Poll: Who's the biggest threat to international security?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

We are. When good people do nothing, bad things happen. That is how 9/11 happened. We did nothing to stop it. Maybe now we will be more alert and vigilant.

Who are the good people and how did it lead to 9/11?

When you say we did nothing to stop it . . . what did YOU fail to do?

He forgot to check his Magic 8 ball that day. Perhaps he failed to augur a sheep too.

 

[foofoo]

LOL...look at the idiots voting for the USA. The USA is a major stabilizing force in the world since any other government knows the USA is willing to fight for others.

threat assesment has nothing to do with assumed intentions, it is based on capabilites. the us is far and away the most powerful and capable of projecting that power world wide. no other nation/organization on that list comes close.

perhaps you should think again about what threat assesment in terms of international security means.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Need to add Michael Moore as an option...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I do disagree with you about Iraq. Here, if we continued to do nothing, Iraqi citizens were at risk of vile and desasterous rule by terror and evil. You need to check Iraq's record of human rights and how they treat women just as an example. Saddam needs t obe removed and we are the only ones powerful enough and with enough resolve to get the job done. Good people doing nothing would just allow more atrocities to continue, and hope for Iraqi people fade to dust in the desert.

I doubt your sincerity. Iraqi citizens have been at risk from a despot since he invaded Iran. Reagan, Bush, and Clinton reactions ranged from duplicity to limited opposition. GWB could have changed all of that . . . but did he campaign on liberating good people from vile, evil regimes with atrocious human rights records and links to terrorism? His words . . . "we cannot . . . we should not be the world's policeman."

Bush made it clear that human rights issues should NOT be considered while dealing with issues of international affairs . . . READ: MFN status for China. Landmines maim a magnitude more civilians than soldiers. They are one of the most significant dangers to basic human safety but this administration opposed the global ban (Clinton did as well) on the basis of necessary flexibility for the US military.

Does anybody remember the slaughter going on in the Sudan or Chad? How about Palestinians living in squalor while settlers claim the oxymoronic prime real estate in the West Bank and Gaza? What about Tibet? How come the plight of North Koreans being terrorized by their government and then forcefully repatriated by China has no traction? What about Indians enduring decades of terrorism sponsored by our #1 anti-terror ally, Pakistan? What about brutal regimes in Nigeria and Liberia? Did any of these travesties start during Bush's reign? No . . . but have any of them improved? No . . . but has he proposed doing anything about them? Maybe . . . apparently we are going to talk to North Korea . . . about not building nukes.

The Bush administration considered Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch irrelevant until they needed certifiable evidence of Saddam's brutality. But contrary to popular belief those organizations did not start filing legitimate reports in September 2001 or 2002 . . . and they have plenty to say about our coalition of the willing . . . including the big dog.

 

[Thraxen]

perhaps you should think again about what threat assesment in terms of international security means.

Spare me. Perhaps you should think in terms of what the current governments are willing to do.

 

[exp]

I voted for the U.S., but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

 

[foofoo]

Spare me. Perhaps you should think in terms of what the current governments are willing to do.

actually, i am. that's why i'm glad that the us has the most power and is able to project it. we aren't as likely to abuse it as other nations if they had it.

maybe you missed my earlier post...

------------------------------------------
we are,
but only because we have the most military power by orders of magnitude as well as quite strong economic power. we have the capability. places like north korea and iraq just cant project their small amount of military power and we can. plus we've shown that we are willing to invade sovreign nations. even though i think that a reasonable case can be made for invasion (though mostly not the ones that i've heard from bush). threat assesment is made on the basis of capability. this is sop for all threat assesment. and by that measure, we are, most definitely. just be glad it's us. if history is a guide, if any other nation that i can think of offhand was on the plus end of such an asymmetric world power balance, they would conquer (and i mean really conquer, not economically and militairly dominate) the rest of the world.
-------------------------------------------

in any case, i think it's just a matter of definition.
or there is the off chance that you are not wanting to discuss it reasonably and are not worth talking to.

 

[Crimson]

I vote for Islamic extremists.. No matter what country they come from. Islam unfortunately is being run by extremists for the most part (Except in the United States and other "Western" nations it seems)... The world would be a much better place without them.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: exp
I voted for the U.S., but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

I wish you lived in the pre-Saddam Iraq and had that same attitude against your own country. They would make your nipples and testicles blaze with current from torture devices. But, then again, you might like it.

