American Superiority is Good for the World

SpAcEd OuT

I truly believe that American Superiority benefits the world.

America has been responsible for worldwide social order for years by making a clear distinction between what is acceptable behavior by a nation and what is not and has not been afraid to use its status and military might to enforce those distinctions on those who rebel.This in turn has promoted worldwide moral absolutes and self-control. Whilst people are against America's recent incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan they must understand that the United States must rely primarily on military might as the only language that rebellious states understand is force. People must begin to see the bigger picture. If America showed weakness to states like Iraq and Afghanistan then the worldwide order would be destabilized. If this was to happen states like Iran,China,N.Korea,Russia would begin to pay no heed to America which would possibly result in worldwide conflict. Essentially you need one superpower to keep everyone in line and to keep order. Whose to say that if America weren't in the position they are today that Iran wouldn't attack Israel or that N.Korea wouldn't invade S.Korea or that China wouldn't invade Taiwan etc.

America are the guardians of global stability whether you like them or not. I'm not going to deny that America has made mistakes in the past but looking at all the other countries strong enough to be able to contend for being a superpower [China and Russia for example] would you trust anyone else with the amount of power that they hold over the international community?

America decides what is best for worldwide stability and prevents worldwide conflict by imposing it's will on anyone and everyone. Whether you agree or disagree with it's decisions the world needs America's imposed order in order to prevent another WW2 from occurring. If America was to lose it's position in the world hierachy the consequences aren't worth thinking about.

peasant

Give it another 20 years or so and it will be Chinese superiority ... we'll see if that's better or worse.

wes

No, American superiority is bad. Just ask an Iraqi who has had to sell themselves into prostitution or fled there homes (also lets not forget the US/UK shameful attitude to Iraqi refugee's, even the ones who worked for them), the sheer incompetence of there adventure there is pretty telling.

Of course no single nation should have supremacy and therein lies the real problem. Any other nation in the same position would be a similar disaster, if not a lot worse. So as much as possible, the world need to make sure that no single nation gains the supremacy over the rest.

SpAcEd OuT

wes wrote: »

Of course no single nation should have supremacy and therein lies the real problem. Any other nation in the same position would be a similar disaster, if not a lot worse. So as much as possible, the world need to make sure that no single nation gains the supremacy over the rest.

But if every nation has equal power then any nation can do as it wishes. What would stop countries like China invading Taiwan etc. You need one superpower that everyone listens to in order to keep order and to decide what is acceptable and what is not. The League of Nations never worked because countries could never fully agree on whether firstly a countries behavior was acceptable or not and secondly what action to take against said country this led to conflict and instability.

Essentially what I'm saying is you need a superpower and given all the choices I for one am glad it is America.

wes

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Essentially what I'm saying is you need a superpower and given all the choices I for one am glad it is America.

I disagree, the US government has shown itself to be completely incompetent. They have destroyed countless Iraqi lives due to there illegal invasion. The sheer incompetence of it all is especially frightening. See the US doesn't care about the rest of us, they care about themselves. They have no problem supporting despots, destroying democracy etc when it suits them. They don't do things to benefit anyone but themselves (just like everyone btw).

Some people disagree with the Americans, and they are destroyed. If you decided you nationalize your oil for example, like Iran tried to do in the 1950's, your democratically elected government is over thrown and the Americans make up some crap about communists etc. The Shah who they put in power murdered and tortured 1000's for decades, with Americas blessing and help. All because they wanted cheap oil. Did these Iranians who wanted democracy (it wasn't all "mad mullahs" the shah tortured, but a lot of pro-democracy advocates) deserved to be tortured and murdered in the most gruesome fashion? It should be noted the Shahs mens received CIA training. I am sure the people tortured appreciate the US a whole lot.

See what it boils down to is that the victims of American aggressions are somehow lesser to those of us in the west. Whatever made up reason the US comes up with, to justify there crimes are lapped up by far to many people, or those who know whats going on, use the excuse that it was for the "greater good" or some other rubbish like that. Its about the money, always has been.

