By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
kappie1977 said:
Nem said:


Ok, i obviously needed to make it clearer that the Puttin mention was an "what if" example as he is the one that would be closer to that atm. Its not a situation that can happen immediatly, but without deterrents i think it will just be a matter of time until another crazy lunatic with visions of grandeur comes along and thinks he can get what he wants and be unpunished.

Also, i dont think those EX-USSR countries are nearly as eager to go back as you say, or they wouldnt have separated in the first place.

As for your other point about small countries... Well... i have not really adressed that. I said that the USA should be a deterrance force, but how often and how they use their force is a different issue. What i wouldn't like to see is for the US to just go: "Look, we don't care anymore, we are just gonna mind our own business." . That is what i'm worried about. A green card for lunatics to think they can.

I understand your point, but I think that it's even the otherway around that USA is the more dangarous country. They are not acting/involving in issues if they can't gain or get controll over a region. No country govnerment would just attact a certain dictator because it's for the people of that country! If you really think that any country would do that you are pretty naive. Ofcourse the govnerment wants us to be for involvement, so they do all kind of propoganda to convince you, your country needs to be involved!


I did make that point. There are definitly economic interests at play. The US is not always right at all. But i don't think a world without the US would be a better world. It would become a more dangerous one. Even with economic interests, they are deterrents for bigger threats. Small countries and how they intervene is highly debatable and i'm not defending it in any way. I'm just against isolitionism because that was an enabler for large wars to happen in the past.