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 ...
I know - but that was then, and we're talking now I thought. What the US has done in the past is irrelevant to the discussion IMO.
No, I don't call those things diplomatic, but they don't wipe out other things that the US has done. I'm not defending the US's actions; I'm just being objective when considering who is currently the biggest threat to world peace. what the US has done in the past shouldn't be a factor here. The only things I'm considering are current events that could lead to the greatest threat. I think Iran is the nation that is currently posing the greatest threat.... I think you are being overly emotional when considering this question. I'm not arguing with you about what the US has done wrong, yet you continue to act as though I am.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I know - but that was then, and we're talking now I thought. What the US has done in the past is irrelevant to the discussion IMO.
No, I call those things diplomatic, but they don't wipe out other things that the US has done. I'm not defending the US's actions; I'm just being objective when considering who is currently the biggest threat to world peace. what the US has done in the past shouldn't be a factor here. The only things I'm considering are current events that could lead to the greatest threat. I think Iran is the nation that is currently posing the greatest threat.... I think you are being overly emotional when considering this question. I'm not arguing with you about what the US has done wrong, yet you continue to act as though I am.
i was referring to depleted uranium during the gulf war ... if that history doesn't count as current ... then the US may not be currently using nuclear weapons ... which if you consider the lifespan of radioactivity is still causing suffering in the region ... i'm not just talking hiroshima ...
what the US has done in its past (within the last decade) is an indication of what it is doing now and in the future ...
emotion!? ... the only thing that is somewhat emotional is the frustration of this particular conversation ... you believe iran is the biggest threat but give absolutely no factual argument ... has iran invaded any country in the last decade? ... my rationalization of the US is based on facts ... you suffer from the same issues as jimmy v as you believe i have some hatred for the country ... which is fine but then it renders our discussion useless as everything i write will be misinterpreted imo ...
you say there is no way of knowing if the world would be a safer place if the US didn't exist ... well, of course ... but the question was posed and if you believe that it wouldn't ... then state your reasons ... give your objective rationale ... i've given mine ... if you choose not to argue those points ... i can only assume they are not false which would then lead me to believe that if you still feel that is would be safer that you would have a reason to believe so ... of which i have yet to hear any ...
I know - but that was then, and we're talking now I thought. What the US has done in the past is irrelevant to the discussion IMO.
No, I call those things diplomatic, but they don't wipe out other things that the US has done. I'm not defending the US's actions; I'm just being objective when considering who is currently the biggest threat to world peace. what the US has done in the past shouldn't be a factor here. The only things I'm considering are current events that could lead to the greatest threat. I think Iran is the nation that is currently posing the greatest threat.... I think you are being overly emotional when considering this question. I'm not arguing with you about what the US has done wrong, yet you continue to act as though I am.
i was referring to depleted uranium during the gulf war ... if that history doesn't count as current ... then the US may not be currently using nuclear weapons ... which if you consider the lifespan of radioactivity is still causing suffering in the region ... i'm not just talking hiroshima ...
what the US has done in its past (within the last decade) is an indication of what it is doing now and in the future ...
emotion!? ... the only thing that is somewhat emotional is the frustration of this particular conversation ... you believe iran is the biggest threat but give absolutely no factual argument ... has iran invaded any country in the last decade? ... my rationalization of the US is based on facts ... you suffer from the same issues as jimmy v as you believe i have some hatred for the country ... which is fine but then it renders our discussion useless as everything i write will be misinterpreted imo ...
you say there is no way of knowing if the world would be a safer place if the US didn't exist ... well, of course ... but the question was posed and if you believe that it wouldn't ... then state your reasons ... give your objective rationale ... i've given mine ... if you choose not to argue those points ... i can only assume they are not false which would then lead me to believe that if you still feel that is would be safer that you would have a reason to believe so ... of which i have yet to hear any ...