The US ignores international law (even some laws that they helped come up with) if and when its suits them. You talk about them making the world a better place, your right a better place for those of us in the West. What about the Iraqis selling themselves into prostitution? Are these people better off? Seems to me, that US interference has made there lives far far worse. I guess there not from the West, so they don't matter at all. Or maybe there just a result of a "mistake", of course the US's actions in Iraq are no mistake. Its all about the oil, of course they managed to mess that one up too.

Of course, the American's do good things too, there action in the Balkans conflict, there highlighting of genocide in Darfur are too good examples. However, for every good thing they do, they do something wrong.

What it boils down is self interest for them. Just because "we" haven't suffered from US aggression doesn't mean there aren't people who haven't suffered greatly due to it.

Once again a multi polar world is better, it means no nation can act unilaterally. They don't have enough power to do so. It prevents any one nation having the power to do what they want regardless of the consequences.

astrofool

So, if you had to pick one other (viable) superpower to keep things in check, who would it be?

No point in turning this into another Iraq debate, I think everyone agree's they did stupid there, but would someone else have done better?

wes

astrofool wrote: »

So, if you had to pick one other (viable) superpower to keep things in check, who would it be?

No point in turning this into another Iraq debate, I think everyone agree's they did stupid there, but would someone else have done better?

I am talking about no super powers. Hence my comment on a multi polar world, where several nations have to join together to sort out a problem rather than unilateralism. Its not that the US is bad, its just that power corrupts. Any other nation in same position wouldn't be any better and could potentially be much worse.

Mr.Micro

Sooner or later America may bite off more than it can chew .What difference has it actually made ? technological yes along with Europe . Policing the world? No . Al Queda is stronger now and the divide with the West is even bigger . The Chinese and Russians will catch up yet .

mike65

The Russians will never catch up unless they stop killing themselves with bad diets and booze and start having children. The population of that benighted country is due to tumble to about 100 million in the next 40-50 years.

Mike.

jonny72

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I truly believe that American Superiority benefits the world.

America has been responsible for worldwide social order for years by making a clear distinction between what is acceptable behavior by a nation and what is not and has not been afraid to use its status and military might to enforce those distinctions on those who rebel.This in turn has promoted worldwide moral absolutes and self-control. Whilst people are against America's recent incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan they must understand that the United States must rely primarily on military might as the only language that rebellious states understand is force. People must begin to see the bigger picture. If America showed weakness to states like Iraq and Afghanistan then the worldwide order would be destabilized. If this was to happen states like Iran,China,N.Korea,Russia would begin to pay no heed to America which would possibly result in worldwide conflict. Essentially you need one superpower to keep everyone in line and to keep order. Whose to say that if America weren't in the position they are today that Iran wouldn't attack Israel or that N.Korea wouldn't invade S.Korea or that China wouldn't invade Taiwan etc.

America are the guardians of global stability whether you like them or not. I'm not going to deny that America has made mistakes in the past but looking at all the other countries strong enough to be able to contend for being a superpower [China and Russia for example] would you trust anyone else with the amount of power that they hold over the international community?

America decides what is best for worldwide stability and prevents worldwide conflict by imposing it's will on anyone and everyone. Whether you agree or disagree with it's decisions the world needs America's imposed order in order to prevent another WW2 from occurring. If America was to lose it's position in the world hierachy the consequences aren't worth thinking about.

America is the same as Russia, the same as China, the same as any other country, it takes care of its own self-interests first.

The Neocons believe in the spread of democracy through force if neccessary, yet their views and ideals of how to actually do this have been proved wrong over and over and over again.

monosharp

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I truly believe that American Superiority benefits the world.

America has been responsible for worldwide social order for years by making a clear distinction between what is acceptable behavior by a nation and what is not and has not been afraid to use its status and military might to enforce those distinctions on those who rebel.This in turn has promoted worldwide moral absolutes and self-control. Whilst people are against America's recent incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan they must understand that the United States must rely primarily on military might as the only language that rebellious states understand is force. People must begin to see the bigger picture. If America showed weakness to states like Iraq and Afghanistan then the worldwide order would be destabilized. If this was to happen states like Iran,China,N.Korea,Russia would begin to pay no heed to America which would possibly result in worldwide conflict. Essentially you need one superpower to keep everyone in line and to keep order. Whose to say that if America weren't in the position they are today that Iran wouldn't attack Israel or that N.Korea wouldn't invade S.Korea or that China wouldn't invade Taiwan etc.

