|
| Thread: Worldwide survey: Who do you see as the biggest threat to world peace? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted March 28, 2015 04:20 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:30, 28 Mar 2015.
|
Exactly, the companies and big finance with their donations have too much influance on politics in the US. And overthrowing FREELY elected leftist parties like in Chile, in no way can be interpreted as supporting freedom, unless your idea of freedom is your political opinion in power all the time. And last I checked, US had no problem with the wahabi Saudi Arabia, in fact they were allies, they also had no problem supporting Kenan Evren in the 80's here, the leader of the most anti-democratic and oppressive military coup the country has ever seen.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2015 06:37 PM |
|
|
NoobX said:
I just can't tell if you're trolling or being plainly ignorant.
from what I understood, Xerox is the most eager out here to climb the political ladder of power. and when you know how far some parties can go, it can be dangerous, so I hope for himself he is trolling...
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 28, 2015 11:19 PM |
|
|
Only countries that know what they're talking about are Afghanistan and India. If there's anywhere in the world where something is going to go seriously, seriously wrong, it's Pakistan.
Iran is too vain to be a real threat. They're roughly analogous to 19th century Japan that had a strong desire to modernize & glorify itself. There are limits to how far they're going to isolate themselves.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 28, 2015 11:27 PM |
|
|
artu said:
When he sees this, I wonder how blizz will feel about his analogy where US is the obnoxious friend you still wanna hang out with because he has a cool car and credit cards, while Russia is the creepy dude that keeps staring at your girfriends tits.
He would say that many countries are multi-nationally agreeing to sanction Russia, whereas the same can't be said for the US, which is ultimately what is relevant, not a poll for laymen that irregularly read the news by accident on Yahoo every other week.
Any polls of this nature are going to be heavily displaced towards the US, because its a singular, massive country of massive influence with massive media attention, whereas Europe, Africa, S America, and much of Asia is fractured into large multitudes of small nations.
Any attention given to any of those countries is going to be dwarved by countries like the US/India/China, and even in those 3 examples, the US hogs most of the spotlight still. It says a lot that in spite of all that disproportionate media attention, you still have countries like Japan, Philippines, and Vietnam that label China as the biggest threat. If India didn't (rightfully) consider Pakistan a threat to world peace, I wouldn't be surprised that China is the runner up, given the increasingly aggressive behavior on their border in disputed territories.
And of course Latin America thinks the US is the biggest threat to world peace. The standard of living has gone up there, but they're still too poor & corrupt to have substantial involvement with the larger world, so the most ready target are the American buyers of Latin American drugs. You will - save for Venezuela - notice a huge variance of attitude between a random impoverished Latin American and a highly educated leader in Latin American government.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 12:02 AM |
|
|
First of all, that would be twisting your own argument since you and Zenofex were discussing about public opinion rather than foreign policy of third party governments.
And I think all of your reasoning misses out on one simple but very vital fact: People tend to vote for US, because every other country in the world has to be cautious and care for countermeasures to a very serious degree, when they act out whatever they act out. The US, however, being the undisputed military and nuclear power it is, pretty much gets away with anything as we've seen in the example of Weapons of Mass Destruction bull. Now, people may not be able to do much about it, but they see the danger and potential corruption in that imbalance. (Like Cohen sings: GIve me back the Berlin Wall, I've seen the future and it is murder.) It is not a matter of agreeing to this or that political decision, it's about how insignificant your agreement is. A lion wondering around without any chains will cause anxiety, you can tell everyone it's trained, it's domestic since it was a "kitten" and it's really not hungry at all, that may even all be true but a lion walking around free is still a lion walking around free.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 12:11 AM |
|
|
The US doesn't get away with stuff because of its nuclear power. Many countries - including Russia - have nuclear power, and you only need a single nuke to be taken seriously. It "gets away with stuff" because any net harm that it might have caused is shadowed by its net benefits, such as the world not instantly starving to death, and because even with Iraq, it was a coalition of complicit countries or silent countries, which doesn't put them in much of a position to protest after-the-fact, which is why they don't protest, because they know that it would backfire.
Even if 80% of Germans were to think the US is the bane of mankind, the political leadership in Germany is still going to know better than to suicide its already compromised health by sanctioning or aggravating itself against the US.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 12:24 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:31, 29 Mar 2015.
|
I agree about the nuke part, as I said many times before, they are not in the equation unless things go survival brutal. The rest is your wishful thinking though, the poll results are "the protests." Of course, there would be nothing on a governmental level, because governments dont do that when they know they can change nothing about a situation. It's basic diplomacy. I mean, George Bush openly told the United Nations, if they dont support the invasion in Iraq, they will go down in history's trash can (I'm paraphrasing from a translation, trash can may not be his exact words.) The United Nations, in which it has full power to veto things... What kind of protest do you expect?
