America is a bigger threat to world peace than North Korea

[MTZehvor]

VGPolyglot said:

Aeolus451 said:

Nope. For us to be at war, we would have to declare it or another country would have to declare it. Bombing terrorists in the sand dunes and mountains doesn't count. It would be silly if it did. We're not trying to destroy those countries' governments. If NK bombed us, we would declare war on them then go to war with them. 

So, that means them that North Korea has never been at war, because they didn't declare war in the Southern government. So, by they logic they're actually a peaceful country. And are you really trying to tell me that the United States is not trying to destroy the Syrian government?

I think you misread his statement. It's either one country or the other has to declare it, not both. North Korea declared war on South Korea in 1953 (and still claims they are at war today), so there is still technically a war.

O/T: World Peace is something of a tricky concept to define. Does that mean an absence of violent organizations? Having all countries ruled by non-abusive regimes/governments? A lack of wars? Simply avoiding a global war? North Korea actively starves its own citizens and imprisons government dissentors into concentration camps, while the United States has history of destabilizing governments who commit human rights abuses as long as it's convenient for them to do so.

I'd argue North Korea is a greater threat if we define world peace as the first two, while the US is a greater threat to last two, if only because they are far more likely to start or participate in wars (especially any sort of global conflict). North Korea is incredibly repressive and a consistent human rights violator, but I don't think anyone considers them a serious contender for global superpower.