America are the guardians of global stability whether you like them or not. I'm not going to deny that America has made mistakes in the past but looking at all the other countries strong enough to be able to contend for being a superpower [China and Russia for example] would you trust anyone else with the amount of power that they hold over the international community?

America decides what is best for worldwide stability and prevents worldwide conflict by imposing it's will on anyone and everyone. Whether you agree or disagree with it's decisions the world needs America's imposed order in order to prevent another WW2 from occurring. If America was to lose it's position in the world hierachy the consequences aren't worth thinking about.

Not worth replying to. Pure utter trolling.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

being wrong and not knowing it are not the same as trolling, that's just being human.

leninbenjamin

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

But if every nation has equal power then any nation can do as it wishes.

wrong. if every nation has equal power there could never be an outright victor, so any conflict engaged in would be mutually destructive. So any conflict simply wouldn't happen. you're argument clearly isn't fully thought through.

Saruman

Well if we take Europe as the superstate it will eventually be then i think we might do a better job. It just seems to me that Europeans have their head screwed on a little better. We do not have the single military the US has, although i think combined we might have as much if not more personel and hardware. I have no real idea, im just assuming here since this is a hypothetical thread.

I do agree that there should be at least one superpower to keep certain countries in check. It would be far easier though if there was only one nation of earth

In theory though we do not need a country to be the superpower. We have the UN and they should be the ones to police the world. They just seem to lack the balls the US has.

Akrasia

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I truly believe that American Superiority benefits the world.

America has been responsible for worldwide social order for years by making a clear distinction between what is acceptable behavior by a nation and what is not

Ok, so following U.S. example, it is acceptable for a nation to
Torture
Sell and traffic drugs
Detain people without trial
Overthrow democratic governments
Bomb civilians
Break international treaties
Ignore the U.N.
Rig elections
Train terrorists
Harbour terrorists
Develop new nuclear technologies
Pollute the environment
Allow its own population to live in dire poverty
Wage resource wars
Assassinate political opponents
Genocide

and has not been afraid to use its status and military might to enforce those distinctions on those who rebel.This in turn has promoted worldwide moral absolutes and self-control. Whilst people are against America's recent incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan they must understand that the United States must rely primarily on military might as the only language that rebellious states understand is force. People must begin to see the bigger picture. If America showed weakness to states like Iraq and Afghanistan then the worldwide order would be destabilized. If this was to happen states like Iran,China,N.Korea,Russia would begin to pay no heed to America which would possibly result in worldwide conflict. Essentially you need one superpower to keep everyone in line and to keep order. Whose to say that if America weren't in the position they are today that Iran wouldn't attack Israel or that N.Korea wouldn't invade S.Korea or that China wouldn't invade Taiwan etc.

All of this is complete nonsense. The biggest threat to world peace is the U.S. and has been for the last 50 years. If america invades Iran then we'll be one step closer to world war 3, and it will have been completely the fault of the U.S.

America are the guardians of global stability whether you like them or not. I'm not going to deny that America has made mistakes in the past but looking at all the other countries strong enough to be able to contend for being a superpower [China and Russia for example] would you trust anyone else with the amount of power that they hold over the international community?

The U.N.

America decides what is best for worldwide stability and prevents worldwide conflict by imposing it's will on anyone and everyone. Whether you agree or disagree with it's decisions the world needs America's imposed order in order to prevent another WW2 from occurring. If America was to lose it's position in the world hierachy the consequences aren't worth thinking about.

America decides what is best for America and imposes that will on everyone else (or more accurately, the American Elite decides what is best for its own narrow short term interests)

gandalf

monosharp wrote: »

Not worth replying to. Pure utter trolling.

If you believe its trolling report it don't comment mid thread ok.

bonkey

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

But if every nation has equal power then any nation can do as it wishes. What would stop countries like China invading Taiwan etc.

If every nation had equal power, then Taiwan having equal power with China would probably do it.

You need one superpower that everyone listens to in order to keep order and to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

Its a bit like a country needs one supreme leader to make the rules and tell everyone else what they're allowed do. As with countries, its a bad idea for this leader to be chosen by the will of others...whoever is strongest should take the position on the basis of "might is right".

