Who poses the biggest threat?

Archeron

Just a quick question. With the amount of potential trouble brewing in the world, who do you personally deem to be the biggest threat to the future of global peace and security?

I've only chosen the countries in the poll based on the amount that I have heard them on the news and in current events. I dont profess to be any sort of expert on this subject, so please keep that in mind.

Personally, I would now regard the good old US of A to be about the biggest threat to us all. I would like to specify that I LIKE the American people, but the government that are there now are truly scary. Between the destruction of the environment, contempt for the Kyoto agreement, and foreign policy that seems questionable at best, they win my vote.

What think ye?

The Sweeper

There's actually a lot more to the American political system than just the president and those who surround him. There are members of the House and the Senate who support the Kyoto agreement, work to improve their foreign policy and support billions of dollars of research into environmental issues and development of clean energy.

To me, the biggest danger with America is that ever since they disregarded global opinion and went to war with Iraq, global nations look to the US for approval on their actions. The biggest superpower in the world can facilitate wars just by turning a blind eye, because they undermined the United Nations with their own actions. At the moment the decision-makers and spokespeople of the American government will always turn a blind eye to the actions of friendly, oil-producing countries.

Snivilian

Personally I think North Koreas missle testing puts them top of my list

snow scorpion

I'll vote None of the above, some other country - the "other country" being most of Europe.

I just saw Betty Williams comments about wanting to kill Bush. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19902313-29677,00.html) and I thought "typical European reaction."

She doesn't want to kill bin laden or Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah or that psycho in North Korea or any of the trouble-makers in the world. She wants to kill the guy willing to stand up to the trouble-makers.

To answer your question, Archeron, I think the biggest threat to the future of global peace and security is Europe's leaders refusal to grow a pair of balls and stand up to the bad guys of the world. Demanding the UN do something would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. The UN is incapable of doing anything. While the diplomats are busy being so polite to each other, out in the real world real people are being killed - often by the hour.

Ms. Williams took the coward's position (i.e., the European position): she threatened Bush's life knowing no harm would come to her for doing it. Note that she didn't threaten the life of some Islamic fundamentalist leader; he might send someone to give her the Veronica Guerin treatment.

But such is life, I guess. Trouble erupts in somewhere in the world (sometimes even in Europe); Europe's leaders stand around in a stupor like a pole-axed animal (or at most stand around dithering like a bunch of fops); the problem festers until America has to come clean up the mess as best we can; Europe's leaders and "intellectuals" criticize America for acting like a bunch of uncivilized "cowboys."

Well, you guys over on that side of the Atlantic go on and criticize us and insult us and look down your noses at us and threaten our leaders, etc. We'll always be here to bail you out of trouble, to do the dirty work you don't have the guts to do. And once the crisis is over, instead of thanking us, you can go back to criticizing us and insulting us and looking down your noses at us and threatening our leaders, etc.

(:mad: Now I'm all aggravated. Did I need this so early in the morning? This is why I keep my nose out of politics.)

MojoMaker

snow scorpion wrote:

Europe's leaders stand around in a stupor like a pole-axed animal (or at most stand around dithering like a bunch of fops); the problem festers until America has to come clean up the mess as best we can

What was the 'festering problem' in Iraq?

Endymion

The UN is useless because it doesn't serve the needs of the americans, meh, sure whatever. The UN has brought peace to allot of countries, and prevented allot of wars. Can the US say the same.

Btw I love your "The good guys and the Bad guys" mentallity. When the good guys drop bombs on civilians in an effort to set them free, the term doesn't mean much.

The Gnome

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH! :rolleyes:

Hobbes

snow scorpion wrote:

She doesn't want to kill bin laden or Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah or that psycho in North Korea or any of the trouble-makers in the world. She wants to kill the guy willing to stand up to the trouble-makers.

Lets say you find a bee hive in your house and the bees are stinging you and impossible to get out. So you hire an exterminator who proceeds to whack the hive with a cricket bat. Who do you think is the biggest threat?

Demanding the UN do something would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Indeed, if all the countries agreed to the actions the UN makes instead of veto'ing them if they don't like them would give them a bit more balls.

The UN btw was created to stop wars, not instigate them.

