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

[Oerdin]

How cares about this silly popularity contest? Next week people will move on to a different subject.

[Robert Plomp]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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

Go ahead: name any war initiated by the USA.

[Robert Plomp]

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

Name any war in which the USA were involved where they took land / power / any other illegal form of profit.

[Thorn]

The War on Drugs!

[Robert Plomp]

Oh no, the drugs(dealers) started that war.

[Robert Plomp]

As far as I can see are the USA one of the very few western countries that never expanded their territory.........

I might be wrong on that though.... Hawaii?

It's strange though that anti-americans speak about the 'expansionistic' americans.......... strange....

[Thorn]

As far as I can see are the USA one of the very few western countries that never expanded their territory.........

That's bullshit, we expanded our terrority be fighting Spain, Mexico, and we never paid for the Lousiana purchase.....

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CyberShy
As far as I can see are the USA one of the very few western countries that never expanded their territory.........

Are you kidding? We acquired most of the Western U.S.A. through annexation and force.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Thorn


That's bullshit, we expanded our terrority be fighting Spain, Mexico, and we never paid for the Lousiana purchase.....

Uh, we did indeed pay $15 million to France for Louisiana. It's just that part of the payment was by erasing debt owed to us by France.

[Thorn]

Actually the Lousiana purchase would be worth 30-40 trillion dollars today, so we didn't pay them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Thorn
Actually the Lousiana purchase would be worth 30-40 trillion dollars today, so we didn't pay them.

What are you on about? We paid them $15 million dollars in 1803. That was the price they agreed to, they were happy to have it. While it was a great deal for us, keep in mind that there is such a thing as inflation. We certainly didn't force them to sell it to us.

Louisiana was a burden on the French at that point, and they were happy to be rid of it and have the cash for their European warmongering.

And it's only worth "30-40 trillion dollars today" (I suspect you pulled that out of your ass) because of what the U.S. did to build it up.

[GePap]

Iraq and DPRK are not threats to World Peace. Only someone with the ability to either have troops everywhere around the world, or the ability to strike anywhere in the world, is a threat to Wolrd Peace. What the hell can Iraq do to get Brazil in anything?

The SU was a threat to World peace, the Germans and Japanese were a threat to World peace (hence the World War). but Iraq and DPR? they are at best, threats to regional stability. Nothing more.

The US is not a threat to World peace- no huge wars will start due to this admin. It is a threat to the regional stability of a few places though. How manya rmed conflicts are going on right now? World peace is just a nice monicker for NO Great Power conflicts.

[OliverFA]

If "peace" means unconditional rendition to terrorists without fighting, then I agree. USA is the biggest threat to world peace.

Those that are not ready to fight for what they have don't deserve it

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Thorn
Actually the Lousiana purchase would be worth 30-40 trillion dollars today, so we didn't pay them.

I sold a car in the early 80's that would be an antique now and worth considerably more. Does this mean that I am owed some money?????????

[PLATO]

Freedom, unfortunately, is paid for with blood. If despots would not aspire to control the masses for their own ends, then I daresay that the US would not have been involved in as many conflicts. The US has a unique combination of ability and will to step in where someone must.

To allow petty dictators to become powerful and dangerous leaders is the threat to world peace, not the country that is willing to take up arms to preseve it.

The question is "threat to world peace"...not "threat to use force to maintain world peace" There is a difference and if you don't recognize it, then find a library and go to the history section.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
Iraq and DPRK are not threats to World Peace. Only someone with the ability to either have troops everywhere around the world, or the ability to strike anywhere in the world, is a threat to Wolrd Peace. What the hell can Iraq do to get Brazil in anything?

The SU was a threat to World peace, the Germans and Japanese were a threat to World peace (hence the World War). but Iraq and DPR? they are at best, threats to regional stability. Nothing more.

The US is not a threat to World peace- no huge wars will start due to this admin. It is a threat to the regional stability of a few places though. How manya rmed conflicts are going on right now? World peace is just a nice monicker for NO Great Power conflicts.

Iraq:

Point 1.) Iraq can seize control of ME oil fields and cause world economic colapse or at best extreme economic crisis. Needless to say, this would cause everything from riots to resouce wars around the world.

Point 2.) Iraq can initiate a smallpox epidemic that could quickly be spread around the world infecting and killing millions if not billions.