Essentially what I'm saying is you need a superpower and given all the choices I for one am glad it is America.

It would be a bit like living under a dictatorship, really. When your wants and needs align with those of the dictator you serve under, there's no problems....as long as you're willing to ignore what happens to those who's wants and needs are not in alignment.

SpAcEd OuT

I'm not going to deny America has made mistakes in the past but the good it has done vastly outweighs the bad. The problem is you can't see the good I mean who knows how many countless lives it has saved by preventing major conflicts from occurring. World Stability is priority and as Robert McNamara once said in order to good you must sometimes do evil. if America are indirectly responsible for the deaths of people but in doing so has been responsible for saving 10 times as many people then surely thats a good thing. It would be ideal if there didn't have to be any killing but this is the real world and sometimes you have to make those sacrifices for the greater good.

World Order is essential for the survival of Humanity. America makes sure it is kept.

Akrasia wrote: »

All of this is complete nonsense. The biggest threat to world peace is the U.S. and has been for the last 50 years. If america invades Iran then we'll be one step closer to world war 3, and it will have been completely the fault of the U.S.

If America invade Iran it will completely be the fault of Iran who are doing everything in their power to gain nuclear arms and destabilize the ME. Iran should not be allowed have Nuclear weapons as it's leader is unstable and has already hinted at the thought of ''wiping Israel off the map.'' Whilst an American invasion of Iran is not going to cause WW3 Iran launching an attack or specifically a nuclear attack against Israel would. Inaction is what led to WW2, the UN like the League of Nations is completely powerless to take any action hence why the US feels the need to step in.

Akrasia wrote: »

America decides what is best for America and imposes that will on everyone else (or more accurately, the American Elite decides what is best for its own narrow short term interests)

Yes because an invasion of Afghanistan benefited America greatly. America does what it deems best for world stability. You are aware that if America wasn't in the position it's in today that China would be waging war on Taiwan, North Korea would be invading South Korea, Iran,Syria,Egypt and Jordan would be attacking Israel. Libya would have Nuclear weapons. Slobodan Milosevic would probably still be in power and a threat to Europe etc. America has been pivotal in keeping a major conflict from occurring and saving millions of lives.

SpAcEd OuT

leninbenjamin wrote: »

wrong. if every nation has equal power there could never be an outright victor, so any conflict engaged in would be mutually destructive. So any conflict simply wouldn't happen. you're argument clearly isn't fully thought through.

In any conflict there is always a victor. Do you not think that if Iran was as strong militarily as Israel that it wouldn't attack Israel. Of course it would. The only thing that is preventing Iran from attacking Israel is the strength of America and Israel. I'm sure that if China was on par with America that it would not hesitate to invade Taiwan the only thing preventing China from doing so is that it needs America economically. America's strength ensures that countries don't step out of line thus ensuring world order is kept. If countries were allowed to do as they wished then there would be major conflict. The UN wouldn't prevent this it is currently having trouble preventing a civilian conflict in a poor African country, how could it ever stop a strong nation from acting in an unacceptable fashion. As seen with the League of Nations in the run up to WW2 it simply doesn't work you need a superpower that everyone will listen to and obey.

SpAcEd OuT

Saruman wrote: »

Well if we take Europe as the superstate it will eventually be then i think we might do a better job. It just seems to me that Europeans have their head screwed on a little better. We do not have the single military the US has, although i think combined we might have as much if not more personel and hardware. I have no real idea, im just assuming here since this is a hypothetical thread.

If europe was one state under one ruler then yes but the problem is that like the UN it is made up of different states and as such they are hampered by their inability to agree on whether action is needed and in the case that action is needed what action to take before its too late. America has the power and the ability to act immediately when world stability is at risk.

Saruman wrote: »

I do agree that there should be at least one superpower to keep certain countries in check. It would be far easier though if there was only one nation of earth

Agree

Saruman wrote: »

In theory though we do not need a country to be the superpower. We have the UN and they should be the ones to police the world. They just seem to lack the balls the US has.

Exactly hence why we need the US.

Hobbes

jonny72 wrote: »

America is the same as Russia, the same as China, the same as any other country, it takes care of its own self-interests first.

