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.
um.....I'm sorry but if it does lead back to the US, then what fraction of responsibility should we portion out to those in charge? Genuine question
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.
um.....I'm sorry but if it does lead back to the US, then what fraction of responsibility should we portion out to those in charge? Genuine question
I actually think that Islamic extremists are the biggest threat to world peace right now
Agreed.
I think it's certain countries over reaction to islamic extremists that is the biggest threat to world peace right now.
I disagree because left unchecked Islamic extremists would still be trying to do whatever they could to destroy and/or destabilize the western world. If "America" or "NATO" or "the west" completely withdrew from the middle east tomorrow there would still be islamic extremism and they would still be a huge threat to 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 ...
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.
um.....I'm sorry but if it does lead back to the US, then what fraction of responsibility should we portion out to those in charge? Genuine question
I really don't know how to answer that question.... what would be the point of you or me deciding what portion of responsibility should be laid on those in charge?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I actually think that Islamic extremists are the biggest threat to world peace right now
Agreed.
I think it's certain countries over reaction to islamic extremists that is the biggest threat to world peace right now.
I'm not sure who you're talking about.... If you're talking about the US, then that makes little sense at this present point in time. If you'd said it some years ago you might have had a point. If you're not talking about the US, I'm just wondering which countries' reactions you're talking about, and how you think they are overreacting and how their overreactions are a greater threat to world peace than Islamic extremists around the world.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think it's certain countries over reaction to islamic extremists that is the biggest threat to world peace right now.
I disagree because left unchecked Islamic extremists would still be trying to do whatever they could to destroy and/or destabilize the western world. If "America" or "NATO" or "the west" completely withdrew from the middle east tomorrow there would still be islamic extremism and they would still be a huge threat to world peace.
It's not just what they do to the West. Islamic extremists cause massive upheaval and death where they live too, in loads of places all over the Middle East and Asia. It's not all about "us". There is a lot of world out there, and North America isn't the centre of it.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It's not just what they do to the West. Islamic extremists cause massive upheaval and death where they live too, in loads of places all over the Middle East and Asia. It's not all about "us". There is a lot of world out there, and North America isn't the centre of it.
I disagree because left unchecked Islamic extremists would still be trying to do whatever they could to destroy and/or destabilize the western world. If "America" or "NATO" or "the west" completely withdrew from the middle east tomorrow there would still be islamic extremism and they would still be a huge threat to world peace.
I never said anything about leaving unchecked. There are greater problems in the world that should demand more attention, and funding, like poverty, environmentalist issues etc...
Yes I'm talking about the US, but I also include Britain and a few others.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians dead as a direct result of the ongoing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Drone strikes in Pakistan and other areas of the region, children being slaughtered. What exactly do you think the relatives of these victims will do when they come of age? Is there any chance that perhaps it is US foreign policy which does more to radicalise people than any book?
It's not just what they do to the West. Islamic extremists cause massive upheaval and death where they live too, in loads of places all over the Middle East and Asia. It's not all about "us". There is a lot of world out there, and North America isn't the centre of it.
You actually sound like somebody who doesn't live in a country that's been almost perpetually engaged in foreign wars of occupation, economic imperialism, and the direct support of ethnic cleansing and genocide.
I think it's certain countries over reaction to islamic extremists that is the biggest threat to world peace right now.
I disagree because left unchecked Islamic extremists would still be trying to do whatever they could to destroy and/or destabilize the western world. If "America" or "NATO" or "the west" completely withdrew from the middle east tomorrow there would still be islamic extremism and they would still be a huge threat to world peace.
what's this myth of "world peace" you speak of?
When the last human being breathes their last breath , then and only then will there be world peace.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I disagree because left unchecked Islamic extremists would still be trying to do whatever they could to destroy and/or destabilize the western world. If "America" or "NATO" or "the west" completely withdrew from the middle east tomorrow there would still be islamic extremism and they would still be a huge threat to world peace.
I never said anything about leaving unchecked. There are greater problems in the world that should demand more attention, and funding, like poverty, environmentalist issues etc...
