| starcraft said: Anyone that thinks the United States, a country that forms the backbone of the global economy, ensures wars between countries like Iraq and Kuwait (until recently), China and Taiwan, Russia and Chechnya and a tonne of other conflicts dont occur simply through the presence of it's fleets and acts as the world's second-largest functional democracy is a source of instability, is simply full of irrational hate. |
The funny thing is your argument actual makes the USA seem like the most likely choice - i.e. if it's that influential then it is also the greatest point of potential instability; rather like the idea of a Keystone without which the entire bridge would fall down. For example many would argue that the current economic instability has its roots in the USA and that therefore the USA is a potentially huge source of instability.
I'd don't think its the USA myself, but that was my thoughts reading your comment.
OT more directly, clearly North Korea's history doesn't look too good, and I'd certainly rather it wasn't pursuing its current course, so I guess I'd have to plump for NK if I was to cast a vote (which I guess I am).
Really though this isn't the best way to think of such things; it's simply not as simple as 'they're the trouble makers'. Every country today is pretty much the end result of conflict and territorial wars. Even the USA. There is no shiny white country I can think of, and most have embaressing periods in their past.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