QFT. Also America is already on its way out of being a superpower (they come and go). China is probably the next one to raise.

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I'm not going to deny America has made mistakes in the past but the good it has done vastly outweighs the bad.

Until you can point me to a definitive list I doubt that very much.

World Order is essential for the survival of Humanity. America makes sure it is kept.

So the rest of the world should be allowed to vote in US elections and determine the actions of the USA? I wouldn't accept that from my own government, why should I accept it from a foreign nation?

If America invade Iran it will completely be the fault of Iran who are doing everything in their power to gain nuclear arms and destabilize the ME.

Hmm, what would your reaction be if Iran had nuclear weapons and was also funding various opposing countries in the middle east with insane weapons budgets, meanwhile occupying a different country and raping its assets? Would you agree that Iran is bad then? Or good?

You are aware that if America wasn't in the position it's in today that China would be waging war on Taiwan,

But America has no problem agreeing to China in not declaring Taiwan as a country. Seriously, its part of Chinas import/export laws which US companies obey or risk looking money.

As mentioned, China owns most of Americas debt. I don't know where you get this "China needs America". If China was to call in the debt or dump the $ it would be a nightmare for the US.

North Korea would be invading South Korea

I think is America pulled out of SK tomorrow NK still would not invade. It isn't the same country since the Korean war.

Libya would have Nuclear weapons.

I guess you didn't get the memo. Libya is a friendly country now.

bonkey

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

You are aware that if America wasn't in the position it's in today that China would be waging war on Taiwan, North Korea would be invading South Korea, Iran,Syria,Egypt and Jordan would be attacking Israel. Libya would have Nuclear weapons. Slobodan Milosevic would probably still be in power and a threat to Europe etc.

<looks at own sig>

No...I wasn't aware of that. Amazingly, even though you've just told me all of that, I'm still not aware of it.

Ultimately, your argument boils down to the notion that if things were different, things would be different. You couple this with some sort of admission that from your perspective, different could only mean worse....and that's about the limit of things.

So basically, you like the world the say it is, and think that any way it could be different would mean it was worse. Thus, its a good thing that its not different (and thus worse).

Am I missing anything relevant to your position?

MeatProduct

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

Iran should not be allowed have Nuclear weapons as it's leader is unstable and has already hinted at the thought of ''wiping Israel off the map.''

Where did you get that quote from Spaced Out? I assume you didn't research it and realise he never said that? It was a convenient bad translation that propagated through the media. He wants regime change. View the following link to find the correct translation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel It goes to show why you can't trust the media, it's the most powerful tool for propaganda. It is, of course, understandable that you would trust the media for accurate reporting but, unfortunately, those days are long gone if, indeed, we ever had them at all.

As regards having one super power that will never be a good idea. America is evidence to that today. You can look at all aspects of life to see abuse of authority, from the school bully through to political leaders. Once someone has power over others there is a temptation to abuse that power. It would take a very stable person who has overcome their desire for power and dominance to hide their insecurities to not be affected when in a position of authority. In my life I have only met one such person.

It really doesn't matter what country is the super power, there will be abuse of that power. If Ireland were that super power it probably wouldn't be much better than the US. But, as I've said before, the problem is not them the problem is us. The change needs to come from within.

Nick

bonkey

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

If America invade Iran it will completely be the fault of Iran who are doing everything in their power to gain nuclear arms and destabilize the ME. Iran should not be allowed have Nuclear weapons as it's leader is unstable and has already hinted at the thought of ''wiping Israel off the map.'' Whilst an American invasion of Iran is not going to cause WW3 Iran launching an attack or specifically a nuclear attack against Israel would. Inaction is what led to WW2, the UN like the League of Nations is completely powerless to take any action hence why the US feels the need to step in.

Wow...

Replace the n in Iran with a q, and this post could be mistaken for one thats about 5 years old.

Tell me...are Iran doing "everything in their power" in the same way Iraq weren't, or is there actual evidence this time round?

MeatProduct

Spaced Out, have you read the book 1984? It may well help you see some parallels to the current situation.

Nick

Akrasia

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

I'm not going to deny America has made mistakes in the past but the good it has done vastly outweighs the bad. The problem is you can't see the good I mean who knows how many countless lives it has saved by preventing major conflicts from occurring.