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.
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.
Well i didn't answer because we're in agreement on this issue... In many ways, America is actually very stabilizing.
I am totally willing to lay blame on America when it's warranted, but I think a lot of people have trouble looking at this question objectively and in accurate relation to other nations. I think it's possibly because many people, especially Americans, are hyperaware of what the US does, but are largely or at least relatively ignorant to what is actually going on in the rest of the world. It's like an America as the centre of the universe complex, but in a negative context. Not to say I'm underestimating what the US does do... But biggest threat to world peace?? It's even been suggested that's the case in the context of environmental harm?? Come on. I think that demonstrates a foggy perspective on things. But hey, that's just my opinion obviously.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I am totally willing to lay blame on America when it's warranted, but I think a lot of people have trouble looking at this question objectively and in accurate relation to other nations. I think it's possibly because many people, especially Americans, are hyperaware of what the US does, but are largely or at least relatively ignorant to what is actually going on in the rest of the world. It's like an America as the centre of the universe complex, but in a negative context. Not to say I'm underestimating what the US does do... But biggest threat to world peace?? It's even been suggested that's the case in the context of environmental harm?? Come on. I think that demonstrates a foggy perspective on things. But hey, that's just my opinion obviously.
I think you are on the right track here. I would have been much less likely to argue if the statement had been that the US is A threat to world peace. A case can be made for that. But the BIGGEST threat to world peace? I think that is an overreach.
I disagree because left unchecked Islamic extremists would still be trying to do whatever they could to destroy and/or destabilize the western world. If "America" or "NATO" or "the west" completely withdrew from the middle east tomorrow there would still be islamic extremism and they would still be a huge threat to world peace.
I never said anything about leaving unchecked. There are greater problems in the world that should demand more attention, and funding, like poverty, environmentalist issues etc...
OK...please expand upon this.
I'm not sure what you want me to expand on. I'm of the opinion that if similar efforts and budgets were placed on ensuring hunger & poverty was eradicated and alternative fuels harnessed, that are put into the ever expanding war machine then what a place we would live in.
This is not solely an American issue, but again responsibility for the current state of affairs, and the place the world currently finds itself cannot be shirked either.
I am totally willing to lay blame on America when it's warranted, but I think a lot of people have trouble looking at this question objectively and in accurate relation to other nations. I think it's possibly because many people, especially Americans, are hyperaware of what the US does, but are largely or at least relatively ignorant to what is actually going on in the rest of the world.
I think that the people who live in 'the rest of the World' are perfectly aware of what's 'actually going on in the rest of the world', including those at the receiving end of America's bombs, whether directly, or by way of U.S client states, such as Israel, and/or U.S backed dictators. I mean, you could always pop down to Chile, Guatemala, or El Salvador, and ask the people there what they think about the U.S's role in World affairs over the past 60 years.
It's even been suggested that's the case in the context of environmental harm?? Come on. I think that demonstrates a foggy perspective on things.
I think your comment demonstrates a foggy perspective on things considering the U.S represents 5% of the Worlds population yet 'produces an estimated 30% of the world’s waste and uses 25% of the world’s resources.' - http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools ... -pollution
I think your comment demonstrates a foggy perspective on things considering the U.S represents 5% of the Worlds population yet 'produces an estimated 30% of the world’s waste and uses 25% of the world’s resources.' - http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools ... -pollution
It's tough to refute some of those statistics. They are gross and at a minimum beg consideration if one hasn't thought to ponder them as of yet. While the US are certainly gluttons at the trough (so to speak) Canada- and other 'advanced' countries- aren't fantastic either. There is much work to be done if we are to prevent a global meltdown.
To me, it is inevitable that large cities will become apocalyptic wastelands without electricity, oil and natural resources to sustain the human population that reside there. We will not see this in our lifetime and neither will our children. But I cannot safely 'predict' much after these generations though. I mean come on... how do people think we can sustain our current lifestyles without a serious correction?
This statistic from your link offers some hope: Recycling and composting prevented 85 million tons of material away from being disposed of in 2010, up from 18 million tons in 1980.