Ms. Williams took the coward's position (i.e., the European position): she threatened Bush's life knowing no harm would come to her for doing it.

Unless of course she takes a flight to the US, or one that routes through the US. Although its most likely the Secret Service will turn up regardless of country and charge her (threatening the US president is a crime). With the new UK/Irish laws allow the easy extridition of her.

Of course her only real saving grace is probably shes in a line. I'm sure the secret service are kept busy these days.

the problem festers until America has to come clean up the mess as best we can;

ROFLMAO.

Well, you guys over on that side of the Atlantic go on and criticize us and insult us and look down your noses at us and threaten our leaders, etc. We'll always be here to bail you out of trouble, to do the dirty work you don't have the guts to do.

Hows that coalition of the willing?

And once the crisis is over, instead of thanking us, you can go back to criticizing us and insulting us and looking down your noses at us and threatening our leaders, etc.

You need less salt on your freedom fries.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

shouldn't Israel and America be under the one option.

lostexpectation

which country has the most military bases in the most countries, hundreds in hundreds

Sleipnir

Which country ignores the atrocities in Chechnya in return for being allowed to use air bases in southern Russia?
Which country is the only one to ever use a nuclear weapon on a highly populated area?
Which country insigated unrest, coups etc in
Hawaii
Cuba
the Philippines
Puerto Rico
Vietnam
Guatemala
Nicaragua
Honduras
Panama
Chile
Iran
Grenada
Afghanistan
Iraq

I mean, America went to war over BANANAS for chrissakes!

Hobbes

Sleipnir wrote:

Which country insigated unrest, coups etc in

You forgot Greece from your list.. probably a few others as well.

Sleipnir

Sorry, it's early.

Hey, look at the news

Between April and June 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days.

America + Natural Resources of Rwanda = 0 help

(gold, cassiterite (tin ore), wolframite (tungsten ore)

Black Swan

Oil / USA + China = Threat to world peace.

aidan24326

It is indeed interesting how the US only tend to 'liberate' countries with natural resources or maybe some geographical or strategic importance ('importance' here being defined as usefulness to the interests of the America Corporation).

I wonder if Iraq didn't 'swim on a sea of oil' (as quoted by Donald Rumsfeld) would the US of A have been so keen to 'liberate' all those poor unfortunate Iraqis? No prizes for answering that one correctly. Just how bombing and shooting everything that moves qualifies as liberation is another matter. Many Iraqis would nearly take Saddam back at this stage. That says it all really.

The US has a history, particularly over the last century, of treating all life as ultimately dispensable in the pursuit of the dollar. Not just the people of other countries but sometimes their own citizens aswell. The American people themselves have to shoulder some of the blame. It is mind-boggling to think that they voted the Bush Administration in for a second term. And if a third term was allowed no doubt millions of them would vote for the warmongering chimp again.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

Indeed, if all the countries agreed to the actions the UN makes instead of veto'ing them if they don't like them would give them a bit more balls.

That's rather facetious. If all the countries agreed on everything we wouldn't need a UN in the first place.

Hobbes wrote:

The UN btw was created to stop wars, not instigate them.

The UN has the authority to authorise military actions when it deems necessary..

lostexpectation wrote:

which country has the most military bases in the most countries, hundreds in hundreds

Your point is what exactly? Military capability directly leads to tyrinical use of mililtary force across the world? Talk about a leap in logic.

Sleipnir wrote:

America + Natural Resources of Rwanda = 0 help

Substitute Europe for America and you get the same result. Yet we don't seem to have much of a problem with our inaction. Further, many of the people who are the most vehement in reminding us of US inaction in parts of the world like rwanda are the same people who are most vehement against Europe rebuilding their military forces for just such a situation.

Sleipnir

Moriarty wrote:

The UN has the authority to authorise military actions when it deems necessary.

Nobody is denying that military action is sometimes neccessary.
When has the U.N. ever invaded a country?
When has it ever tried to oust a government or trained revolutionaries in the use of guerilla tactics?

Has America done these thing? Yes it has, several times and it continues to do so.

Moriarty wrote:

Your point is what exactly? Military capability directly leads to tyrinical use of mililtary force across the world? Talk about a leap in logic.