Which conflicts would those be?

World Stability is priority and as Robert McNamara once said in order to good you must sometimes do evil. if America are indirectly responsible for the deaths of people but in doing so has been responsible for saving 10 times as many people then surely thats a good thing.

That point is debatable ethically, but your assertion that U.S. intervention saves lives has no basis. After 9/11, and attack which killed 3000 people, America Invaded Afghanistan and Iraq killing more than a million people.
In the Serbia/Kosovo conflict, the worst violence only started After the NATO bombing campaign began

In Vietnam, millions and millions of people died to defend U.S. hegemony. (not just in Vietnam, but also in Cambodia and Laos. The U.S. campaign in cambodia paved the way for Pol Pot)

The U.S. opposition to the overthrow of their puppet regime in Iran led to the Iran Iraq war that cost millions more lives.

In fact, the 20th century was by far the most violent century in the history of man kind. Most of the people who were victims of this violence never appear on any of your Neo Con propaganda websites

It would be ideal if there didn't have to be any killing but this is the real world and sometimes you have to make those sacrifices for the greater good.

the greater good has nothing to do with the sacrifices that other people are expected to make. It's all about furthering U.S. interests.

World Order is essential for the survival of Humanity. America makes sure it is kept.

By starting and continuing a nuclear arms race with the potential to destroy all of civilisation in a matter of hours? America has by far the largest nuclear arsenal of any country in the world and is by far the most militarily aggressive nation in the world. Bush has threatened to use nukes against Iran and Iraq. How on earth is that protecting the world from destruction?
5,000,000 children under 5 die every year around the world because they do not have access to clean water, that's a fully loaded jumbo jet crashing every 35 minutes, every day, every year. Meanwhile the U.S. spends trillions of dollars on weapons that it uses to keep itself rich and keep the poor starving. That money could feed the world and still have plenty left over for an adequate defence force to protect americans from external enemies (and there would be fewer enemies if the U.S. was a positive influence in the world, and not a violent imperialist dictator)

If America invade Iran it will completely be the fault of Iran who are doing everything in their power to gain nuclear arms and destabilize the ME.

Just like Saddam was doing everything in his power to get WMD? Give me a break. It's like watching a bad re-run on television. The same nonsense arguments that all sane people realise now were lies before the Iraq war are being trotted out again by the same people

Iran should not be allowed have Nuclear weapons as it's leader is unstable and has already hinted at the thought of ''wiping Israel off the map.''

He never said that and he isn't in charge of the military. What he did say was that he wanted to see regime change in Israel. I know someone else who demands regime change in the middle east, except this guy is the commander of a military and does have nuclear weapons that he has threatened to use, and he is highly unstable. His name is George W Bush.

Whilst an American invasion of Iran is not going to cause WW3 Iran launching an attack or specifically a nuclear attack against Israel would.

How does that make sense? First of all, Iran doesn't have Nukes, secondly, Bush has already threatened WW3 if Iran doesn't comply with its demands (demands that are impossible to meet, just like the demands on saddam were impossible to meet)

Inaction is what led to WW2, the UN like the League of Nations is completely powerless to take any action hence why the US feels the need to step in.

there were much more complicated reasons for WW2 than that

Yes because an invasion of Afghanistan benefited America greatly.

It benefited some people greately, the Arms companies, the the Oil companies and the war profiteers. (in other words, the republican base)
Saudi Arabia was much more culpable for 9/11 than Afghanistan, but the Saudis are in bed with the Yankees, so they're immune

America does what it deems best for world stability. You are aware that if America wasn't in the position it's in today that China would be waging war on Taiwan,

If China wanted to invade Taiwan, do you really think the U.S. would go to war to stop it?

SpAcEd OuT

MeatProduct wrote: »

Where did you get that quote from Spaced Out? I assume you didn't research it and realise he never said that? It was a convenient bad translation that propagated through the media. He wants regime change. View the following link to find the correct translation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel It goes to show why you can't trust the media, it's the most powerful tool for propaganda. It is, of course, understandable that you would trust the media for accurate reporting but, unfortunately, those days are long gone if, indeed, we ever had them at all.

