Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?

[darkvapor 0]

I know this is nothing ground breaking, but certainly interesting.

See Time's results here:
http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html

[rgoper 0]

The United States Of America

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[phatcat 0]

What's your definition of "world peace"?

[wlie 0]

I read it somewhere once that Einstein said it's impossible to simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

John and Paul though say that all you need is love.

My other ride is the relative wind.

[billvon 2,467]

There is currently only one nation threatening war on another, and if a war does start in 2003, it will be the US that starts it.

[riddler 0]

Kind of a loaded question to begin with. I agree that the US is the biggest threat this year, but I think US policy is focused on long term (i.e. more than one year) peace. The argument is that is left unchecked, other powers could get out of hand within several years. Not that I agree with most US foreign policy, but I think the "leaders"feel they are going around putting out lots of fires before they get big.

Not supporting or against anything - just trying to get in the shoes of our elected officials. And I hate when polls are worded like statistics - I think people with an agenda come up with these to try to convice others of their opinions.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

There is currently only one nation threatening war on another,

yes although I think its important to remember that some of the groups of people threatening war are not nations. ie, Palestinians vs. Israel, Al Quaeda vs. non-muslims, etc.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[sunman 0]

Quote

John and Paul though say that all you need is love.

And then the Beetles broke up.

The US is the greatest threat to world peace right now. But if peace means letting Saddam, Bin Laden, and N. Korea do whatever the hell they want, then is peace really what we want? It sure wouldn't last very long, would it? I suppose if everybody just let the powers that be do whatever they want and refused to fight for anything, the world would always be at peace. But we wouldn't be free. Peace is good. Freedom is better.

[Deleted 0]

I am willing to do what ever it takes to make sure that my nieces can grow up with the civil libirtiesw that we have, that they won't have to warry every day about suciede bomers, and the threat that some lunatic has control over some heavy duty weapons. If that means we have to play a strong hand on these punks, then it needs to be done. And as far back as I can rember (keep in mind I am only 27) there has never been world peace). Take a look at africa, the middle east, and south america.

[billvon 2,467]

> I agree that the US is the biggest threat this year, but I think US policy
>is focused on long term (i.e. more than one year) peace.

Bush has actually come out and said that the US will begin a new policy of preemptive invasion, so I think you'd be hard pressed to show that the long term goal is peace.

>Not that I agree with most US foreign policy, but I think the "leaders"
>feel they are going around putting out lots of fires before they get big.

I can definitely understand that, but I can't see how such a policy makes any sense when applied towards Iraq and N Korea. Here we have a country which is an unmitigated pain in the ass, but one that has allowed UN inspectors in and has given them full access, claiming they have no WMD's. On the other hand we have a country that has nuclear weapons, is developing an ICBM that can reach the US, has kicked out UN inspectors, violated half a dozen treaties, and says things like "We will tear the limbs from the United States, which is an empire of evil and a ringleader of war and unhappiness, into pieces." And we plan to invade the first country. It just makes little sense to me. Might as well invade Cube to oust that maniacal anti-US dictator Castro.

[Push 0]

Bill, here's my perspective on NK:

Long ago they build nukes. The UN comes and says "don't build nukes, we'll build you harmless power plants and give you oil." NK says "sure". The power plants were built very very slowly, I think they're still not finished. But the oil was delivered. Then, one fine day, NK announces that it has been developing nukes for a while. Bush recoils, shuts down all treaties. NK goes "hrm, this is not good", so it starts to raise hell, as we have all seen on CNN lately.

Sounds like blackmail to me. "Give us money or we will build nukes".

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[billvon 2,467]

>I am willing to do what ever it takes to make sure that my nieces can grow up
> with the civil libirtiesw that we have, that they won't have to warry every
> day about suciede bomers, and the threat that some lunatic has control over
> some heavy duty weapons.

Why? You grew up with those very threats. According to our government, the USSR was the worst thing in the world, far worse than all the terrorists combined. We survived the cold war (even won it!) with our civil liberties intact, at least until recently. And we didn't even have to bomb Moscow once.

There will always be lunatics with heavy duty weapons. Our best chance at peace is to learn to deal with them without blowing them to bits, because if we do that often enough someone will decide to act like us and blow _us_ to bits instead.

[skycop 0]

It's the last day of my off weekend, and I've had more than a few drinks, so, i guess i should sober up some before i flame the shit out of this thread.
I'm an opinionated bastard......who is not in a position to debate right now.........
The blame America crowd can kiss my ass though......