Point 3.) Iraq has tried to complete point one in 1991 conflict (or at least tried to obtain the ability to do so.). Iraq has shown willingness to use WMD banned by Geneva convention both on their own people and on foriegn troops(Iran), thus demonstarting a willingness to perform a deed similar to point 2.

Conclusion: Iraq is a threat to world peace.

North Korea:

Point 1.) DPRK has developed missile tech that can reach western US. Draw the circle using this distance as a radius.

Point 2.) DPRK has now rejected non-proliferation treaty and is assumed to have 1-2 working Nuclear bombs. N-plants now operational are capable of producing more.

Point 3.) DPRK shows willingness to trade these techs to any country for hard cash.

Point 4.) DPRK maintains over 1 million troops at the expense of feeding its own population (presumably to stop those 37000 really tough Americans??).

Conclusion: DPRK will do whatever it takes to ensure survival of regime that has no chance of survival. Thus they are a threat to world peace.

USA:

Point 1.) Wishes to ensure stability of ME and prevent destructive influences from threatening stability from Far east to Europe.

Point 2.) Exhausts all diplomatic means to bring countries into compliance with world accepted norms.

Point 3.) Willing to take up arms when point 2 is done.

Conclusion: US is not a threat to world peace. US is a preserver of world peace by containing or destroying threats to world peace.

GePap: put them in nice little points to facilitate you shooting them full of holes

[JCG]

The U.S. may have a greater potential to threaten World Peace, but NKorea and Iraq have a much higher probability do so (unless the Iraq invasion goes horribly wrong, I don't see it as a threat to the peace of the entire world...still, I don't support it)

[Gatekeeper]

Screw it. Innocent people in Iraq are going to die *now* or they're going to die over the *years* as Saddam Hussein remains in power. It's not *if* they're going to die, it's *when* they're going to die, and by whose hands they'll die.

In either case, they'll die at Saddam's hands. In the former case, some will die at U.S. hands. In the latter case, none would die directly from U.S. action, but we'd be blamed by the freakin' "enlightened" world community for causing their deaths anyway, either because we didn't remove Saddam from power or because we enforced the damnable sanctions on that sh*tty tyrant.

Yeah, America the Big Bad Evil Nation. People who have issues with America want to have their cake and eat it, too, it seems.

America the Screwed is more like it.

Gatekeeper

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Frogger


Saddam isn't Hitler.

- Gases particular races of own people
- Was given lots of military restrictions to follow after the first war he had with US UK and Allies
- Breaks them one by one, building up military slowly

Now which am I describing here? Saddam, Hitler, or both?

[oedo]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior


- Gases particular races of own people
- Was given lots of military restrictions to follow after the first war he had with US UK and Allies
- Breaks them one by one, building up military slowly

Now which am I describing here? Saddam, Hitler, or both?

He tried to perform 100% worldwide genocide.
He was a dogmatic. (I´d rather describe the other one as a pragmatic. )
btw dogmatic, he ****ed dogs also.
He was non-smoker, anti-alcoholic and vegetarian.
He appearently was very brain sick.

guess who?

[The Mad Monk]

Steven Segal?

[DRoseDARs]

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior


- Gases particular races of own people
- Was given lots of military restrictions to follow after the first war he had with US UK and Allies
- Breaks them one by one, building up military slowly

Now which am I describing here? Saddam, Hitler, or both?

Hitler fought the Allies before WWII?
Saddam's military is stronger now than in 1991?

Really, the analogy is so tortured you may as well just admit defeat.

[Seeker]

"Oh no, the drugs(dealers) started that war"

Funny, I don't recall any marijuana growers breaking into DEA agents homes to initiate the 'war'...

I DO remember growing a lot of weed and having a huge number of uninvited helicopters buzz, spray, burn, and land wherever they chose.

And a lot of people getting arrested on BS possession charges by federal cops 'supervised' by the Americans because they knew our local cops were on our side, even after being bribed by millions in new funding.

Didn't worry though, BC is still producing tons of Canada's finest weed for the US market. They can only cause a dry spell for a few weeks, then we 'counter-attack'.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Point 1.) Iraq can seize control of ME oil fields and cause world economic colapse or at best extreme economic crisis. Needless to say, this would cause everything from riots to resouce wars around the world.