No, it doesn't always but in the case of the U.S. it has. They use force and the threat of force to impose their will on that of other countries.
The U.S. uses it far superior war machine against whoever it sees fit.

Moriarty wrote:

Substitute Europe for America and you get the same result. Yet we don't seem to have much of a problem with our inaction. Further, many of the people who are the most vehement in reminding us of US inaction in parts of the world like rwanda are the same people who are most vehement against Europe rebuilding their military forces for just such a situation.

Your point about the inaction of the UN/Europe's inaction is well taken.

While the U.N. are inactive when it comes to this sort of thing, America is very much PROACTIVE! They create war/unrest/civil action in other countries which it has nothing to do with.

So which is worse; not doing anything where an atrocity is taking place or actually being the instigator of an atrocity?

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

That's rather facetious. If all the countries agreed on everything we wouldn't need a UN in the first place.

I was referring to the veto powers. Whenever something comes up certain countries don't like they veto it. Not all countries get this benefit.

The UN has the authority to authorise military actions when it deems necessary..

Which is different to pre-emptive invasions. Which is why Bush had heartache trying to get a green light to invade Iraq from the UN.

Moriarty

Sleipnir wrote:

When has the U.N. ever invaded a country?
When has it ever tried to oust a government or trained revolutionaries in the use of guerilla tactics?

Has America done these thing? Yes it has, several times and it continues to do so.

The UN doesn't invade countries, does it? If I'm not mistaken, it authorises the use of force on its behalf - ie Desert Storm/Gulf War 1. As far as I'm aware, the UN has never tried to oust a government - but that doesn't imply that it's a righteous policy.

Sleipnir wrote:

No, it doesn't always but in the case of the U.S. it has. They use force and the threat of force to impose their will on that of other countries.
The U.S. uses it far superior war machine against whoever it sees fit.

Doesn't every large country with a military do this to some extent? Each of the major powers around the world certainly still do - just take a look at russia in the caucauses, china with taiwan, etc. There's nothing unique about what the US does here.

Sleipnir wrote:

Your point about the inaction of the UN/Europe's inaction is well taken.

While the U.N. are inactive when it comes to this sort of thing, America is very much PROACTIVE! They create war/unrest/civil action in other countries which it has nothing to do with.

So which is worse; not doing anything where an atrocity is taking place or actually being the instigator of an atrocity?

From my point of view, that's trying to justify being a brutal uncaring society by saying that there's someone out there who's possibly worse.

If we - europeans - truely cared about the likes of rwanda or bosnia or darfur or ten other blood baths, we would let our governments re-arm and actively invade countries where society has broken down to the point of genocide. Until we do that, I'd rate us as far worse than the US for the simple reason that even though it's patchy and sometimes questionable, US troops are still involved in many regions throughout the world in conflict resolution deployment roles. At least they're (sometime) trying instead of saying that it's someone elses problem and blaming them for all the troubles in the world.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

The UN doesn't invade countries, does it? If I'm not mistaken, it authorises the use of force on its behalf - ie Desert Storm/Gulf War 1. As far as I'm aware, the UN has never tried to oust a government - but that doesn't imply that it's a righteous policy.

I am just trying to think of any incident where the UN has enacted policy which allowed forces to invade another country to oust a dictator. Bush didn't get it with Iraq, they just used the gulf war1 document to greenlight it.

Desert Storm just removed Saddam from Kuwait, and put sanctions on Iraq. It didn't invade Iraq at that time.

we would let our governments re-arm and actively invade countries where society has broken down to the point of genocide.

Its a dangerous path to start going down on though.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

I was referring to the veto powers. Whenever something comes up certain countries don't like they veto it. Not all countries get this benefit.

How would you structure a world body with the ideals of the UN, with no country having a veto on anything, while also getting the major powers to sign up fully to it so as to make it effective?

Hobbes wrote:

Which is different to pre-emptive invasions. Which is why Bush had heartache trying to get a green light to invade Iraq from the UN.

Aside from the arguable morality of it, do you not think the other countries vested intrests had anything to do with them not getting a SC resolution?

