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?