When they tried it last time, they got hosed. Next.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Point 2.) Iraq can initiate a smallpox epidemic that could quickly be spread around the world infecting and killing millions if not billions.

With what? Furthermore, Saddam is not a terrorist. He is not stupid.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Point 3.) Iraq has tried to complete point one in 1991 conflict (or at least tried to obtain the ability to do so.). Iraq has shown willingness to use WMD banned by Geneva convention both on their own people and on foriegn troops(Iran), thus demonstarting a willingness to perform a deed similar to point 2.

Non-Sequitur.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Conclusion: Iraq is a threat to world peace.

Based on faulty logic.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
North Korea:

Point 1.) DPRK has developed missile tech that can reach western US. Draw the circle using this distance as a radius.

Unproven.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Point 2.) DPRK has now rejected non-proliferation treaty and is assumed to have 1-2 working Nuclear bombs. N-plants now operational are capable of producing more.

Unproven wrt nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Point 3.) DPRK shows willingness to trade these techs to any country for hard cash.

Unproven.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Point 4.) DPRK maintains over 1 million troops at the expense of feeding its own population (presumably to stop those 37000 really tough Americans??).

Caused by the US containment policy and overt hostility.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Conclusion: DPRK will do whatever it takes to ensure survival of regime that has no chance of survival. Thus they are a threat to world peace.

Based on bad assumptions and faulty logic.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
USA:

Point 1.) Wishes to ensure stability of ME and prevent destructive influences from threatening stability from Far east to Europe.

By being friends with petty dictators and corrupt regimes.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Point 2.) Exhausts all diplomatic means to bring countries into compliance with world accepted norms.

Since when?

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Point 3.) Willing to take up arms when point 2 is done.

More than willing to take up arms - e.g. Cuba, Grenada.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Conclusion: US is not a threat to world peace. US is a preserver of world peace by containing or destroying threats to world peace.

Based on misinformation and faulty logic.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
GePap: put them in nice little points to facilitate you shooting them full of holes

Indeed.

[Seeker]

I'd have to disagree with some of that Ge Pap:

-missiles to Yemen. They were selling missiles to a country that is essentially a giant arms fair for the Arabian peninsula.

-Survive: Kim and Co will, pre-emptively or even arbitrarily, do whatever they feel they have to do to have power, even just randomly lashing out at convenient targets.

-Army: Neither side of Korea is satisfied with the Armistice. Both sides believe the armistice just delayed the conflict that will one day result in final victory or defeat. (source: quoted ministers, Korean op-ed, Te Jin at the Video Store)

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Seeker
-Army: Neither side of Korea is satisfied with the Armistice. Both sides believe the armistice just delayed the conflict that will one day result in final victory or defeat. (source: quoted ministers, Korean op-ed, Te Jin at the Video Store)

Hmpfh. A small twisted part of me wants to say, "Good! Let's pull our 37,000 troops out of there, break out the popcorn with China, Japan and Russia, and watch the fireworks show."

Gatekeeper

[PLATO]

Urban Ranger:

When they tried it last time, they got hosed. Next

So I guess we should just send 250,000 to 500,000 troops every few years to "contain" Iraq and say "please don't attack another one of your neighbors."

With what? Furthermore, Saddam is not a terrorist. He is not stupid

I guess gassing large parts of your own population isn't terrorism in your book. It is in mine.

Iraq obtained smallpox cultures 20+ years ago for "medical research". Guess we should just trust that they wouldn't make that into a weapon (Given their great record on not weaponizing anything they can get their hands on).

How do you define stupid??

Non-Sequitur.

Yes it is if you really know the facts,

Based on faulty logic.

No it is not. Your conclusions are based upon wishful thinking. As long as we are wishing, I'll wish you are correct (but your not).

Unproven.

Not unproven...untested. DPRK states that they have this technology.

Unproven wrt nuclear weapons.

No debate here. As you can see my original post said "assumed to have" I have seen no Nation assume they don't. Again I would have to put this in the category of wishful thinking.

Unproven

Where have you been?

Caused by the US containment policy and overt hostility.

Guess they would just disarm and start farming if we left. C'mon, we weren't "containing" them during the first conflict and their forign policy hasn't changed one iota since then. The regularly violate the DMZ and provoke conflict with the South. If they were really peaceful folks do you think the US would go to the expense of keeping all those units at the highest state of battle readiness of any units they posses? North Korea's stated goal is re-unification with Pyongyang in charge. Get them to change that and we'll talk.