Hobbes wrote:

I am just trying to think of any incident where the UN has enacted policy which allowed forces to invade another country to oust a dictator. Bush didn't get it with Iraq, they just used the gulf war1 document to greenlight it.

Desert Storm just removed Saddam from Kuwait, and put sanctions on Iraq. It didn't invade Iraq at that time.

Would you agree in principle if there was a proposal put forward to allow the UN SC to have the power to authorise invasion of a country for the purposes of regieme change? (They may very well have the power at the moment, in which case; would you agree with its use?)

Hobbes wrote:

Its a dangerous path to start going down on though.

Why? (I reckon I know what you mean, but I just want to be sure..)

Zillah

China. Scares the crap out of me.

snow scorpion

http://www.geocities.com/eingedi.geo/softer_side.jpg

challengemaster

bubbles?

USA probably

fly_agaric

snow scorpion wrote:

But such is life, I guess. Trouble erupts in somewhere in the world (sometimes even in Europe); Europe's leaders stand around in a stupor like a pole-axed animal (or at most stand around dithering like a bunch of fops); the problem festers until America has to come clean up the mess as best we can; Europe's leaders and "intellectuals" criticize America for acting like a bunch of uncivilized "cowboys."

You must admit that the US kind of likes Europe weak and ineffectual.

They have become at best very, very ambivalent about the whole EU project now IMO. At one point it suited their interests - now???

Also, the US may bitch about the EU countries not having a larger military budget, but the thing is - it seems the new capabilities should be part of the Nato command-structure (under direct US control). They seek to have their cake and eat it, which is not really possible IMO.

An EU with more military power which is somewhat independent of US control suits them less well than the current situation of US guaranteeing Europe's security IMO.

They get to keep more control of Europe.
The EU countries get to spend less on armies.
Everyone gains something from it.

Back on Topic - I must vote the USA (under current leadership anyways).

Archeron

Europe to me appears to be like a large group of grumbly old men who cant agree on anything, and when a specific situation calls for immediate action, Europe seems to spend more time arguing with itself than resolving or helping the situation. That is probably the most frustrating thing about the EU.

Although I am pro-Europe and I do think Irelands membership in the EU has been of massive benefit, I really do wish Europe could just cement its opinions on world affairs and show the authority it should. Not nessecarily in a military way, but for Gods sake, just say its piece and stop hiding behind its own ambivalence.

Although, as long as certain EU heads of state are America's lapdogs, I doubt that will ever happen.

J.R.HARTLEY

snow scorpion wrote:

I'll vote None of the above, some other country - the "other country" being most of Europe.

I just saw Betty Williams comments about wanting to kill Bush. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19902313-29677,00.html) and I thought "typical European reaction."

She doesn't want to kill bin laden or Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah or that psycho in North Korea or any of the trouble-makers in the world. She wants to kill the guy willing to stand up to the trouble-makers.

To answer your question, Archeron, I think the biggest threat to the future of global peace and security is Europe's leaders refusal to grow a pair of balls and stand up to the bad guys of the world. Demanding the UN do something would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. The UN is incapable of doing anything. While the diplomats are busy being so polite to each other, out in the real world real people are being killed - often by the hour.

Ms. Williams took the coward's position (i.e., the European position): she threatened Bush's life knowing no harm would come to her for doing it. Note that she didn't threaten the life of some Islamic fundamentalist leader; he might send someone to give her the Veronica Guerin treatment.

But such is life, I guess. Trouble erupts in somewhere in the world (sometimes even in Europe); Europe's leaders stand around in a stupor like a pole-axed animal (or at most stand around dithering like a bunch of fops); the problem festers until America has to come clean up the mess as best we can; Europe's leaders and "intellectuals" criticize America for acting like a bunch of uncivilized "cowboys."

Well, you guys over on that side of the Atlantic go on and criticize us and insult us and look down your noses at us and threaten our leaders, etc. We'll always be here to bail you out of trouble, to do the dirty work you don't have the guts to do. And once the crisis is over, instead of thanking us, you can go back to criticizing us and insulting us and looking down your noses at us and threatening our leaders, etc.

