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

Forums - General - What country is the biggest threat to world stability?

starcraft on 21 June 2009
Reasonable said:
starcraft said:

You're (as are many others in this thread) arguing about the potential instability that could be generated by the USA.  But the thing is, that instability only comes to pass if the USA either collapses or bypasses it's own democratic values in an epically serious way.  But they are not a threat to stability unless either of these things is likely, and neither of them are.

On the economic question, consider this.  We have the current crisis stemming (but in no way limited too) a lack of regulation in the US mortgage market, stood up against the enormous stability created for decades by US consumerism, the strength of the dollar as a universal purchasing mechanism, and US funding of the IMF and World Bank's activities.

I recently read a fictional novel by an Australian author called Without Warning: America is Gone that illustrated what I consider to be a fairly realistic notion of what would happen to the world in the event mainstream USA simply disappeared (set in the obviously fictional 2003 world just prior to the invasion of Iraq).  It was carnage.  Even if events didn't play out as that book outlined, it is perfectly reasonable to belief much of the world would collapse, not just economically but into absolute anarchism if America's stabilising influence disappeared.

You have essentially argued against yourself.  By arguing America's disappearance as a stabilising influence would result in crisis, you're asserting the fact that for decades America has been, and in all likelihood for decades will be, the greatest source of stability this world has.

Actually, I pointed out I didn't think it was USA but that your comments are exactly the type of comments that make people feel it could be.

If you tell people, as you did, that the USA is fantastically important then you are leading them to build a picture where it becomes the vital 'weak' spot.  Which, in a sense it is.  After all the OT wasn't which country is the most likely threat - i.e. which is most likely to cause trouble, but which is the biggest threat.  This implies no importance of probability, which does leave the way open for USA to be seriously considered, as while it is very unlikely it would be destabilising, if it did become so, for example if the USA totally collapsed, then its absence would be hugely destabilising.

I however was referring to the psychology of how people make opinions - also, to be honest you tried to get in your views in a blocking way.  The OT was what do you think...?  You responded by declaring what you feel is the wrong answer.  Not only is this unfair and manipulative, basically telling other posters 'the answer is not the USA and if you put that then you are wrong', it was, as I pointed out, ironically only more likely to get people saying what you were trying to block.

Read carefully and don't assume.

 

I said that you were arguing about the potential instability of the United States.  Even though you clarified that you were arguing hypothetically and that it was not your opinion, it is still an argument you made.  Furthermore, the thread calls for the biggest threat to world stability, which implies the biggest realistic threat.  You haven't suggested for a moment that the United States will cease to exist or collapse sufficiently that any of your scenarios would come to pass, you're instead arguing about a potential threat that is in fact not, according to any argument you have made, a threat.  Essentially you're arguing a double-negative.

Read carefully and don't assume please.

As for your second substantive paragraph, I feel you're completely lacking any context when you consider this thread.  I don't know how often you frequent the off-topic section of this website, but I assure you that it, like most websites, regularly degenerates into the Bush-inspired irrational America hatred that the last five years has seen in spades.  I pre-empted that with a few quick points indicating reasons why any such opinion would be unreasonable.  Do you honestly believe that if I had not made those comments "America is the biggest threat to global stability" arguments wouldn't have become a common theme in this thread?

Generally speaking, manipulation implies some form of deviance, cunning or deception.  I think with the statements you're referring too, I wore my heart quite firmly on my sleeve.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network
O-D-C on 21 June 2009

its a tie between

United Stats Of America
China
North Korea
Iran
Venezuela (if they ever decide to be more then just a thorn in the US's side)
Saudi Arabia (havign that much political and economic influence is always a dangerous thing)



Kasz216 on 21 June 2009
mrstickball said:
Rogue states such as North Korea and Iran.

Say what you will of bigger nations, there are only 2 nations that anyone is worried about throwing a nuke around because they hate someone.

What about India and Pakistan?



zexen_lowe on 21 June 2009

I still think it's the US. I don't like them trying to impose the government they feel like (they have sponsored all of the coup d'état's in my country, that is, the most despicable and terrible governments we ever had).

Just knowing their involvement in the Operation Condor tells me that the US is a big threat to us "underdeveloped countries". I know this happened a lot of years ago, but nothing I've seen makes me think that this has changed in any way




starcraft on 21 June 2009
zexen_lowe said:
I still think it's the US. I don't like them trying to impose the government they feel like (they have sponsored all of the coup d'état's in my country, that is, the most despicable and terrible governments we ever had).

Just knowing their involvement in the Operation Condor tells me that the US is a big threat to us "underdeveloped countries". I know this happened a lot of years ago, but nothing I've seen makes me think that this has changed in any way

This is as much as question as it is a statement, but I was under the impression the USA didn't have much to do with Condor...if anything.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network
zexen_lowe on 21 June 2009
starcraft said:
zexen_lowe said:
I still think it's the US. I don't like them trying to impose the government they feel like (they have sponsored all of the coup d'état's in my country, that is, the most despicable and terrible governments we ever had).

Just knowing their involvement in the Operation Condor tells me that the US is a big threat to us "underdeveloped countries". I know this happened a lot of years ago, but nothing I've seen makes me think that this has changed in any way

This is as much as question as it is a statement, but I was under the impression the USA didn't have much to do with Condor...if anything.