It doesn't matter what Iran has done in the past 10 years. I'm thinking about what Iran could do in the future. I said earlier in the thread that if we were having this conversation 8 years ago, I would say that the US is the biggest threat to world peace. That is no longer the case, and now Iran is IMO, because Iran is the nation that is now developing a nuclear weapons program, basing its foreign policies largely on antisemitism and religious fanaticism, has Imams influencing politics, and they are threatening Israel with war on a regular basis, and considering who Israel's allies are, and who THEIR allies are, that could mean world war. The US is currently winding down their war, while Iran threatens a new one. I've already said all this earlier, so I wish you would stop accusing me of not explaining my point.
As for objective rationale as to what might happen if the US didn't exist.... I can't give any, as that would be impossible - anything you've said on that matter that you think is objective rationale isn't rational either. For all I know, if the US didn't exist, then China would have taken over the world and instated a Communist dictatorship on an international scale, using force to do it ... THAT certainly wouldn't be better than the current state of affairs, right? ... but that is just fantasy, and therefore totally irrelevant.
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 ...
No, it isn't. You might be right and whatever comes next would be better, but that is far from a guarantee. I think it is shortsighted to just assume things would be better.
No, it isn't. You might be right and whatever comes next would be better, but that is far from a guarantee. I think it is shortsighted to just assume things would be better.
this is what i'm getting at ...
i explain to you my rationale as to why it would be better ... it isn't an assumption ... it's an opinion based on rationalization of facts and observations ... if you disagree ... explain why ... counter my points ... just saying it won't be is a bigger assumption as you aren't basing it on anything ...
No, it isn't. You might be right and whatever comes next would be better, but that is far from a guarantee. I think it is shortsighted to just assume things would be better.
this is what i'm getting at ...
i explain to you my rationale as to why it would be better ... it isn't an assumption ... it's an opinion based on rationalization of facts and observations ... if you disagree ... explain why ... counter my points ... just saying it won't be is a bigger assumption as you aren't basing it on anything ...
This is what I'm getting at...
I have no interest in countering any of your points because i believe them to be a) beside my point and b) ground we have already covered. I am not saying that anything you have said in this thread is either correct or incorrect. What I am saying is that it is easy to say that whatever comes next will be better but you have no way to know that for sure. Simply rehashing why you believe the US to be bad does not change that fact.
(I do see that you dropped in earlier that I have issues. Whatever dude.)
No, it isn't. You might be right and whatever comes next would be better, but that is far from a guarantee. I think it is shortsighted to just assume things would be better.
this is what i'm getting at ...
i explain to you my rationale as to why it would be better ... it isn't an assumption ... it's an opinion based on rationalization of facts and observations ... if you disagree ... explain why ... counter my points ... just saying it won't be is a bigger assumption as you aren't basing it on anything ...
I can't speak for JimmyV, but I'm not bothering to go any further into it because it's so pointless and feels like a waste of time and energy to get more into it. JimmyV and I will be just as "right" and justified as you on this matter without bothering to counter your points.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It doesn't matter what Iran has done in the past 10 years. I'm thinking about what Iran could do in the future. I said earlier in the thread that if we were having this conversation 8 years ago, I would say that the US is the biggest threat to world peace. That is no longer the case, and now Iran is IMO, because Iran is the nation that is now developing a nuclear weapons program, basing its foreign policies largely on antisemitism and religious fanaticism, has Imams influencing politics, and they are threatening Israel with war on a regular basis, and considering who Israel's allies are, and who THEIR allies are, that could mean world war. The US is currently winding down their war, while Iran threatens a new one. I've already said all this earlier, so I wish you would stop accusing me of not explaining my point.
As for objective rationale as to what might happen if the US didn't exist.... I can't give any, as that would be impossible - anything you've said on that matter that you think is objective rationale isn't rational either. For all I know, if the US didn't exist, then China would have taken over the world and instated a Communist dictatorship on an international scale, using force to do it ... THAT certainly wouldn't be better than the current state of affairs, right? ... but that is just fantasy, and therefore totally irrelevant.
iran is not anti-semtic ... they are anti-zionist ... huge difference ... i showed you the video of the president meeting jewish rabbis - if they were anti-semites, do you think there would be such a cordial meeting!?? ...
the US is always on the verge of war ... the axis of evil ... and at the same time always engaged in proxy wars such as the one in Syria now ... and as for israel ... why is it that every other country supports those resolutions!? ... is the rest of the world anti-semitic? ... does the rest of the world hate jews ... if you were iran and you saw what israel was doing in terms of expansion - and they had nuclear weapons ... wouldn't you want to protect yourself?