(:mad: Now I'm all aggravated. Did I need this so early in the morning? This is why I keep my nose out of politics.)

where exactly do you think Great Britain is, or did the american soldiers even care when blowing the living **** out of their allies in iraq.

please note ms williams was the one who threatened George Bushs life, not all of europe, the difference between criticism and death threats are huge, maybe you should check out your constitution sometime, under freedom of speech, and see why people are allowed to criticise bush, your sweeping generalisation that we'd like to see him dead undermines any decent arguement you could have made

Terry

for me it would be the usa and their childlike kicking and screaming about anything that doesn't suit their interests. between that and their reluctance to even criticise Israeli action in the middle east, it makes the world a lot scarier.
it just makes israel look like america little brother and cohort in the current wars in the middle east. quite a dangerous combination.

InFront

I think Hobbes made a very useful analogy anout the beehive and the cricket bat. However I would stop short of saying that The USA is the most dangerous country.
As much as it irritates me to have to say it, if it were not for the US in recent times, global terrorism would have gotten completely out of hand.
However, if it were not for the USA, I dont believe such a thing as fundamentalist (religious) global terrorism would be a concern at all. It's a question of how far back in time you want to go.

The finger of blame at this moment in time cannot be pointed at anybody in my opinion. At the moment Iran and America are being equally pigheaded. Same goes for Palestine and the Israeli people. Everyone on that list is guilty of making dangerous decisions and dangerous policies in the past, it's not something that can be easily evaluated or quantified.

walshb

Regardless of who are the bigest threat to world peace, I would much rather America being the real superpower on this planet than the Chinese, Koreans or Russians. Surely we can agree on that. There will always be one dominant power and it happens to be the US, thanks be to god for that. What type of world would we have if the Chinese or Cubans or any other of the countries mentioned had America's economic and nuclear power. I would bet that we may not even have a world.

Shabadu

walshb wrote:

Regardless of who are the bigest threat to world peace, I would much rather America being the real superpower on this planet than the Chinese, Koreans or Russians. Surely we can agree on that. There will always be one dominant power and it happens to be the US, thanks be to god for that. What type of world would we have if the Chinese or Cubans or any other of the countries mentioned had America's economic and nuclear power. I would bet that we may not even have a world.

Let me guess- Fox News?

Trode

Shabadu wrote:

Let me guess- Fox News?

Yeah, because if you don't want to live in an oppressive regime that allows only one child per family and claims its dissidents beat themselves up, you must be a Fox-news-watching idiot who supports everything America does.

Unpalateable as it is, he has a point. In terms of the potential superpowers he named, America is the best of a bad lot.

Shabadu

Trode wrote:

Yeah, because if you don't want to live in an oppressive regime that allows only one child per family and claims its dissidents beat themselves up, you must be a Fox-news-watching idiot who supports everything America does.

Unpalateable as it is, he has a point. In terms of the potential superpowers he named, America is the best of a bad lot.

Lol. America sucks just as hard, it just has better PR. You honestly don't think Guantanemo & Police Brutality are just as in breach of basic human rights as all the corruption in China?

Trode

Shabadu wrote:

Lol. America sucks just as hard, it just has better PR. You honestly don't think Guantanemo & Police Brutality are just as in breach of basic human rights as all the corruption in China?

All of it? Not a chance. And it's not corruption, its government policy.

Firstly, both a lot of Gitmo detentions and police brutality in general are illegal in America. The fact that they can at least say they disapprove of it in theory puts them a step above China. Incidents of both are not even on the same level anyway. In America, proven cases of police brutality are fairly big news. Even relatively minor incidents, such as say protestors being moved from an area because they were wearing controversial T-shirts or whatever, get picked up.
In China someone being beaten to a pulp by the police is a daily occurence, one you'll never hear about except the odd time from Human Rights organisations.


Secondly, while there is no excuse for the illegal detentions in Guantanamo, America in general is a lot more tolerant of its citizens criticising it than China. I think it's fair to say that most of the detainees aren't journalists or activists who dared question the glorious state.

mike65

I just clicked the poll results, this truly is a "student/yoof" message board still is'nt it?

Mike.

tolosenc

America, Inc. Freedom, whether you like it or not.

