Since when has China or even Russia been a part of European culture?
Every empire in history has fallen only to be replaced by another. Someday US hegemony will fall only to be replaced by another superpower, from the
looks of it probably China.
The US just happens to be the biggest, most influential country in the world right now, and with a bonehead leader, we get involved in more shit then we should. But if the US wasn't in the picture, there would be other power hungry leaders involved in the same crap.
i think thats a fair point, but i obviously realise that people born anywhere at anytime can be capable of war or terrorism or whatever. Is it impossible to have governments that seek to avoid this kind of behaviour? (and yes i know that governments are made up of humans!)
i just think saying that humans are incapable of living in a world with no war is extremely pessimistic.
Billions of people, trillions of dollars and the bomb would be my guess.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
China is the up and coming superpower both militarily and economically. While the EU maybe the dominate economic superpower, within the next few years, they do not have the same militaristic drive that China has. Much like the US, China has a desire to spread their sphere of influence and while our power wains theirs grows. They are the logical successor to us.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
im confused, are you saying that people do or dont learn from the past / history?
Many do. Many don't. I'm saying that it is myopic to believe that one country (any country) is the sole roadblock to world peace. I'm saying that there has never been a time when there wasn't conflict somewhere. I'm saying that even if the US cleaned up its act and went around the world planting daisies we'd still have countries at war - over territory, religion, natural resources, testosterone, etc...
Ultimately I'm saying that only a simpleton would believe that the US is the reason why there is no world peace.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Ultimately I'm saying that only a simpleton would believe that the US is the reason why there is no world peace.
nobody here claimed theyre the only threat to world peace, just the largest. and just to clarify, thats not my opinion.
i saw the article and was surprised by it. maybe it had leading q's or could even have been designed to facilitate a controversial result, but all im doing here is looking for opinions.
Perhaps. Or maybe it is simply realistic. If you have evidence to the contrary, that would be super.
im not trying to prove you wrong. im not expected a global gun amnesty in 10 years or anything....put it like this.
Europe to me seems to be proof that millions of people can move from continous wars and border/religion/race/political disputes to a peaceful place, and one which is governed by a body which was specifically designed to rebuild together after WW2 and to avoid anymore wars. that transition has taken only 50 years.
im not trying to prove you wrong. im not expected a global gun amnesty in 10 years or anything....put it like this.
Europe to me seems to be proof that millions of people can move from continous wars and border/religion/race/political disputes to a peaceful place, and one which is governed by a body which was specifically designed to rebuild together after WW2 and to avoid anymore wars. that transition has taken only 50 years.
that i would think, is a great example.
I agree with you there, although I think there is some mentality that they don't have to do it because the US is there to do the dirty work. I'd love to see the US move beyond intervention and conflicts. As someone who loathes taxes, I see a tremendous opportunity to have our national budget decreased if we'd stop fucking around and playing war games, giving aid, policing, etc... We need to pull back, establish trade relations with those who have something to offer, and ignore the rest.
I don't think that would establish world peace, as I'm a pessimist/realist, but people can continue to hope.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
nobody here claimed theyre the only threat to world peace, just the largest. and just to clarify, thats not my opinion.
i saw the article and was surprised by it. maybe it had leading q's or could even have been designed to facilitate a controversial result, but all im doing here is looking for opinions.
How was the survey worded or structured?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
didnt see the questions or the survey itself but i did look (not very hard). would be interesting because to come out with a conclusion like that theyre have to be something fucked up about how they asked it.
its not as if over 50% of ppl who were asked an open-ended q would say USA when asked the question that titles the thread, if this thread is anythin to go by! they mustve been given choices...but again, im only speculating
didnt see the questions or the survey itself but i did look (not very hard). would be interesting because to come out with a conclusion like that theyre have to be something fucked up about how they asked it.
its not as if over 50% of ppl who were asked an open-ended q would say USA when asked the question that titles the thread, if this thread is anythin to go by! they mustve been given choices...but again, im only speculating
What if the entire survey was:
"Is the US the biggest threat to world peace (check yes or no)"?
It wouldn't be real surprising to get the result that they did.
On the other hand, if they had about 50 choices (not just countries) but individual threats like WMDs, Radical Religious Groups, etc., I'd be surprised if the result would indict the US as it did.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Comments
why China?
i think thats a fair point, but i obviously realise that people born anywhere at anytime can be capable of war or terrorism or whatever. Is it impossible to have governments that seek to avoid this kind of behaviour? (and yes i know that governments are made up of humans!)
i just think saying that humans are incapable of living in a world with no war is extremely pessimistic.
China is the up and coming superpower both militarily and economically. While the EU maybe the dominate economic superpower, within the next few years, they do not have the same militaristic drive that China has. Much like the US, China has a desire to spread their sphere of influence and while our power wains theirs grows. They are the logical successor to us.
Many do. Many don't. I'm saying that it is myopic to believe that one country (any country) is the sole roadblock to world peace. I'm saying that there has never been a time when there wasn't conflict somewhere. I'm saying that even if the US cleaned up its act and went around the world planting daisies we'd still have countries at war - over territory, religion, natural resources, testosterone, etc...
Ultimately I'm saying that only a simpleton would believe that the US is the reason why there is no world peace.
Perhaps. Or maybe it is simply realistic. If you have evidence to the contrary, that would be super.
nobody here claimed theyre the only threat to world peace, just the largest. and just to clarify, thats not my opinion.
i saw the article and was surprised by it. maybe it had leading q's or could even have been designed to facilitate a controversial result, but all im doing here is looking for opinions.
im not trying to prove you wrong. im not expected a global gun amnesty in 10 years or anything....put it like this.
Europe to me seems to be proof that millions of people can move from continous wars and border/religion/race/political disputes to a peaceful place, and one which is governed by a body which was specifically designed to rebuild together after WW2 and to avoid anymore wars. that transition has taken only 50 years.
that i would think, is a great example.
I agree with you there, although I think there is some mentality that they don't have to do it because the US is there to do the dirty work. I'd love to see the US move beyond intervention and conflicts. As someone who loathes taxes, I see a tremendous opportunity to have our national budget decreased if we'd stop fucking around and playing war games, giving aid, policing, etc... We need to pull back, establish trade relations with those who have something to offer, and ignore the rest.
I don't think that would establish world peace, as I'm a pessimist/realist, but people can continue to hope.
How was the survey worded or structured?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
didnt see the questions or the survey itself but i did look (not very hard). would be interesting because to come out with a conclusion like that theyre have to be something fucked up about how they asked it.
its not as if over 50% of ppl who were asked an open-ended q would say USA when asked the question that titles the thread, if this thread is anythin to go by! they mustve been given choices...but again, im only speculating
What if the entire survey was:
"Is the US the biggest threat to world peace (check yes or no)"?
It wouldn't be real surprising to get the result that they did.
On the other hand, if they had about 50 choices (not just countries) but individual threats like WMDs, Radical Religious Groups, etc., I'd be surprised if the result would indict the US as it did.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.