Btw, what makes you think the world will instanly starve to death without America? Let's say a meteor hit you, having only continental effects, do you think Europe or China or wherever will starve? How come?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 01:01 AM |
|
|
it also gets away with stuff, for the same reason you lick the boots of the king, expecting favors. or mercy.
I think USA consume more than they produce, so I'm not sure how the starvation problem would be bigger without them. well, of course if it means we would have a british or russian empire seizing most resources for themselves instead, that would not really be an improvement.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 01:30 AM |
|
|
Fauch said:
NoobX said:
I just can't tell if you're trolling or being plainly ignorant.
from what I understood, Xerox is the most eager out here to climb the political ladder of power. and when you know how far some parties can go, it can be dangerous, so I hope for himself he is trolling...
Going by this survey, preaching about the glory of America is sure to get me all the votes.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 06:28 AM |
|
|
@Artu & Fauch:
1/3rd of the world's grains come from the US. Barring the very long list of other things the US produces, a lot of them sophisticated, it would take a lot for the world to actually decide to sanction the US, because it would result in a lot of death more than just inconvenience. Of course, the world would eventually compensate, but not before a catastrophic body count.
The US is also smart enough not to (generally) act independently. People can make comparisons to how Russia entering Crimea was so much drastically more mild compared to Iraq, but the fact remains that there were months of diplomatic planning before 2003 Iraq ever happened, and Russia spontaneously elected to enter Crimea on its own accord. For a country that - bluntly - doesn't have nearly as much to offer to the world at the present time, nobody should be surprised that its going to suffer consequences. Russia is being sanctioned because countries can afford it. Even if you were to conceive a complete and total shutdown of trade with the outside world from Russia, it's not going to make people start dying by the tens of millions. The disappearance of the US would trigger a global holocaust.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 08:22 AM |
|
|
Well, saying they cant do much about it and they cant afford it arent exactly opposite arguments or necessarily mutually exclusive, it's usually true that US prefers soft power first, if it works. (Doesnt mean it will stop there justly all the time, though.) So, the fact remains that the main reason majority of countries vote US is, it is the country which can get away with the most and eventually it does. All of your international affairs interpretations wont change, you walk around that very obvious fact. (Btw, it's nice to see that after Iraq, nobody except Canada and a few other countries bought the bull propaganda about Iran, not that I'm fond of their regime but a nuclear threat to the world... Certainly not. US also turned away from the mistake of wiping out the government of Syria and having ISIS take over there, too.)
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 08:35 AM |
|
|
I don't think Iran nuclear threat should be considered lightly. Certainly they will not launch any missiles, but by the past they already collaborated with terrorist organizations, their leader still talk about Israel total destruction, and having nuclear bombs sell under hand and freely circulate anywhere is scary. On the other side, we can not prohibit any of those countries access to scientific progress then talk about how backward they are.
Very sensitive issue IMO.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 09:14 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 09:23, 29 Mar 2015.
|
"Terrorist organization" and "freedom fighters" can be applied to the same group of people, depending on where you view them from. When Assad was last asked whether he's willing to cooperate with the US against ISIS, he said that he won't work with countries supporting terrorism. Go figure.
Quote:
Even if you were to conceive a complete and total shutdown of trade with the outside world from Russia, it's not going to make people start dying by the tens of millions.
You obviously have no idea about the amount of resources coming from Russia to Europe. The much bigger deficiency of this reasoning however is the typical US short-sightedness about anything which is not under your noses. Russia is in Europe, it has the military capacity to be a threat to the entire continent and if it alienated to such a degree that it's forced to forge anti-Western geopolitical alliances - say, with China, Iran, the former USSR republics - you could have your tens of millions of dead in a very short time.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 09:42 AM |
|
|
"Tens of millions dead"?
So what you're implying is war between great powers which will lead to global armageddon anyway
Besides, cannot ever see China or even Iran getting onboard with such a project
Russia might have enough delusional crazies to go for it, but not others.
____________
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 10:15 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
[...]their leader still talk about Israel total destruction, [...]