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.
the world would most definitely be more safe ... and i pose these points for why i believe it to be so:
a) US foreign policy is based strictly on economic imperialism ... this means that while many want to believe the US venture into foreign lands to instill democracy and build hospitals ... that is simply not factual ... incursions into central america and the middle east have all been to ensure US corporations have access to resources ... and in some degree provide "engineering contracts" for companies like haliburton ... is it a coincidence that you get into a war in iraq based on lies then hand out no bid contracts to haliburton and have them overcharge the gov't? ...
b) the military industrial complex ... any country that bases a good chunk of their economy on war profiteering cannot be good for peace ... how do you promote arms sales? ... you create wars and create political instability in regions ... who's arming the "rebels" in Syria? ... known al qaeda operatives? ... that's right the world's biggest purveyor of arms ... the US ...
c) now, if we focus on other threats to peace such as population destabilization ... i could go on about global warming and famine and disease ... but i'm sure many here would simply ignore it ... so, i'll save my fingers the time ...
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.
the world would most definitely be more safe ... and i pose these points for why i believe it to be so:
a) US foreign policy is based strictly on economic imperialism ... this means that while many want to believe the US venture into foreign lands to instill democracy and build hospitals ... that is simply not factual ... incursions into central america and the middle east have all been to ensure US corporations have access to resources ... and in some degree provide "engineering contracts" for companies like haliburton ... is it a coincidence that you get into a war in iraq based on lies then hand out no bid contracts to haliburton and have them overcharge the gov't? ...
b) the military industrial complex ... any country that bases a good chunk of their economy on war profiteering cannot be good for peace ... how do you promote arms sales? ... you create wars and create political instability in regions ... who's arming the "rebels" in Syria? ... known al qaeda operatives? ... that's right the world's biggest purveyor of arms ... the US ...
c) now, if we focus on other threats to peace such as population destabilization ... i could go on about global warming and famine and disease ... but i'm sure many here would simply ignore it ... so, i'll save my fingers the time ...
But doesn't proclaiming that the world would be more safe just assume that whatever nation filled the vacuum created at the top would be better? I think that is a rather large assumption.
I'm not sure what you want me to expand on. I'm of the opinion that if similar efforts and budgets were placed on ensuring hunger & poverty was eradicated and alternative fuels harnessed, that are put into the ever expanding war machine then what a place we would live in.
This is not solely an American issue, but again responsibility for the current state of affairs, and the place the world currently finds itself cannot be shirked either.
I too would like to see increased means of harnessing alternative fuels.
I guess I don't totally see your point here because while more could certainly be done no country in the world gives more humanitarian aid than the US.
But doesn't proclaiming that the world would be more safe just assume that whatever nation filled the vacuum created at the top would be better? I think that is a rather large assumption.
but that is based on the assumption that every country would choose to operate in the same manner as the US if they could ... if that was the case - corporations like monsanto would have a larger foothold in europe ... but they don't ... it would mean that countries that the US has no interest in - others would exploit ... that isn't necessarily the case ...
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.
the world would most definitely be more safe ... and i pose these points for why i believe it to be so:
a) US foreign policy is based strictly on economic imperialism ... this means that while many want to believe the US venture into foreign lands to instill democracy and build hospitals ... that is simply not factual ... incursions into central america and the middle east have all been to ensure US corporations have access to resources ... and in some degree provide "engineering contracts" for companies like haliburton ... is it a coincidence that you get into a war in iraq based on lies then hand out no bid contracts to haliburton and have them overcharge the gov't? ...
b) the military industrial complex ... any country that bases a good chunk of their economy on war profiteering cannot be good for peace ... how do you promote arms sales? ... you create wars and create political instability in regions ... who's arming the "rebels" in Syria? ... known al qaeda operatives? ... that's right the world's biggest purveyor of arms ... the US ...
c) now, if we focus on other threats to peace such as population destabilization ... i could go on about global warming and famine and disease ... but i'm sure many here would simply ignore it ... so, i'll save my fingers the time ...