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[billvon 2,467]

>Sounds like blackmail to me. "Give us money or we will build nukes".

Or self defense. The US calls N Korea part of the axis of evil. Then they announce a policy of preemptive invasion. Then they build up for an Iraqi invasion. The message to N Korea? Unless you've got nukes, prepare for a US invasion - so get some as fast as you possibly can. We would do the same.

And so far it seems to be working. Because they have nukes we negotiate with them.

[phatcat 0]

Quote

We survived the cold war (even won it!) with our civil liberties intact, at least until recently. And we didn't even have to bomb Moscow once.

Moscow could have vaporized us, and us them. Incompatable analogy.

[Push 0]

I thought about that too. But how much use are nukes really going to be to NK if the US invades? If they use them, the West will wipe them off the face of the earth.

Another possibility is that NK is trying to bolster the morale of the people living there. Motivate them not to fall apart at the first sight of the US. In Russia they used to love parading those big missile launchers up and down the red square.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[billvon 2,467]

>Moscow could have vaporized us, and us them. Incompatable analogy.

So once N Korea gets that Taepodong II, we'll start working on diplomacy again?

In any case, the administration is clearly trying to imply that Iraq has the power to cause massive death and destruction through their WMD program; indeed, that's their primary argument for war. So at least based on what they're saying the analogy holds. If anything, they are a much, much smaller threat than the old USSR, despite the rhetoric.

[phatcat 0]

Billvon, what exactly is your position on invading Iraq, if I may ask?

[billvon 2,467]

>Billvon, what exactly is your position on invading Iraq, if I may ask?

We support the UN inspection teams. If they find WMD's, then we tell him he has X days to disarm, give the fissiles to us, whatever. If he does not comply we invade and take them anyway.

If Hussein kicks the inspectors out, then we also invade.

If the inspectors do not find anything, then we respect the terms of the UN resolution and don't invade, even if we really want to. We live up to our side of the bargain. And yes, I believe that we made a deal by going to the UN and getting a resolution passed to require the inspections - and that deal was that you have one last chance to disarm, but if you do, we will leave you alone.

[Guest]

"Si Vis Pacem Parabellum"

"If you would have peace, prepare for war".

--Roman proverb



"Only the dead have seen the end of war."

--Plato


"War spares not the brave, but the cowardly."

--Anachreon

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[phatcat 0]

How do you feel about keeping a U.S. military presence in the area? Do you think we should be a "watch dog" over Saddam? I'm not debating, I honestly don't know. Personaly, I think he's proven to be very untrustworthy. I sure as hell don't want his finger on the trigger of any nukes.

[wlie 0]

Quote

And then the Beetles broke up.

All thanks to Yoko! And if anybody disagrees, OJ did it!

My other ride is the relative wind.

[wlie 0]

[Sean Connery voice]An educated man. That rules out the possibililty that you're a field agent[/Sean Connery voice]

[Nicholas Cage voice]As a matter of fact, I am a field agen[/Nicholas Cage voice]

My other ride is the relative wind.

[jaaska 0]

Quote

>
I can definitely understand that, but I can't see how such a policy makes any sense when applied towards Iraq and N Korea. Here we have a country which is an unmitigated pain in the ass, but one that has allowed UN inspectors in and has given them full access, claiming they have no WMD's. On the other hand we have a country that has nuclear weapons, is developing an ICBM that can reach the US, has kicked out UN inspectors, violated half a dozen treaties, and says things like "We will tear the limbs from the United States, which is an empire of evil and a ringleader of war and unhappiness, into pieces." And we plan to invade the first country. It just makes little sense to me. Might as well invade Cube to oust that maniacal anti-US dictator Castro.

Billvon,

As the secretary of defense of Great Britain put it, the reason for invading Iraq is OIL - this is the first time a high rank official admits it. Unlike US the GB is not trying to come up with fake excuses for the invasion - the truth is the oil taps of Iraq must be controlled by the west. This is the official policy of GB, why won't the US admit as well? If there's going to be a war, US should bring up the real reason for it. Unfortunately N-Korea does not have oil, so at the moment US would not care less about it's threat - the missiles they are testing won't be a problem before they can actually cause some harm. Having plutonium (if NK actually gets their facility running) is a long way from functional fission bomb. Dirty bomb is a whole different thing...

[CornishChris 5]

I voted for USA but I actually do not think that is fair. What woluld be better is to say who is the most dangerous person in the world. I think that this is more relevant at the moment.

Thoughts...

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people