how can objective rationale not exist!? ... that makes no sense whatsoever ... predicting the future is for sure very hard but it is not impossible ... one may be wrong or right ... you simply take the best information possible and go with it ... either way - if you don't believe in the exercise - that is fine ... call it irrelevant but then don't argue against it ...
as for your theory on china ... has china engaged in any wars outside of its territories? ... has china invaded any country based on lies? ... what rationale do you have to say china could and would instill a communist style dictatorship on the rest of the world? ...
I have no interest in countering any of your points because i believe them to be a) beside my point and b) ground we have already covered. I am not saying that anything you have said in this thread is either correct or incorrect. What I am saying is that it is easy to say that whatever comes next will be better but you have no way to know that for sure. Simply rehashing why you believe the US to be bad does not change that fact.
(I do see that you dropped in earlier that I have issues. Whatever dude.)
then why pose the question then? ... and pose it twice as you weren't happy that no one responded? ... obviously, i have no way of knowing nor you ... but you asked the question ... so, what did you want to hear? ...
are you playing victim too? ... is it not true that you believe i have a prejudicial hatred for america? ... i don't think that's false in any way ... it's well documented ...
I have no interest in countering any of your points because i believe them to be a) beside my point and b) ground we have already covered. I am not saying that anything you have said in this thread is either correct or incorrect. What I am saying is that it is easy to say that whatever comes next will be better but you have no way to know that for sure. Simply rehashing why you believe the US to be bad does not change that fact.
(I do see that you dropped in earlier that I have issues. Whatever dude.)
then why pose the question then? ... and pose it twice as you weren't happy that no one responded? ... obviously, i have no way of knowing nor you ... but you asked the question ... so, what did you want to hear? ...
are you playing victim too? ... is it not true that you believe i have a prejudicial hatred for america? ... i don't think that's false in any way ... it's well documented ...
I posed the question because, as I said, I was curious to hear people's thoughts. That so few have answered it I think shows that it is difficult to answer. I am not particularly interested in your answer because i could have predicted it rather accurately. Was there really any new ground in your answer that we haven't already covered? I don't think so.
I posed the question because, as I said, I was curious to hear people's thoughts. That so few have answered it I think shows that it is difficult to answer. I am not particularly interested in your answer because i could have predicted it rather accurately. Was there really any new ground in your answer that we haven't already covered? I don't think so.
But, again, whatever dude.
you're right ... no new ground ... you didn't address them before and you aren't now ...
just know this - you asked a hypothetical question that can only be answered with a hypothetical response ... if my response was predictable - so was yours ... i would have hoped you would have engaged in a dialogue in a discussion you asked for ... twice ... but i guess not ...
I posed the question because, as I said, I was curious to hear people's thoughts. That so few have answered it I think shows that it is difficult to answer. I am not particularly interested in your answer because i could have predicted it rather accurately. Was there really any new ground in your answer that we haven't already covered? I don't think so.
But, again, whatever dude.
you're right ... no new ground ... you didn't address them before and you aren't now ...
just know this - you asked a hypothetical question that can only be answered with a hypothetical response ... if my response was predictable - so was yours ... i would have hoped you would have engaged in a dialogue in a discussion you asked for ... twice ... but i guess not ...
I have no desire to retread the same ground with you. Twice was enough. I posed a question to the forum and you answered. Great. Beyond that I have no interest in engaging in a debate with you.
I have no desire to retread the same ground with you. Twice was enough. I posed a question to the forum and you answered. Great. Beyond that I have no interest in engaging in a debate with you.
the problem with this is that you did ... you responded to my initial response ... you can put me as a foe (as previously suggested) or simply not respond to my posts ... but you asked the question, i responded and you responded to what i responded ... now that it's not gone the way you like - you say you don't want to engage in a debate with me when in fact you did ...