But doesn't proclaiming that the world would be more safe just assume that whatever nation filled the vacuum created at the top would be better? I think that is a rather large assumption.
Ditto
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
But doesn't proclaiming that the world would be more safe just assume that whatever nation filled the vacuum created at the top would be better? I think that is a rather large assumption.
but that is based on the assumption that every country would choose to operate in the same manner as the US if they could ... if that was the case - corporations like monsanto would have a larger foothold in europe ... but they don't ... it would mean that countries that the US has no interest in - others would exploit ... that isn't necessarily the case ...
I don't think that's what his assumption is. There are infinite possibilities as to how any country would choose to operate, and any number of those ways could be as bad or much worse than the US now (the chances of it being worse are far greater than it being better IMO).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't think that's what his assumption is. There are infinite possibilities as to how any country would choose to operate, and any number of those ways could be as bad or much worse than the US now (the chances of it being worse are far greater than it being better IMO).
based on what? ... how many other countries are currently engaged in multiple wars for the sole purpose of resource control and war profiteering? ... how many innocent people have died (many children) in iraq because of a lie? ... yet, other countries are more of a threat?
throw me a bone here ... give me some back up to your beliefs ... all i hear is this country or that country will be worse ... but with absolutely no reasoning whatsoever ...
i pose my reasons for my beliefs and all i get is ... muslim extremists are a bigger threat ... followed by i agree ... like, do you guys not get how frustrating that is? ...
I don't think that's what his assumption is. There are infinite possibilities as to how any country would choose to operate, and any number of those ways could be as bad or much worse than the US now (the chances of it being worse are far greater than it being better IMO).
based on what? ... how many other countries are currently engaged in multiple wars for the sole purpose of resource control and war profiteering? ... how many innocent people have died (many children) in iraq because of a lie? ... yet, other countries are more of a threat?
throw me a bone here ... give me some back up to your beliefs ... all i hear is this country or that country will be worse ... but with absolutely no reasoning whatsoever ...
i pose my reasons for my beliefs and all i get is ... muslim extremists are a bigger threat ... followed by i agree ... like, do you guys not get how frustrating that is? ...
Based on what? On the fact that all people and government are totally fucked up, and I would never trust any nation to do a good job of being the most powerful country in the world. We're talking fake scenarios here - I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue. You have as little or less reasoning behind your assumption that a fantasy nation would do better than the US, sooooo....
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Based on what? On the fact that all people and government are totally fucked up, and I would never trust any nation to do a good job of being the most powerful country in the world. We're talking fake scenarios here - I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue. You have as little or less reasoning behind your assumption that a fantasy nation would do better than the US, sooooo....
soo ... i give you reasons why the US is the greatest threat to peace and you just diagree with no counterpoints to my reasoning ... then i explain why the world would indeed be a safer place and again no counterpoints nor any foundation ... i list things that should disgust you as a human being and instead of trying to prove that it's not true or something like that ... all you do is say another country would be worse but without any supporting evidence ...
not even sure where you got this fantasy nation thing either ...
Based on what? On the fact that all people and government are totally fucked up, and I would never trust any nation to do a good job of being the most powerful country in the world. We're talking fake scenarios here - I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue. You have as little or less reasoning behind your assumption that a fantasy nation would do better than the US, sooooo....
soo ... i give you reasons why the US is the greatest threat to peace and you just diagree with no counterpoints to my reasoning ... then i explain why the world would indeed be a safer place and again no counterpoints nor any foundation ... i list things that should disgust you as a human being and instead of trying to prove that it's not true or something like that ... all you do is say another country would be worse but without any supporting evidence ...
not even sure where you got this fantasy nation thing either ...
