering U.S. influence and expanding ties with regional actors while advocating Islamic solidarity." In short, Iran is seeking to "destabilize" the region, in the technical sense of the term used by General Petraeus. U.S. invasion and military occupation of Iran's neighbors is "stabilization." Iran's efforts to extend its influence in neighboring countries is "destabilization," hence plainly illegitimate. It should be noted that such revealing usage is routine. Thus, the prominent foreign policy analyst James Chace, former editor of the main establishment journal Foreign Affairs, was properly using the term "stability" in its technical sense when he explained that in order to achieve "stability" in Chile it was necessary to "destabilize" the country (by overthrowing the elected Allende government and installing the Pinochet dictatorship)...'
Looking at the bigger picture, it also seems to me that the stability of the world- at least in terms of human viability- rests on the environmental changes being propagated but the largest of the developed countries of the world. These are the ones eating up the most resources, causing the most pollution, having the greatest affect on climate change, as well as being large in their (our) responsibility for rapid species decline. The "apocalypse" is not just a nuclear war issue.
I think it's certain countries over reaction to islamic extremists that is the biggest threat to world peace right now.