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 have no desire to retread the same ground with you. Twice was enough. I posed a question to the forum and you answered. Great. Beyond that I have no interest in engaging in a debate with you.
the problem with this is that you did ... you responded to my initial response ... you can put me as a foe (as previously suggested) or simply not respond to my posts ... but you asked the question, i responded and you responded to what i responded ... now that it's not gone the way you like - you say you don't want to engage in a debate with me when in fact you did ...
I pointed out that I believe you are making an assumption. You disagreed and trotted out a bunch of stuff that we have already gone over. I have no desire to retread that ground with you. Particularly because this time I don't believe any of it actually rebutted my point.
I'm not putting anyone on foe. If there is a worthwhile discussion to be had I will have it with anyone, you included.
I pointed out that I believe you are making an assumption. You disagreed and trotted out a bunch of stuff that we have already gone over. I have no desire to retread that ground with you. Particularly because this time I don't believe any of it actually rebutted my point.
I'm not putting anyone on foe. If there is a worthwhile discussion to be had I will have it with anyone, you included.
again - you asked a hypothetical question that asked for a hypothetical response ... there was no way in answering your question without making an assumption ... all i asked from you is that if you disagreed ... explain to me why ... that is all ...
if you didn't want to engage in the conversation or with me for that matter ... then don't respond ... but you did and i responded in kind ... saying i make assumptions is absurd that in order to answer your question we all have to ... even in countering it ... all i ask is that you have a rationale for believing other countries would act worse ... i don't think that was too much to ask considering it was your question to begin with ...
I pointed out that I believe you are making an assumption. You disagreed and trotted out a bunch of stuff that we have already gone over. I have no desire to retread that ground with you. Particularly because this time I don't believe any of it actually rebutted my point.
I'm not putting anyone on foe. If there is a worthwhile discussion to be had I will have it with anyone, you included.
again - you asked a hypothetical question that asked for a hypothetical response ... there was no way in answering your question without making an assumption ... all i asked from you is that if you disagreed ... explain to me why ... that is all ...
if you didn't want to engage in the conversation or with me for that matter ... then don't respond ... but you did and i responded in kind ... saying i make assumptions is absurd that in order to answer your question we all have to ... even in countering it ... all i ask is that you have a rationale for believing other countries would act worse ... i don't think that was too much to ask considering it was your question to begin with ...
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I pointed out that I believe you are making an assumption. You disagreed and trotted out a bunch of stuff that we have already gone over. I have no desire to retread that ground with you. Particularly because this time I don't believe any of it actually rebutted my point.
I'm not putting anyone on foe. If there is a worthwhile discussion to be had I will have it with anyone, you included.
again - you asked a hypothetical question that asked for a hypothetical response ... there was no way in answering your question without making an assumption ... all i asked from you is that if you disagreed ... explain to me why ... that is all ...
Thank you. Of course it was an assumption...and that is fine. I pointed it out only to illustrate that we do not know. As I said, you may be right. You may be wrong, but you may be right.
if you didn't want to engage in the conversation or with me for that matter ... then don't respond ... but you did and i responded in kind ... saying i make assumptions is absurd that in order to answer your question we all have to ... even in countering it ... all i ask is that you have a rationale for believing other countries would act worse ... i don't think that was too much to ask considering it was your question to begin with ...
Please don't put words in my mouth. No where did I say other countries would act worse. I said the possibility exists that other countries could act worse. That is not the same thing. I don't think saying other countries may act worse is a statement that needs to be backed up. Of course they may.
your position was that it would probably be worse ... i don't think i was putting words in your mouth ... if you are going to claim semantics so be it ...
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.
your position was that it would probably be worse ... i don't think i was putting words in your mouth ... if you are going to claim semantics so be it ...
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 think there is a good chance that it would be. Certainly no guarantee, but a strong possibility.
your position was that it would probably be worse ... i don't think i was putting words in your mouth ... if you are going to claim semantics so be it ...
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 think there is a good chance that it would be. Certainly no guarantee, but a strong possibility.
I agree.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think there is a good chance that it would be. Certainly no guarantee, but a strong possibility.
so, all i'm asking for is why? ... what is your reasoning? ... if you think it's a strong possibility - you obviously didn't just randomly come to that conclusion ...