The US is the equivalent of the oafish schoolyard bully. All that needs to happen is for the nerds (i.e. us intellectual Europeans) to stand up and stop taking all this crap, and start throwing our weight infront of the States to try and save these poor countries, whose only crimes are having their land taken and given to Israel/have natural resources. We're big enough and rich enough, we just need to put the US in their place.

aidan24326

Mike,

What exactly is a 'student/yoof' messageboard?

More to the point, wtf is a yoof?

David19

Wouldn't the only superpower in the world automatically pose the biggest threat? They're the only country who has the resources to fight major wars in different countries.

Also, I'm surprised no one has voted for global terrorism. The states wouldn't be Afghanistan or Iraq if it wasn't for terrorism.

mike65

aidan24326 this is a student message board, ie most posters are of the 17-25 age group, and 'yoof' is youth as spoked by Janet Street-Porter who was the BBCs youth tv producer back in the 80s.

Mike.

Terry

30 years old, never been to college.
i voted america because i can see the threat they pose.
they have been as paranoid as hell since 1945.

tolosenc

David19 wrote:

Wouldn't the only superpower in the world automatically pose the biggest threat? They're the only country who has the resources to fight major wars in different countries.

Also, I'm surprised no one has voted for global terrorism. The states wouldn't be Afghanistan or Iraq if it wasn't for terrorism.

yes they would.

InFront

People always jump on the USA bandwagon when it comes to these discussions. I have never been one to directly support America or the Americans' actions abroad, I positively hate America and many of the things it stands for.

However. To say they pose as big a threat, and bigger, than global terrorism, is quite simply baffling. For all of their misdemeanours and their bullying tactics, and their blatent disrespect for international protocol public opinion and The United Nations, they are under some sort of control, and are more answerable for their actions that others on that list, in my opinion.

My political allegiances would lie far far away from US political ideology, but to suggest that they are the major danger to the future of the world is untrue. Their social, democratic, economic, domestic and international policies leave bad tastes in the mouths of all of us, and extremsists. However, whilst their historical policy mistakes with respect to the ME are great, they are not responsible for the mistakes of the ME in kind.
They taunt the Middle East, in my opinion, but if Iran wants to strike back, it is Iran that is the problem, the terrorist, and the great danger.

You might think it is a foolish thing; but if you asked me who I trusted more with the big red button: George Bush or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I know I would say Bush. I doubt if any of you would say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

It is not all Iran, or Pakistan or India or Iraq either... There is no one state that can accept all of the weight of blame. These countries together, US included, pose a great, unified danger as one.

GreenDoor

I voted for Isreal.

They own/control all the US media so only 1 view is aired. Their lobby groups give the political parties in the US millions every year. Isreal is by far the biggest receiver of US aid despite having a tiny population. Isreal gives money to the lobby groups in the US to continue the cycle.

Archeron

InFront wrote:

You might think it is a foolish thing; but if you asked me who I trusted more with the big red button: George Bush or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I know I would say Bush. I doubt if any of you would say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
.

You make a very good point here. I would guess that this poll would show people reacting more from an emotional point of view rather than what we know in our hearts to be true. I agree that I would rather have Bush with the button than Ahmadinejad, but honestly, I am not comfortable with the thought of either.

As someone said in a previous thread about the US, a lot of people feel a little cheated by the US governments behaviour in recent years.For so many people, the US always was the country we aspired to be like. We liked their freedoms, their luxurious lifestyles, their power, and what was percieved by some to be their fair way of acting on the world stage. Whether that was the case or not, is an entirely different debate, but people perceptions is what influences these polls.

My own perceptions about the US have been shattered in recent years (Hi George!!) as I became more interested in world politics and I learned more about what was going on around the world. Yes, I know Iran has evil potential, as does probably every country with huge arsenals, so that includes all the countries on this list. However, we all know what sort of arsenal the US has and this coupled with its "world police, f*ck yeah" attitude scares the **** out of people. North Korea or Iran starts acting the maggot, surely the world will get together and put a stop to it. The US acts the maggot, and we all know what the outcome of that could be, because we simply couldnt stop them without in essence, a massive world war and potentially, the end of civilisation as we now know it. A fine example of this is the situation in the Middle East at the moment whereby no matter what the rest of the world thinks of what is happening, it matters not a jot until the US decides to act.

