Who poses the biggest threat?

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.

jady88

Well what exactly do you suggest that we do?

Are we supposed to simply sit back and let school bus after school bus be blown up? We must show the world that we are not afraid to defend our values and principles. That said I don't argue that it could be done far more effectively.

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

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.

"the only superpower"....you forget China my friend.
and that super power you talk of seems to be running out of resources.

"The states wouldn't be Afghanistan or Iraq if it wasn't for terrorism" and we wouldn't have a global terrorism problem only for the states and their foreign policy over the last 30years...

fly_agaric

jady88 wrote:

We must show the world that we are not afraid to defend our values and principles.

When you wage preemptive war/invasion on shifting pretexts to defend your values you just show that you don't really have any.

mr_angry wrote:

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?

I think most people post to spout their pet opinion or disagree with things they read. Postings that get ignored are either

(1) too crazy/silly to be bothered arguing about [poster is probably having a bit of a laugh anyway]
(2) quite sensible.

Hobbes

jady88 wrote:

However i believe in our present day society it is increasingly difficult to do so without being laballed a racist bigot!

Heres a tip, if you don't want to be labelled as a racist bigot don't pick a nickname that they would use. -> [wiki]88[/wiki]

Doodee

i believe it was predicted that china shall become a world super power with in the nex 10 years, rivaling the U.S and France.
If China do become somewhat of a super power i would say there would be unease in the U.S towards the far east.

then again, i could be wrong.

meepins

snow scorpion wrote:

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

The US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in history.

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

you're either joking or trolling..

jady88

Hobbes wrote:

Heres a tip, if you don't want to be labelled as a racist bigot don't pick a nickname that they would use. -> [wiki]88[/wiki]

Em I hadn't realised that... but i certainly won't be changing my name now just because some idiot racsists use it too.

Trode

meepins wrote:

The US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in history.


you're either joking or trolling..

I'd say the same could be said of you. Answering inane, baseless distortions with inane, baseless distortions doesn't exactly win you any credibility.

Scigaithris

We have seen the enemy, and they are us! We can cast our eyes across the pond, but cannot solve the troubles of our own island. Should we do so, then perhaps a model for world peace would evolve that could be exported to others? If what was written about the Dark Ages in the book, How the Irish Saved Civilisation, has any merit, be it not presumptuous to forge ahead and save it again? We complacent savers of past civilisation are the greatest threat, for by default we lend support to the notion of irreconcilable differences.

dsmythy

MojoMaker wrote:

What was the 'festering problem' in Iraq?

Saddam Hussein.
And his sons.
And then his grandsons.
And then his great grandsons.
And then his great great grandsons.
Sooner or later it would have to stop.