Based on bad assumptions and faulty logic.

Wrong again, same reason as before.

By being friends with petty dictators and corrupt regimes.

Any other kinds in ME?? Still, US puts a lot of diplomatic work into encouraging democratic reform, womens rights, and free markets. This aspect of US policy is very rarely talked about. It is just easier for countries with big mouths to make a big deal out of things they don't like and to say nothing on things they do.

Since when?

Since always. Quit just listening to biased media and look at facts. Example: 18 resolutions on Iraq so far. How many do you need before diplomacy is exhausted on that one.

More than willing to take up arms - e.g. Cuba, Grenada.

Cuba? Grenada is a no brainer. US citizens were being held hostage. Not to mention the fact that Cuban troops were occupying British territory. Guess thats okay in your model of the world also??

Based on misinformation and faulty logic

Based on fact. Once again, your arguments are based on wishful thinking and a lack of facts. Perhaps even a lack of understanding of the facts you do present.

Indeed.

Indeed.

[Q Classic]

North Korea:
Point 1.) DPRK has developed missile tech that can reach western US. Draw the circle using this distance as a radius.
Point 2.) DPRK has now rejected non-proliferation treaty and is assumed to have 1-2 working Nuclear bombs. N-plants now operational are capable of producing more.
Point 3.) DPRK shows willingness to trade these techs to any country for hard cash.
Point 4.) DPRK maintains over 1 million troops at the expense of feeding its own population (presumably to stop those 37000 really tough Americans??).

Plato1003:
Point 1. is not quite true. tech is developed, yet untested.
Point 3. is not quite true. the only tech they have been shown to share willingly is rocketry. Rocketry is not nuclear technology.
Point 4. is insulting, patronizing, and also quite absurd. the 1 million troops are not to stop those 37000 american troops. it's to counter the 600000 skorean troops who have another 4million in reserve. while this isn't exactly a pleasant truth, the amis are there only for psychological effect. in any future conflict, the war would be won not with american blood, but with skorean blood.

do you know why skorea is having such trouble with the us? it's this patronizing attitude that the us has to it, ever since the turn of the century. in the first decade of this century, teddy roosevelt thought we couldn't govern ourselves, and so tacitly allowed japan to occupy us for the next 40 years in a state not unlike a brutal concentration camp. when the negotiations for the armistice were being done, the united states didn't even bother to invite a south korean delegation, while the soviets had the decency to invite the north koreans. and for the next 40 years after that, america has viewed korea as incapable of defending itself or even governing its military properly, forcing the 600k+ skorean army to be subordinate not to a korean general, but to the american general, who only has 37k americans under his control. american troops engaging in criminal activities while in korea are not prosecuted under korean law, but sent home and dealt with by american law. north korea isn't driving a wedge between south korea and the us. the us has created the rift, and doesn't seem to realize that south korea is tired of being treated like a second-rate nation when it is a mature and flourishing democracy, fully competent in its ability to survive.

this is not to say that skorea wants america out; far from it. but it wants a relationship more akin to the us-germany or the us-japan alliance: where us and skorea are equal partners, not where us is the "daddy" who "knows best".

Guess they would just disarm and start farming if we left. C'mon, we weren't "containing" them during the first conflict and their forign policy hasn't changed one iota since then. The regularly violate the DMZ and provoke conflict with the South. If they were really peaceful folks do you think the US would go to the expense of keeping all those units at the highest state of battle readiness of any units they posses? North Korea's stated goal is re-unification with Pyongyang in charge. Get them to change that and we'll talk.

nkorea is all but contained. china doesn't want to lose one of its largest trading partners in skorea, and would break any supply chain into nkorea should hostilities break out. nkorea is no longer receiving aid from a communist su. japan and skorea treat it as a nation to be held at arms' length. it is all but isolated, with no allies, nobody to turn to. this makes it a volatile nation, but a contained one. besides, their foreign policy has changed. their original goal was reunification with p'yongyang in charge, by any means necessary. they've dropped the military option now. and they no longer claim to be the one and only korea, and are willing to accept that another korea does exist.

[Kramerman]

PLATO

UR

Gatekeeper

The US threatens peace, with war, this is a no-brainer. but is that a bad thing? To remove Saddam from power, few things are bad things.