starcraft said:
Reasonable said:
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.
|
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.
|
I'm not going to get dragged off topic here, so let me just say:
1) I'm sure this is a case of 'wearing your heart' vs a deliberate attempt to be beligerent
2) Your post was the first response. It ignored the OP in terms of giving your view on post topic and instead launched a defensive attack presumtive of other posts
3) I firmly believe this isn't acceptable forum behaviour. Given the OP it is the right of others to put USA if they want (a right I would have thought very close to USA constitution). You can discuss that with them and respond if they do, and argue why you don't agree of course, but posting a defense before anyone has done so, while driven by honest motives, still isn't good decorum. You're trying, whether for honest reasons or not, to influence others responses before they've given them. Seriously, that isn't a good approach. And I can tell you that you're simply reforcing many others views of certain US sterotype behaviours, something I don't believe is your intention but you should be aware is nonetheless the result.
4) You keep arguing my points as if they're my actual beliefs - I'm pointing out to you that whether you realized it or not you not you had done the equivilent of saying 'don't touch that' - immediately encouraging others to do so. I'm not arguing the points myself or stating them as my beliefs.
5) Therefore I'm not arguing against myself because I'm not arguing those points as my beliefs. I pointed out your post as per 3) and 4) above wasn't really good decorum nor the best way to achieve your goals. I gave an example of how others might position USA, much as you yourself did. I'm sorry if you mistook that for my actual views, etc. but if you re-read my posts I'm sure you'll see I was writing illustratively of others potential points.
I believe putting 'read don't assume' came across too strong, but it wasn't meant aggresively. Perhaps I wore my 'heart on my sleave' for a moment there!
I meant 'read the post, reply to it and don't assume others answers'. You should have given your view on the OP and only reacted if you saw other posts. I didn't mean to sound like I was 'having a go at you' but you reacted way too strongly to my OP where I, rather politely I thought and still think, suggested your post wasn't appropriate for the reasons I've laid out here.
Just because you 'know' based on other forum behaviour that someone will put USA (and I would have bet a large sum of money some people would put USA also, so I'm not disagreeing with you inasmuch as we both know it was inevitable some would argue USA) doesn't mean you should ignore better forum behaviour IMHO. Set the standard I say, don't erode it further (there are plenty jostling to that as we both know).
As I put, I believe given its unstable political situation, with three sons vying for top job, plus the nuclear equation, plus historic behaviour, NK is probably, right now, the biggest threat to world stability in the most immediate sense. Due to size and influrnce, technically USA, Russia and China can have the most influence, and of course that can be good or bad. But I agree the OP implies liklihood as well as other factors that tend to rule them out vs smaller, more immediately unstable countries.
If you want to discuss this further then by all means PM me but let's not drag anything further off topic than we have.