I do think global terrorism poses a huge threat, and i am also surprised that it doesnt factor higher in the poll results, but I do believe in cause and effect. I would imagine that many many people are of the impression that if the US didnt have such blatantly self serving policies on the world stage, then global terrorism wouldnt be as much of a threat as it is now. Add to this the increase in media awareness through the internet, SMS, TV and so on, and the fact that European media does in my humble opinion have an anti-American bias, and its no surprise that so many Europeans have such a depressing view of the states and its global role.

Going back to what you say about the big red button, once again, I too would rather Mr Bush have it than Kim Jong Il or any of the other leaders mentioned above. On the other hand, if we were all in a room together, and one of them had to hold a tube of highly unstable nitroglycerin for the night, without dropping it and killing everyone present, George Bush would most certainly NOT be my choice for the man to trust. For me, choosing America is an emotional response built on fear, disappointment, and in some cases, a total lack of respect for their policies. It is probably not ultimately the correct response, but its how I feel and thats what caused me to make my choice.

Trode

InFront wrote:

However. To say they pose as big a threat, and bigger, than global terrorism, is quite simply baffling. For all of their misdemeanours and their bullying tactics, and their blatent disrespect for international protocol public opinion and The United Nations, they are under some sort of control, and are more answerable for their actions that others on that list, in my opinion.

I think 'Global terrorism' is too vague a concept for most people to vote for. It's like answering the question 'What is the biggest threat to peace?' with 'Violence'.
I agree completely on the rest of your post though. It's just a poorly thought-out question; suggesting that world peace is a realistically attainable state, or that it would be in effect if not for the actions of a single instigator, is a nonsense. And even accepting this assumption, the country with the most military resources wins by default, regardless of what their actual actions are.

Archeron

Trode wrote:

I agree completely on the rest of your post though. It's just a poorly thought-out question; suggesting that world peace is a realistically attainable state, or that it would be in effect if not for the actions of a single instigator, is a nonsense. And even accepting this assumption, the country with the most military resources wins by default, regardless of what their actual actions are.

The questions asks who is the "biggest" threat, not the only threat. Its quite obvious that there are many states in the world that can pose a threat to our futures, the idea of the poll is to see what people think about who can and does in peoples opinions pose the biggest threat, be that for reasons of arms capacity, cultural difference or environmental attitudes.

I disagree with your saying that whoever has the biggest resources wins anyway. The US may have thousands of nuclear missiles, but many believe that N Korea or possibly even Pakistan are the ones most likely to actually use them, hence in that case, would believe that N Korea or Pakistan would pose the bigger threat to the future. The question also does NOT indicate anything about world peace being an attainable state either. As much as I would like to believe it is possible, I know darn well its highly unlikely as there will most likely always be wars.
The whole idea behind the question is as everyone would admit extremely complicated and historical, but the poll only allows certain scope for choice and explanation hence the options that are included here, and that is the reason why the questions doesnt specify WHY you chose who you chose. I would believe that people are choosing who they vote for for reasons other than just the USA's weapons stocks, so suggesting that arms capacity is the be all and end all is, in my opinion, the nonsense. It may be the case when and if it ever came to global war, but thats not what worries everybody.

Trode

Archeron wrote:

The questions asks who is the "biggest" threat, not the only threat. Its quite obvious that there are many states in the world that can pose a threat to our futures, the idea of the poll is to see what people think about who can and does in peoples opinions pose the biggest threat, be that for reasons of arms capacity, cultural difference or environmental attitudes.

I disagree with your saying that whoever has the biggest resources wins anyway. The US may have thousands of nuclear missiles, but many believe that N Korea or possibly even Pakistan are the ones most likely to actually use them, hence in that case, would believe that N Korea or Pakistan would pose the bigger threat to the future. The question also does NOT indicate anything about world peace being an attainable state either. As much as I would like to believe it is possible, I know darn well its highly unlikely as there will most likely always be wars.
The whole idea behind the question is as everyone would admit extremely complicated and historical, but the poll only allows certain scope for choice and explanation hence the options that are included here, and that is the reason why the questions doesnt specify WHY you chose who you chose. I would believe that people are choosing who they vote for for reasons other than just the USA's weapons stocks, so suggesting that arms capacity is the be all and end all is, in my opinion, the nonsense. It may be the case when and if it ever came to global war, but thats not what worries everybody.

