US the biggest threat to world peace in 2013 – poll

[mikexmoran]

http://rt.com/news/us-biggest-threat-peace-079/

Interesting.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Kind of a shitty thing to say, really. America, leading the world in military might, is going to garner a lot of enemies. That certainly means that a lot of people will label them as a threat to world piece - a nation that has the ability to mobilise pretty much anywhere in the world and fuck things up, and you hate that nation? Yeah. They'd get my vote.

On the other hand, any time at all that there is a need for a peace keeping presence, or there need be a military intervention, the entire world looks to the U.S. to step in. And, if they don't they're bastards.

You don't fucking get to have it both ways, people. Either it's the greatest peace keeping force, or it is the greatest threat. Make up your mind.

 

[Jagger69]

http://rt.com/news/us-biggest-threat-peace-079/

Interesting.

Hate to say it, but, we'd get my vote. :thumbsup: Ironically, I'd also say we are the greatest hope for world peace as well for the same reasons Dirk mentioned.

 

[mikexmoran]

Kind of a shitty thing to say, really. America, leading the world in military might, is going to garner a lot of enemies. That certainly means that a lot of people will label them as a threat to world piece - a nation that has the ability to mobilise pretty much anywhere in the world and fuck things up, and you hate that nation? Yeah. They'd get my vote.

On the other hand, any time at all that there is a need for a peace keeping presence, or there need be a military intervention, the entire world looks to the U.S. to step in. And, if they don't they're bastards.

You don't fucking get to have it both ways, people. Either it's the greatest peace keeping force, or it is the greatest threat. Make up your mind.

I was kind of thinking along the same lines. I backspaced over what I was thinking before - There are a couple of considerations. We're the big boy on the block. There are a couple of other big boys that would like to knock us down and there are a bunch of other smaller boys that would like to trip us up. At our best, we do impose ourselves (...as I take the liberty to speak for the government an the whole country) to do what we think is right.
The other side is we are competitive capitalists. While part of me says, "Fine, why don't we isolate ourselves and let the rest of the world fend for themselves", it isn't realistic to do so. Also, it isn't in the competitive nature to do that. So, we can't isolate ourselves, and we wouldn't want to anyway.

I do think it is a bit of cheap shot at the US. Its is good for us (taking liberties to speak for the whole US again) to take stock once in a while.

I'm not really sure where the thought came from. Isn't the Commander in Chief of the greatest military power the 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate?

 

[HehehehehehehehehehahaHyena]

Yes we are the biggest threat to peace.

Or did you think we stormed the Middle East out of the goodness of our hearts?

As for the military... Some things we excel at while others require improvement. All I really know is that I like a woman in uniform.

 

[lurkingdirk]

I was kind of thinking along the same lines. I backspaced over what I was thinking before - There are a couple of considerations. We're the big boy on the block. There are a couple of other big boys that would like to knock us down and there are a bunch of other smaller boys that would like to trip us up. At our best, we do impose ourselves (...as I take the liberty to speak for the government an the whole country) to do what we think is right.
The other side is we are competitive capitalists. While part of me says, "Fine, why don't we isolate ourselves and let the rest of the world fend for themselves", it isn't realistic to do so. Also, it isn't in the competitive nature to do that. So, we can't isolate ourselves, and we wouldn't want to anyway.

I do think it is a bit of cheap shot at the US. Its is good for us (taking liberties to speak for the whole US again) to take stock once in a while.

I'm not really sure where the thought came from. Isn't the Commander in Chief of the greatest military power the 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate?

You're absolutely right. I'm not going to deny the culpability that the U.S. has, and the role that this and past Commanders in Chief have played in stirring up issues with "world peace," but if the U.S. decided to play isolationist, and involve themselves in exactly zero conflicts outside their own borders, I think you'd see greater outrage than you're currently seeing over how much the world fears them.

- - - Updated - - -

I was kind of thinking along the same lines. I backspaced over what I was thinking before - There are a couple of considerations. We're the big boy on the block. There are a couple of other big boys that would like to knock us down and there are a bunch of other smaller boys that would like to trip us up. At our best, we do impose ourselves (...as I take the liberty to speak for the government an the whole country) to do what we think is right.
The other side is we are competitive capitalists. While part of me says, "Fine, why don't we isolate ourselves and let the rest of the world fend for themselves", it isn't realistic to do so. Also, it isn't in the competitive nature to do that. So, we can't isolate ourselves, and we wouldn't want to anyway.

I do think it is a bit of cheap shot at the US. Its is good for us (taking liberties to speak for the whole US again) to take stock once in a while.

I'm not really sure where the thought came from. Isn't the Commander in Chief of the greatest military power the 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate?

You're absolutely right. I'm not going to deny the culpability that the U.S. has, and the role that this and past Commanders in Chief have played in stirring up issues with "world peace," but if the U.S. decided to play isolationist, and involve themselves in exactly zero conflicts outside their own borders, I think you'd see greater outrage than you're currently seeing over how much the world fears them.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I am shocked. Shocked, I say, to hear that Dear Leader hasn't ushered in world peace. There must be some sort of error in the analysis or the collection of data.

 

[Rattrap]

You're absolutely right. I'm not going to deny the culpability that the U.S. has, and the role that this and past Commanders in Chief have played in stirring up issues with "world peace," but if the U.S. decided to play isolationist, and involve themselves in exactly zero conflicts outside their own borders, I think you'd see greater outrage than you're currently seeing over how much the world fears them.