I don't have any evidence that another country would be worse. I don't have any evidence that another country would be better either, and neither do you. There is no possible way to say that one way or the other, and no way to present evidence for or against. I have read your reasoning behind thinking that the US is currently the greatest threat to world peace, and respect your views, and haven't argued with the facts that you outline (and of course I'm disgusted; I just don't discuss things like this with my emotions, because it's counterproductive). I just don't agree that these facts equal the US being the greatest threat to world peace in the world, because I think that any nation that is currently developing a nuclear weapons program and seems to possibly have a mind to actually use them, or to use them as leverage as they start a new war is more of a current threat. Iran fits that bill IMO (if we're talking nations only). The US doesn't IMO. I've already said that. Also, the US also has a role in the world as a nation that initiates diplomacy, which also works to balance things out, which no one seems to take into account while discussing the theoretical, unprovable idea of who or what is the biggest threat in the world.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't have any evidence that another country would be worse. I don't have any evidence that another country would be better either, and neither do you. There is no possible way to say that one way or the other, and no way to present evidence for or against. I have read your reasoning behind thinking that the US is currently the greatest threat to world peace, and respect your views, and haven't argued with the facts that you outline (and of course I'm disgusted; I just don't discuss things like this with my emotions, because it's counterproductive). I just don't agree that these facts equal the US being the greatest threat to world peace in the world, because I think that any nation that is currently developing a nuclear weapons program and seems to possibly have a mind to actually use them, or to use them as leverage as they start a new war is more of a current threat. Iran fits that bill IMO. The US doesn't IMO. I've already said that. Also, the US also has a role in the world as a nation that initiates diplomacy, which also works to balance things out, which no one seems to take into account while discussing the theoretical, unprovable idea of who or what is the biggest threat in the world.
there is only 1 that has ever used nuclear weapons ... and continues to use nuclear weapons ... and it's the USA ...
diplomacy? ... you call sending drones into pakistan diplomacy? ... you call arming al qaeda in syria diplomacy? ... you call vetoing every UN resolution against Israel diplomacy? ... i'm really not sure how you can give a country that has killed millions of innocent people and caused horrendous suffering based on a lie diplomatic ...
Comments
um.....I'm sorry but if it does lead back to the US, then what fraction of responsibility should we portion out to those in charge? Genuine question
um.....I'm sorry but if it does lead back to the US, then what fraction of responsibility should we portion out to those in charge? Genuine question
I disagree because left unchecked Islamic extremists would still be trying to do whatever they could to destroy and/or destabilize the western world. If "America" or "NATO" or "the west" completely withdrew from the middle east tomorrow there would still be islamic extremism and they would still be a huge threat to world peace.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Very true.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I never said anything about leaving unchecked. There are greater problems in the world that should demand more attention, and funding, like poverty, environmentalist issues etc...
You actually sound like somebody who doesn't live in a country that's been almost perpetually engaged in foreign wars of occupation, economic imperialism, and the direct support of ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Funny that.
When the last human being breathes their last breath , then and only then will there be world peace.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
OK...please expand upon this.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I am totally willing to lay blame on America when it's warranted, but I think a lot of people have trouble looking at this question objectively and in accurate relation to other nations. I think it's possibly because many people, especially Americans, are hyperaware of what the US does, but are largely or at least relatively ignorant to what is actually going on in the rest of the world. It's like an America as the centre of the universe complex, but in a negative context. Not to say I'm underestimating what the US does do... But biggest threat to world peace?? It's even been suggested that's the case in the context of environmental harm?? Come on. I think that demonstrates a foggy perspective on things. But hey, that's just my opinion obviously.
We are.
I think you are on the right track here. I would have been much less likely to argue if the statement had been that the US is A threat to world peace. A case can be made for that. But the BIGGEST threat to world peace? I think that is an overreach.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
True enough. I don't believe world peace has ever truly existed at any point in human history, regardless of what nation or nations were dominant.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I'm not sure what you want me to expand on. I'm of the opinion that if similar efforts and budgets were placed on ensuring hunger & poverty was eradicated and alternative fuels harnessed, that are put into the ever expanding war machine then what a place we would live in.
This is not solely an American issue, but again responsibility for the current state of affairs, and the place the world currently finds itself cannot be shirked either.