The question, as I understood it from the first post, was

With the amount of potential trouble brewing in the world, who do you personally deem to be the biggest threat to the future of global peace and security?

Why ask what threatens the existence of something that probably can't exist?

I take your point about 'biggest' versus 'single instigator',but I'd add that in any conflict it takes two to tango. As the question specifies 'global peace', any conflict violates this, making both sides threats. So is the biggest threat the one involved in the most conflicts? Then yes, the bigger army(military resources not being just number of bombs, but capacity to deploy military force) does win by sheer ability to engage in multiple conflicts. Is it the one most likely to use it's military? Then, as both sides presumably are using their military, or their wouldn't be a conflict, both are equally to blame, so the one with the most ongoing conflicts wins again. Is it the one who starts the most conflicts? Well, then you're into the not paticularly easy or diplomatic task of assigning total blame one way or the other.

Just as a little theoretical scenario to see where you're coming from:
The U.S. is currently engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Say North Korea now nukes Japan. Assuming this doesn't lead to Godzilla, who would clearly win the poll, is North Korea a greater threat than the U.S.? If America sends troops to Japan, it's now engaged in three theatres. Who's a greater threat now? What if America attacks North Korea to stop it nuking anyone else?

jady88

The results of this pole indicate a terrible cancer in our society. We have fallen victimn to the latest trend of left-wing isolationist tripe. In order to preserve world peace we are apparantly to ignore the hideous and insidious evils in other countries across the world. We must keep quite about human-rights abuses and other monsterous activities because pointing out to certain countries that publicly excecuting tennage homosexuals and rape victimns is just another form of racism or western imperialism.
I do not doubt or deny that America along with Europe has commited many human-rights abuses in recent years but in the grand scheme of things we are truly the lesser of two evils. Inaction and appeasment have been tried before and both failed with horrific consequences World War Two just to name a few.
The people of Ireland and the remainder of Europe need to wake-up and ditch this self loathing attidtude. The two greatest threats to our world are radical, violent Islamofacism and our own multi-cultural idiocy

mike65

jady88 you were doing quite well until the last 3 words.

Mike.

jady88

mike65 wrote:

jady88 you were doing quite well until the last 3 words.

Mike.

No i believe i am still doing well. You must understand the difference between a proper multi-cultural society and a deluded society ashamed of itself and its values. The latter is what i reffered to as a "multi-cultural idiocy".

A multi-cultural idiocy is one where we promote acceptance of differance of diversity to appoint that all ideas and cultures become equal, and contrary to popular belief this is far from the truth. We must not be afraid to condemn societies which advocate religious intolerance and brutal human rights abuses in the name of some higher power or in mintaing order. However i believe in our present day society it is increasingly difficult to do so without being laballed a racist bigot!

mr_angry

InFront wrote:

I think Hobbes made a very useful analogy anout the beehive and the cricket bat. However I would stop short of saying that The USA is the most dangerous country.
As much as it irritates me to have to say it, if it were not for the US in recent times, global terrorism would have gotten completely out of hand.
However, if it were not for the USA, I dont believe such a thing as fundamentalist (religious) global terrorism would be a concern at all. It's a question of how far back in time you want to go.

The finger of blame at this moment in time cannot be pointed at anybody in my opinion. At the moment Iran and America are being equally pigheaded. Same goes for Palestine and the Israeli people. Everyone on that list is guilty of making dangerous decisions and dangerous policies in the past, it's not something that can be easily evaluated or quantified.

Best analysis of the whole thread, and typically, it received the least attention. I think that says a lot about the nature of internet postings, doesn't it?

In my view, the US / Israel are playing right into the hands of religious fundamentalists by responding to small-time attacks with un-rivalled military force. They are provoking exactly the kind of behaviour which they claim to detest, and most of us are baffled by their policy. Does that make them a bigger threat than the religious fundamentalists? No. But it is dangerous.