I think there is a good chance that it would be. Certainly no guarantee, but a strong possibility.
so, all i'm asking for is why? ... what is your reasoning? ... if you think it's a strong possibility - you obviously didn't just randomly come to that conclusion ...
I already actually answered this: Because humans and governments suck and the only faith I have in them is to be awful.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
you did read the posts where i said it was frustrating to hear someone offer an opinion with no rationale only to have someone else say i agree or ditto ... and right on cue ...
you did read the posts where i said it was frustrating to hear someone offer an opinion with no rationale only to have someone else say i agree or ditto ... and right on cue ...
Well, I'm real sorry that I'm not living up to your strict rules in this thread, but I'm actually under no obligation to. I simply agreed with what he said. I didn't have any more to say. What if you stopped trying to dictate what and how we post??
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, I'm real sorry that I'm not living up to your strict rules in this thread, but I'm actually under no obligation to. I simply agreed with what he said. I didn't have any more to say. What if you stopped trying to dictate what and how we post??
is it just me or is there a pattern? ... don't want to engage in the discussion? ... let's make it about personality ...
i'm pretty sure you know that i know that i can't control what you say or don't say ... why even bother accusing someone of this?
post whatever you like ... just don't get upset when someone says they are annoyed by something and you do exactly that and they respond ...
Comments
No, I don't call those things diplomatic, but they don't wipe out other things that the US has done. I'm not defending the US's actions; I'm just being objective when considering who is currently the biggest threat to world peace. what the US has done in the past shouldn't be a factor here. The only things I'm considering are current events that could lead to the greatest threat. I think Iran is the nation that is currently posing the greatest threat.... I think you are being overly emotional when considering this question. I'm not arguing with you about what the US has done wrong, yet you continue to act as though I am.
i was referring to depleted uranium during the gulf war ... if that history doesn't count as current ... then the US may not be currently using nuclear weapons ... which if you consider the lifespan of radioactivity is still causing suffering in the region ... i'm not just talking hiroshima ...
what the US has done in its past (within the last decade) is an indication of what it is doing now and in the future ...
emotion!? ... the only thing that is somewhat emotional is the frustration of this particular conversation ... you believe iran is the biggest threat but give absolutely no factual argument ... has iran invaded any country in the last decade? ... my rationalization of the US is based on facts ... you suffer from the same issues as jimmy v as you believe i have some hatred for the country ... which is fine but then it renders our discussion useless as everything i write will be misinterpreted imo ...
you say there is no way of knowing if the world would be a safer place if the US didn't exist ... well, of course ... but the question was posed and if you believe that it wouldn't ... then state your reasons ... give your objective rationale ... i've given mine ... if you choose not to argue those points ... i can only assume they are not false which would then lead me to believe that if you still feel that is would be safer that you would have a reason to believe so ... of which i have yet to hear any ...
As for objective rationale as to what might happen if the US didn't exist.... I can't give any, as that would be impossible - anything you've said on that matter that you think is objective rationale isn't rational either. For all I know, if the US didn't exist, then China would have taken over the world and instated a Communist dictatorship on an international scale, using force to do it ... THAT certainly wouldn't be better than the current state of affairs, right? ... but that is just fantasy, and therefore totally irrelevant.
No, it isn't. You might be right and whatever comes next would be better, but that is far from a guarantee. I think it is shortsighted to just assume things would be better.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
this is what i'm getting at ...
i explain to you my rationale as to why it would be better ... it isn't an assumption ... it's an opinion based on rationalization of facts and observations ... if you disagree ... explain why ... counter my points ... just saying it won't be is a bigger assumption as you aren't basing it on anything ...
This is what I'm getting at...
I have no interest in countering any of your points because i believe them to be a) beside my point and b) ground we have already covered. I am not saying that anything you have said in this thread is either correct or incorrect. What I am saying is that it is easy to say that whatever comes next will be better but you have no way to know that for sure. Simply rehashing why you believe the US to be bad does not change that fact.
(I do see that you dropped in earlier that I have issues. Whatever dude.)