Not to disagree because it's nonetheless a valid point, but we should keep in mind that we're partly responsible for that particular situation as well. We've installed ourselves in so many places as a sort of permanent crutch. In some places by law (like Japan). Switching to isolationism would be something like releasing zoo animals into the wild after generations of captivity and expecting them to happily thrive. I know it's a simplistic analogy and I don't mean to absolve the related countries of their responsibilities, because they're culpable as well.

For what it's worth, a lot of the bases around Germany closed up last year (if I read correctly, six of the big US military bases in and around Germany closed up and/or consolidated into one). I'd like to see more of this.

Another analogy that just popped into my head: it's like the overbearing parent you hate, until a little later in adult life when you realize how much they've done for you. But while they're always around, they're an easy target to hate. I don't know if either analogy fits all that well, but there they are.

 

[Mayhem]

Not to disagree because it's nonetheless a valid point, but we should keep in mind that we're partly responsible for that particular situation as well. We've installed ourselves in so many places as a sort of permanent crutch. In some places by law (like Japan). Switching to isolationism would be something like releasing zoo animals into the wild after generations of captivity and expecting them to happily thrive. I know it's a simplistic analogy and I don't mean to absolve the related countries of their responsibilities, because they're culpable as well.

For what it's worth, a lot of the bases around Germany closed up last year (if I read correctly, six of the big US military bases in and around Germany closed up and/or consolidated into one). I'd like to see more of this.

Another analogy that just popped into my head: it's like the overbearing parent you hate, until a little later in adult life when you realize how much they've done for you. But while they're always around, they're an easy target to hate. I don't know if either analogy fits all that well, but there they are.

No one is saying they would thrive and no one is expecting them too. We just expect us to not give a shit either way. Just like Syria - sorry for all the innocents killed and all that, but tough shit. Not our problem. And my heart does bleed for the people in Afghanistan who are going to get royally fucked when we finally hit the road. But again, tough shit. The place has been a shithole for 10,000 years and it will probably be a shithole 10,000 years from now. Let it be their shithole.

If I had my way we'd go isolationist. We'd spend 1/10th of what we do now on weapons. We'd convert a healthy fraction of the savings to food, blankets and light blue camouflage nets (shelter, but the breeze can blow through). That would be our foreign policy.

 

[BlueBalls]

So short sighted. The real threat to world peace is of course, capitalism.

 

[mikexmoran]

So short sighted. The real threat to world peace is of course, capitalism.

Really? (I'm normally a sarcastic git, but I'm genuinely curious) What system would you recommend as opposed to capitalism? Is this alternative a system that has existed in the wild or theory only? Has it existed in a large scale or small scale?


I know of no system that has been implemented that provides for better prosperity and chance of happiness than regulated capitalism. It is far from being sin free, but they all cover a wide multitude of sins, don't they?

Recently a student used the following link as a reference on a paper she submitted.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/soros.htm

- - - Updated - - -

So short sighted. The real threat to world peace is of course, capitalism.

Really? (I'm normally a sarcastic git, but I'm genuinely curious) What system would you recommend as opposed to capitalism? Is this alternative a system that has existed in the wild or theory only? Has it existed in a large scale or small scale?


I know of no system that has been implemented that provides for better prosperity and chance of happiness than regulated capitalism. It is far from being sin free, but they all cover a wide multitude of sins, don't they?

Recently a student used the following link as a reference on a paper she submitted.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/soros.htm

 

[HehehehehehehehehehahaHyena]

I am shocked. Shocked, I say, to hear that Dear Leader hasn't ushered in world peace. There must be some sort of error in the analysis or the collection of data.

If you care that badly why not sort out world peace yourself?

No one is saying they would thrive and no one is expecting them too. We just expect us to not give a shit either way. Just like Syria - sorry for all the innocents killed and all that, but tough shit. Not our problem. And my heart does bleed for the people in Afghanistan who are going to get royally fucked when we finally hit the road. But again, tough shit. The place has been a shithole for 10,000 years and it will probably be a shithole 10,000 years from now. Let it be their shithole.

If I had my way we'd go isolationist. We'd spend 1/10th of what we do now on weapons. We'd convert a healthy fraction of the savings to food, blankets and light blue camouflage nets (shelter, but the breeze can blow through). That would be our foreign policy.

Isolationist, you say? What a novel idea...

So short sighted. The real threat to world peace is of course, capitalism.

You got it all wrong, my friend, you see, the real threat to world Capitalism is of course, peace.

You never go full peacenik.

 

[D-rock]

Even if you go with the thinking that our continual intervention and, lets be honest with ourselves, blatant meddling with other places in the world has led to more peace and made things safer for some people that still is largely mitigated when one considers that the reasons we do so are almost entirely non-altruistic and self serving in nature, and we almost always have at least a greater ulterior motive than the stated one for why we are doing it. Usually that ulterior motive is our own businesses' and the rich's economic interest, once in a while to help out an ally or hurt an opponent, and very rarely or never just because we care so much for those other people we are helping them for their own sake. The last reason is usually the one we spout off as to why we meddle, and everybody can see though it for the crap it is.

Given that, why would anybody ever trust us or think we are a force for world peace? Maybe....maybe if we really were doing it out of the goodness of our hearts and because we cared about the welfare of others in the world I could buy and except some of it, but we aren't.