Lets look at the actual translation

''The regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time''

He is still saying that Israel should cease to exist. The fact that he used the word must instead of should shows a degree of intention and as such can be deemed as a direct threat towards Israel. The sentence 'Wiping Israel off the map'' might have been a bit strong but essentially he said the same thing, he believes Israel must vanish from time

And by the way that quote was mistranslated not by Western media but by Iran's own media.

MeatProduct

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

He is still saying that Israel should cease to exist.

No, he's not. If he wanted to say that then he could have used "Isreal" instead of "regime". We see what we want to see. The West wants to see provocation for war and so sees it.

Nick

leninbenjamin

SpAcEd OuT wrote: »

In any conflict there is always a victor. Do you not think that if Iran was as strong militarily as Israel that it wouldn't attack Israel. Of course it would. The only thing that is preventing Iran from attacking Israel is the strength of America and Israel. I'm sure that if China was on par with America that it would not hesitate to invade Taiwan the only thing preventing China from doing so is that it needs America economically. America's strength ensures that countries don't step out of line thus ensuring world order is kept. If countries were allowed to do as they wished then there would be major conflict. The UN wouldn't prevent this it is currently having trouble preventing a civilian conflict in a poor African country, how could it ever stop a strong nation from acting in an unacceptable fashion. As seen with the League of Nations in the run up to WW2 it simply doesn't work you need a superpower that everyone will listen to and obey.

there are three words that illustrate why the logic in that post is so flawed. "the Cold War".

SpAcEd OuT

Hobbes wrote: »

Until you can point me to a definitive list I doubt that very much.

Imagine a world in which there was no United States during the last 15 years. Iraq, Iran, and Libya would now have nukes. Afghanistan would remain a seventh-century Islamic terrorist haven sending out the minions of Zarqawi and Bin Laden worldwide. The lieutenants of Noriega, Milosevic, Mullah Omar, Saddam, and Moammar Khaddafi would no doubt be adjudicating human rights at the United Nations. The Ortega Brothers and Fidel Castro, not democracy, would be the exemplars of Latin America. Bosnia and Kosovo would be national graveyards like Pol Pot's Cambodia.

In regards to further back than 15 years you have the complete rebuilding of Europe after WW2, Defeating Japan, stopping the spread of communism etc.


In a general sense you have it's role in peacekeeping, it's role in donating to charities [Include the amount they give to NGOs, Countrie's Govts. etc. and you will see that per capita they are the biggest donaters],preventing conflicts from occurring that would result in the loss of millions of lives etc.

Hobbes wrote: »

Hmm, what would your reaction be if Iran had nuclear weapons and was also funding various opposing countries in the middle east with insane weapons budgets, meanwhile occupying a different country and raping its assets? Would you agree that Iran is bad then? Or good?

Firstly America are a stable enough country to have nuclear weapons [Yes they've used them before but in doing so they saved tens of millions of lives, but thats a different debate]

America are funding countries to ensure stability in the ME and the countries survival [Israel would not exist if it wasn't for America's funding]

America are occupying another country [with the intention to leave as soon as order is restored] that was before ruled by a dictator who had gassed his own people, waged wars on states and was a general threat to the whole ME.

As for raping Iraq's assets if your talking about oil America, despite the occupation of Iraq, still does not control Iraq's oil, that is a popular myth.

Hobbes wrote: »

But America has no problem agreeing to China in not declaring Taiwan as a country. Seriously, its part of Chinas import/export laws which US companies obey or risk looking money.

Seems almost insignificant considering the US has ensured that China doesn't invade Taiwan.

Hobbes wrote: »

As mentioned, China owns most of Americas debt. I don't know where you get this "China needs America". If China was to call in the debt or dump the $ it would be a nightmare for the US.

America's economy is actually stronger than China's. If America was to impose trade sanctions on China, whilst being costly for both it would be considerably more costly for China.

Hobbes wrote: »

I think is America pulled out of SK tomorrow NK still would not invade. It isn't the same country since the Korean war.

Completely disagree.

Hobbes wrote: »

I guess you didn't get the memo. Libya is a friendly country now.

Thanks to America.

SpAcEd OuT

leninbenjamin wrote: »

there are three words that illustrate why the logic in that post is so flawed. "the Cold War".

Eh America won the cold war last time I checked the USSR collapsed.