It has been argued that while the US was not a key member, it "provided organizational, intelligence, financial and technological assistance to the operation."[5]




starcraft on 21 June 2009

I'm not saying that you're wrong. But that is an argument, made in a very left wing journal, it is not fact.

Even if it were, there remains a substantial number of people that believe that operation had it's merits.

Even if it didn't, I think we need to separate the notion of people not liking the USA from whether the USA has a destabilizing effect on the world.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

zexen_lowe on 21 June 2009
starcraft said:
I'm not saying that you're wrong. But that is an argument, made in a very left wing journal, it is not fact.

Even if it were, there remains a substantial number of people that believe that operation had it's merits.

Even if it didn't, I think we need to separate the notion of people not liking the USA from whether the USA has a destabilizing effect on the world.

While the involvement of the US is arguable, what's not is the fact that the operation is totally withouth a single merit and it was, simply put, an operation of extermination. There's a reason why the three biggest heads of the operation in Argentina (the three leaders of the Junta) and many more of the officers are in prison with a lifetime sentence for genocide and crimes against humanity. No, it was without a doubt the worst thing that ever happened in my country, and if the US were involved (as the evidence suggests) those who were, like Kissinger, really should be ashamed




pastro243 on 21 June 2009
zexen_lowe said:
starcraft said:
I'm not saying that you're wrong. But that is an argument, made in a very left wing journal, it is not fact.

Even if it were, there remains a substantial number of people that believe that operation had it's merits.

Even if it didn't, I think we need to separate the notion of people not liking the USA from whether the USA has a destabilizing effect on the world.

While the involvement of the US is arguable, what's not is the fact that the operation is totally withouth a single merit and it was, simply put, an operation of extermination. There's a reason why the three biggest heads of the operation in Argentina (the three leaders of the Junta) and many more of the officers are in prison with a lifetime sentence for genocide and crimes against humanity. No, it was without a doubt the worst thing that ever happened in my country, and if the US were involved (as the evidence suggests) those who were, like Kissinger, really should be ashamed


I support that, the same thing happened here in Chile, the US goverment had a lot to do in that.



- Our album on spotify https://open.spotify.com/album/56mEbEgyBYGzcDyZ1eMQ1v?si=hYKgir5YRSCrzywgGmV4oQ

- Our videoclip 

- My manga: https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/blanca-the-world/list?title_no=313068

pastro243 on 21 June 2009
Wookaroo said:
pastro243 said:

You didnt mention how they supported democracy by putting dictators in almost every country that was too socialist for them, but I guess that that people dont matter since they are monkeys that didnt know what was best for them, am I right?

The US is certainly not the worse in the world, but dont put them as if they were the best. Being better than china is not a great acomplishment.

Also, I know you changed your president, but the last guy was the one who said "you are with us or with the terrorists" or something like that, thats not a good comment either, glad ricardo lagos, our president in the time we where in the defense thing in th UN said they werent going to support an invasion.

"You didnt mention how they supported democracy by putting dictators in almost every country that was too socialist for them, but I guess that that people dont matter since they are monkeys that didnt know what was best for them, am I right?"

The people don't matter because they are monkeys? I hope you're not implying that I have this mindset lodged in my mind. That would be a rather unfair assumption, no?

"The US is certainly not the worse in the world, but dont put them as if they were the best. Being better than china is not a great acomplishment."

So in your opinion, who is the best? Just curious. In my mind, the ideal country would be one that promotes religious and cultural freedoms. One that has a fair justice system. How many countries are you innocent until proven guilty, and have right to a fair trial? Might be surprised. Not many countries out there are founded on things such as a bill of rights. International aid. I know one country that donates more than any other. UN funding too, unfortunately. Perhaps I'm rambling on now. :|

"Also, I know you changed your president, but the last guy was the one who said "you are with us or with the terrorists" or something like that, thats not a good comment either, glad ricardo lagos, our president in the time we where in the defense thing in th UN said they werent going to support an invasion."

I believe the people of Iraq deserve freedom from tyranny and genocide, and I do believe the US could have went about that in a way that was not nearly as destructive. You're right. The comment, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." was not the best choice of words.

Here is what came directly before that sentence.

"A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform," Bush said. "That means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. ... But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something."

 I think it has been taken out of context. This statement was made not long after the World Trade Center was hit and thousands killed. Terrorism is something that is universally hated and feared. What country would not want to do more to stop it?  Don't interpret that as support for Bush, or his policies, because it's not.


On the first comment I was exagerating xD, the point was many people in the US at that time didnt give a shit for what the US goverment was doing to people outside the US.

Many countries have those things you said, I live in a third world country and we all that. The UN funding might be interpreted as them wanting to have control over international issues, but I dont know.  Also they donate more than others because maybe thhey have more money?

For me maybe the best country would be switzerland and those type of countries maybe, the are peacefull now, their people live great and they dont bother others(they have federer too).

On the last comment, nothing to say about that, I took it like he said it.



- Our album on spotify https://open.spotify.com/album/56mEbEgyBYGzcDyZ1eMQ1v?si=hYKgir5YRSCrzywgGmV4oQ

- Our videoclip 

- My manga: https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/blanca-the-world/list?title_no=313068