I think that the people who live in 'the rest of the World' are perfectly aware of what's 'actually going on in the rest of the world', including those at the receiving end of America's bombs, whether directly, or by way of U.S client states, such as Israel, and/or U.S backed dictators. I mean, you could always pop down to Chile, Guatemala, or El Salvador, and ask the people there what they think about the U.S's role in World affairs over the past 60 years.
I think your comment demonstrates a foggy perspective on things considering the U.S represents 5% of the Worlds population yet 'produces an estimated 30% of the world’s waste and uses 25% of the world’s resources.' - http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools ... -pollution
It's tough to refute some of those statistics. They are gross and at a minimum beg consideration if one hasn't thought to ponder them as of yet. While the US are certainly gluttons at the trough (so to speak) Canada- and other 'advanced' countries- aren't fantastic either. There is much work to be done if we are to prevent a global meltdown.
To me, it is inevitable that large cities will become apocalyptic wastelands without electricity, oil and natural resources to sustain the human population that reside there. We will not see this in our lifetime and neither will our children. But I cannot safely 'predict' much after these generations though. I mean come on... how do people think we can sustain our current lifestyles without a serious correction?
This statistic from your link offers some hope: Recycling and composting prevented 85 million tons of material away from being disposed of in 2010, up from 18 million tons in 1980.
the world would most definitely be more safe ... and i pose these points for why i believe it to be so:
a) US foreign policy is based strictly on economic imperialism ... this means that while many want to believe the US venture into foreign lands to instill democracy and build hospitals ... that is simply not factual ... incursions into central america and the middle east have all been to ensure US corporations have access to resources ... and in some degree provide "engineering contracts" for companies like haliburton ... is it a coincidence that you get into a war in iraq based on lies then hand out no bid contracts to haliburton and have them overcharge the gov't? ...
b) the military industrial complex ... any country that bases a good chunk of their economy on war profiteering cannot be good for peace ... how do you promote arms sales? ... you create wars and create political instability in regions ... who's arming the "rebels" in Syria? ... known al qaeda operatives? ... that's right the world's biggest purveyor of arms ... the US ...
c) now, if we focus on other threats to peace such as population destabilization ... i could go on about global warming and famine and disease ... but i'm sure many here would simply ignore it ... so, i'll save my fingers the time ...
But doesn't proclaiming that the world would be more safe just assume that whatever nation filled the vacuum created at the top would be better? I think that is a rather large assumption.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I too would like to see increased means of harnessing alternative fuels.
I guess I don't totally see your point here because while more could certainly be done no country in the world gives more humanitarian aid than the US.
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance ... ted-states
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
but that is based on the assumption that every country would choose to operate in the same manner as the US if they could ... if that was the case - corporations like monsanto would have a larger foothold in europe ... but they don't ... it would mean that countries that the US has no interest in - others would exploit ... that isn't necessarily the case ...
based on what? ... how many other countries are currently engaged in multiple wars for the sole purpose of resource control and war profiteering? ... how many innocent people have died (many children) in iraq because of a lie? ... yet, other countries are more of a threat?
throw me a bone here ... give me some back up to your beliefs ... all i hear is this country or that country will be worse ... but with absolutely no reasoning whatsoever ...
i pose my reasons for my beliefs and all i get is ... muslim extremists are a bigger threat ... followed by i agree ... like, do you guys not get how frustrating that is? ...
soo ... i give you reasons why the US is the greatest threat to peace and you just diagree with no counterpoints to my reasoning ... then i explain why the world would indeed be a safer place and again no counterpoints nor any foundation ... i list things that should disgust you as a human being and instead of trying to prove that it's not true or something like that ... all you do is say another country would be worse but without any supporting evidence ...
not even sure where you got this fantasy nation thing either ...
there is only 1 that has ever used nuclear weapons ... and continues to use nuclear weapons ... and it's the USA ...
diplomacy? ... you call sending drones into pakistan diplomacy? ... you call arming al qaeda in syria diplomacy? ... you call vetoing every UN resolution against Israel diplomacy? ... i'm really not sure how you can give a country that has killed millions of innocent people and caused horrendous suffering based on a lie diplomatic ...