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Irony: First you kill them, then you try to help them. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
iran is not anti-semtic ... they are anti-zionist ... huge difference ... i showed you the video of the president meeting jewish rabbis - if they were anti-semites, do you think there would be such a cordial meeting!?? ...
the US is always on the verge of war ... the axis of evil ... and at the same time always engaged in proxy wars such as the one in Syria now ... and as for israel ... why is it that every other country supports those resolutions!? ... is the rest of the world anti-semitic? ... does the rest of the world hate jews ... if you were iran and you saw what israel was doing in terms of expansion - and they had nuclear weapons ... wouldn't you want to protect yourself?
how can objective rationale not exist!? ... that makes no sense whatsoever ... predicting the future is for sure very hard but it is not impossible ... one may be wrong or right ... you simply take the best information possible and go with it ... either way - if you don't believe in the exercise - that is fine ... call it irrelevant but then don't argue against it ...
as for your theory on china ... has china engaged in any wars outside of its territories? ... has china invaded any country based on lies? ... what rationale do you have to say china could and would instill a communist style dictatorship on the rest of the world? ...
then why pose the question then? ... and pose it twice as you weren't happy that no one responded? ... obviously, i have no way of knowing nor you ... but you asked the question ... so, what did you want to hear? ...
are you playing victim too? ... is it not true that you believe i have a prejudicial hatred for america? ... i don't think that's false in any way ... it's well documented ...
I posed the question because, as I said, I was curious to hear people's thoughts. That so few have answered it I think shows that it is difficult to answer. I am not particularly interested in your answer because i could have predicted it rather accurately. Was there really any new ground in your answer that we haven't already covered? I don't think so.
But, again, whatever dude.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
you're right ... no new ground ... you didn't address them before and you aren't now ...
just know this - you asked a hypothetical question that can only be answered with a hypothetical response ... if my response was predictable - so was yours ... i would have hoped you would have engaged in a dialogue in a discussion you asked for ... twice ... but i guess not ...
I have no desire to retread the same ground with you. Twice was enough. I posed a question to the forum and you answered. Great. Beyond that I have no interest in engaging in a debate with you.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
the problem with this is that you did ... you responded to my initial response ... you can put me as a foe (as previously suggested) or simply not respond to my posts ... but you asked the question, i responded and you responded to what i responded ... now that it's not gone the way you like - you say you don't want to engage in a debate with me when in fact you did ...
just saying ...
I pointed out that I believe you are making an assumption. You disagreed and trotted out a bunch of stuff that we have already gone over. I have no desire to retread that ground with you. Particularly because this time I don't believe any of it actually rebutted my point.
I'm not putting anyone on foe. If there is a worthwhile discussion to be had I will have it with anyone, you included.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
again - you asked a hypothetical question that asked for a hypothetical response ... there was no way in answering your question without making an assumption ... all i asked from you is that if you disagreed ... explain to me why ... that is all ...
if you didn't want to engage in the conversation or with me for that matter ... then don't respond ... but you did and i responded in kind ... saying i make assumptions is absurd that in order to answer your question we all have to ... even in countering it ... all i ask is that you have a rationale for believing other countries would act worse ... i don't think that was too much to ask considering it was your question to begin with ...
Thank you. Of course it was an assumption...and that is fine. I pointed it out only to illustrate that we do not know. As I said, you may be right. You may be wrong, but you may be right.
Please don't put words in my mouth. No where did I say other countries would act worse. I said the possibility exists that other countries could act worse. That is not the same thing. I don't think saying other countries may act worse is a statement that needs to be backed up. Of course they may.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I think there is a good chance that it would be. Certainly no guarantee, but a strong possibility.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
so, all i'm asking for is why? ... what is your reasoning? ... if you think it's a strong possibility - you obviously didn't just randomly come to that conclusion ...
you did read the posts where i said it was frustrating to hear someone offer an opinion with no rationale only to have someone else say i agree or ditto ... and right on cue ...
so your reasoning is that humans and gov't suck so if the US was no longer around ... then it would be worse?
honestly?
is it just me or is there a pattern? ... don't want to engage in the discussion? ... let's make it about personality ...
i'm pretty sure you know that i know that i can't control what you say or don't say ... why even bother accusing someone of this?
post whatever you like ... just don't get upset when someone says they are annoyed by something and you do exactly that and they respond ...