Nasser has also threatened that Egypt will erradicate Israel and the one who posed a true threat was Sadat, a guy who attacked Israel from surprise and still was beaten hands down. Otherwise he wouldn't stand a chance like his predecessor. Israel's militar capability is so big that it will certainlybe able to defend itself from Iran when it will try to attack. Besides that, no state (except North Korea maybe but they are just crazy) is daring enough to press the button and fire A-bombs because it would automatically mean an end to the civilization. In fact, if you look at the history of the Cold War you may see that A-bombs are in fact a quite good tool of peacekeeping.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 10:38 AM |
|
|
You didn't read what I was saying: nuclear bombs sold on parallel markets and without official signature. No matter what is the perspective you put yourself when labeling terrorist or freedom fighters, they have one thing in common, they do not posed a civilian area where you could retaliate.
So if tomorrow Iran can achieve one bomb, nothing guarantees that it won't be sold to Al quaida or Daesh or any Palestinian group fighting against sionists.
As for Israel force, it consists mainly in the unconditional US support. Which apparently starts to decline and eventually Israel will have one day to respond of its crimes.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 11:55 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 13:42, 29 Mar 2015.
|
Darkshadow said:
"Tens of millions dead"?
So what you're implying is war between great powers which will lead to global armageddon anyway
Besides, cannot ever see China or even Iran getting onboard with such a project
Russia might have enough delusional crazies to go for it, but not others.
I'd say that each country with substantial military power has a good number of "crazies" who would gladly go on with a mass destruction scenario but they are normally suppressed by a far larger number of people who prefer more conventional and less damaging resolutions. You're singling out Russia... why?
My point is that Europe could never expect something good from a hostile Russia and even if there is no immediate impact in the next 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, whatever, in the long run this is a recipe for big problems.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 04:41 PM |
|
|
Zenofex] said:
I'd say that each country with substantial military power has a good number of "crazies" who would gladly go on with a mass destruction scenario but they are normally suppressed by a far larger number of people who prefer more conventional and less damaging resolutions. You're singling out Russia... why? to, say, Pakistan), but the more socially & economically unstable the country, the better reason to be nervous about their armament. Not necessarily because a president in the capitol building is going to
My point is that Europe could never expect something good from a hostile Russia and even if there is no immediate impact in the next 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, whatever, in the long run this is a recipe for big problems.
@Zeno:
Russia is pretty safe & secure with its nuclear armament (compared to, say, Pakistan), but it makes sense to be more nervous over countries with a lot of social & economic instability, not because a president might push a fictional magic red button sitting underneath their desk, but because those are countries where radical coups can happen, and you might have people that aren't thinking straight get their hands on some very large bombs or other forms of unethical weaponry; biological, etc. People don't just turn wantonly belligerent on the fly, unless they're born with a disorder. They need to be pushed into that kind of radical position through different circumstances. You always look at where life is hardest to see where the radical threats are.
The rich & powerful might carry the threat of soft power, but they would never do something self-defeating like tossing bombs around. The odds of a coup happening in the States is almost zip. There's layers upon layers of authority, and there are zero signs of the general population or military suddenly turning partisan. It's hard enough just getting them to come out of their torpor to vote.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 29, 2015 04:55 PM |
|
|
Is it possible for a moderator to transfer this thread to the OSM, please? There's no VW stuff in it so far and it's aready 4 pages.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 31, 2015 09:22 AM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
@Zeno:
Russia is pretty safe & secure with its nuclear armament (compared to, say, Pakistan), but it makes sense to be more nervous over countries with a lot of social & economic instability, not because a president might push a fictional magic red button sitting underneath their desk, but because those are countries where radical coups can happen, and you might have people that aren't thinking straight get their hands on some very large bombs or other forms of unethical weaponry; biological, etc. People don't just turn wantonly belligerent on the fly, unless they're born with a disorder. They need to be pushed into that kind of radical position through different circumstances. You always look at where life is hardest to see where the radical threats are.
The rich & powerful might carry the threat of soft power, but they would never do something self-defeating like tossing bombs around. The odds of a coup happening in the States is almost zip. There's layers upon layers of authority, and there are zero signs of the general population or military suddenly turning partisan. It's hard enough just getting them to come out of their torpor to vote.
During the Cold War there were at least two cases when the US and the USSR were very close to initiating preemptive strikes. The fact that they didn't launch anything hardly proves the point that they wouldn't have done it if they were pressed just a bit more. The military staff doesn't think in terms of economy, moral or long-term consequences, they care only about threats and how can they be handled here and now. You can be absolutely certain that if they manage to enforce their position on the political leadership, warheads will fly all over the globe. That requires a very good justification, sure, but the prerequisites for such a "justification" are nothing more complex than pushing another nuclear power to the limits. How rich some country is has nothing to do with the whole thing, nor how democratic it is - decisions for nuclear strikes won't come from referendums.
|
| |
|
|
