United States greatest threat to world peace behind Iraq, North Korea came third

Alexander's Horse · February 21, 2003, 06:43

According to a poll of Australians....

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...0,5478,6015917^661,00.html

Illustrious company

KrazyHorse · February 21, 2003, 07:10

Here's the actual link:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...17^661,00.html

Skanky Burns · February 21, 2003, 07:12

Hmmm, Indonesia only ranked in at 4% ?

KrazyHorse · February 21, 2003, 07:21

IIRC, the US placed first in a recent UK poll.

TheStinger · February 21, 2003, 07:22

Its not a serious response, its a flippant answer.

KrazyHorse · February 21, 2003, 07:27

Why? I would give the US as my top answer too, and I'd be serious.

TheStinger · February 21, 2003, 07:34

Was Hitler a threat to world peace in 1939, well he wasn't if you let him do what he wanted. It was the UK and Frnace who caused a world war by standing up to him.

Solly · February 21, 2003, 07:41

That is laughable.

You need sometimes to make war to guarantee and to have longer lasting peace.

MikeH · February 21, 2003, 07:45

But then if the US are going to start a war it's also accurate that in the short term they are a threat to world peace. Depends how you interperet the question.

Solly · February 21, 2003, 07:48

Depends how you interpret "world peace". The US are actually defending it by attacking Iraq.

KrazyHorse · February 21, 2003, 07:52

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
Was Hitler a threat to world peace in 1939, well he wasn't if you let him do what he wanted. It was the UK and Frnace who caused a world war by standing up to him.

Saddam isn't Hitler.

KrazyHorse · February 21, 2003, 07:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
Depends how you interpret "world peace". The US are actually defending it by attacking Iraq.

MikeH · February 21, 2003, 07:52

So what we are saying is that the question is so open to individual interperetation depending on what your view of the current situation is that the results are meaningless.

Solly · February 21, 2003, 07:54

Yes.

Because it is obvious the US aren't the biggest threat to world peace.

uh Clem · February 21, 2003, 07:54

Going to war is defending peace, because war IS peace.

KrazyHorse · February 21, 2003, 07:55

Ignorance is Strength

The Mad Monk · February 21, 2003, 07:56

I suppose the real question is, when is 'world peace' no longer worth the price in human suffering?

KrazyHorse · February 21, 2003, 07:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
Yes.

Because it is obvious the US aren't the biggest threat to world peace.

Yes. Quite. Of course. What a delightful argument.

KrazyHorse · February 21, 2003, 07:57

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I suppose the real question is, when is 'world peace' no longer worth the price in human suffering?

Freedom is Slavery

MikeH · February 21, 2003, 08:00

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I suppose the real question is, when is 'world peace' no longer worth the price in human suffering?

You mean, when is the price in human suffering caused by war less than the price in human suffering caused by not going to war.

Urban Ranger · February 21, 2003, 09:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
Yes.

Because it is obvious the US aren't the biggest threat to world peace.

Count the number of wars initiated by various countries after WWII. Which country comes up most?

addiv · February 21, 2003, 09:50

But did those wars threaten World Peace ?
I don't think so. Still, I agree with the opinion that the U.S. is the biggest threat to world peace (more than Iraq and DPRK). But what is the alternative? Being conquered by the middle east in the end probably. So it's good the US does something about dangerous countries.

Urban Ranger · February 21, 2003, 10:01

If those wars didn't threaten World Peace, how would other countries be a threat? This is clearly silly.

addiv · February 21, 2003, 10:07

Those other countries aren't a threat to world peace either

DinoDoc · February 21, 2003, 11:01

USA!

DinoDoc · February 21, 2003, 11:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Count the number of wars initiated by various countries after WWII.

Real wars or just armed disputes?

The Mad Monk · February 22, 2003, 04:32

Quote:

Originally posted by MikeH

You mean, when is the price in human suffering caused by war less than the price in human suffering caused by not going to war.

Exactly.

MRT144 · February 22, 2003, 04:42

aparently saddam is going to kill 500,000 of his own people in the first few days of a war now? wait, thats the US

The Mad Monk · February 22, 2003, 04:49

No, I thought we were going to kill 4,000,000.

Wait -- that's the Phillipines.

We still have to fit in that 1,000,000,000 over in China...

MRT144 · February 22, 2003, 04:53

yeah, yeah, the figures really dont matter until they come in i suppose...but i dont think killing iraqis directly is somehow better than the status quo.