People like you make me sick.

 

[abovewood]

Japan should be on the list as well.

 

[Mark]

I voted for the USA, because "disarming Saddam" is the stupidest excuse I've ever heard of for going to war. How many WMD's have been found again?

 

[sean2002]

Originally posted by: Mark
I voted for the USA, because "disarming Saddam" is the stupidest excuse I've ever heard of for going to war. How many WMD's have been found again?

We are less that 2 weeks into the war, what due you expect?

 

[sean2002]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
What exactly did you want good people to do before 9/11?

How about the CIA and FBI do their damn jobs instead of turfing?

How about the State Dept give a flying crap about who gets visas?

How about the government impose a high standard of security at airports (and on airliners) instead of bowing to airlines bitching about how much it costs?

9/11 could have been prevented by a lot of good people doing something different . . . but it no way justifies our actions in Iraq.

Apples and oranges, baby . . . fruit that grow on trees . . . otherwise a BS comparison.

If you have the country/government why not due us all a favor and move to Canada?

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: sean2002

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
What exactly did you want good people to do before 9/11?

How about the CIA and FBI do their damn jobs instead of turfing?

How about the State Dept give a flying crap about who gets visas?

How about the government impose a high standard of security at airports (and on airliners) instead of bowing to airlines bitching about how much it costs?

9/11 could have been prevented by a lot of good people doing something different . . . but it no way justifies our actions in Iraq.

Apples and oranges, baby . . . fruit that grow on trees . . . otherwise a BS comparison.

If you have the country/government why not due us all a favor and move to Canada?

To question and critize our government is the very foundation this country is built on. To tell others to leave because they disapprove of the government is simply a very unpatriotic thing to do, it is un-American.

Maybe you should be the one to leave?

 

[kleinesarschloch]

maybe he should learn the english language first.

 

[Mark]

If the US's intents were to actually disarm Saddam like they've stated many times, then they would have told the UN inspectors EXACTLY where to look. But instead, were going to war based on an ASSUMPTION. An ASSUMPTION imo is no reason to go to war.

 

[Jani]

I would say USA. USA is not direct threat but its actions are seeding hate into islamic groups.

 

[Fencer128]

A series of "pre-emptive" wars would be a massive threat to international security.

Andy

 

[HappyNic]

USA,, way to nosy for their own good.

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: Mark
If the US's intents were to actually disarm Saddam like they've stated many times, then they would have told the UN inspectors EXACTLY where to look. But instead, were going to war based on an ASSUMPTION. An ASSUMPTION imo is no reason to go to war.

hahaha. Good point. Somehow that point didn't cross my mind.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Mark
If the US's intents were to actually disarm Saddam like they've stated many times, then they would have told the UN inspectors EXACTLY where to look. But instead, were going to war based on an ASSUMPTION. An ASSUMPTION imo is no reason to go to war.

Where's Benny Hill when you need him?

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: joohang

Originally posted by: Mark
If the US's intents were to actually disarm Saddam like they've stated many times, then they would have told the UN inspectors EXACTLY where to look. But instead, were going to war based on an ASSUMPTION. An ASSUMPTION imo is no reason to go to war.

hahaha. Good point. Somehow that point didn't cross my mind.

Yes, very good point.

By the way, this poll is forgetting also a bloody person leading the most conflictive country in the Middle East.... yes, the poll needs ISRAEL!!

 

[jagr10]

I don't think you can pick just one. Since nobody said this one, i'll say RUSSIA. They're the ones selling weapons to Iraq and then sitting back. Who knows how many other countries they are selling weapons to. The only country that could possible take on the US in a war would be Russia, but that probably won't happen. Russia has secret nuclear weapons plants and they're also doing stuff with uranium.

 

[exp]

I wish you lived in the pre-Saddam Iraq and had that same attitude against your own country. They would make your nipples and testicles blaze with current from torture devices. But, then again, you might like it.

People like you make me sick.

LOL...easy there, killer. I'm a bit confused by your overreaction to my post. "People like me"? What does that mean? I simply said that while the U.S is the greatest threat to international security in the short-term, over the long run I believe such temporary disruptions of the peace will pay big dividends. What exactly did you find so troublesome about that sentiment?

 

[SickBeast]

Ok who are the wise guys that voted for Canada??