With ever increasing special interest soft-money campaign contributions, the question isn't which country, its which Corporation can buy enough influence on the political stage to threaten world peace.
They say greed is the root of all evil and since corporations exist for the sole purpose of making money having them influence the geo-political situation around the world probably won't have a positive effect.
Me myself I would say Germany. hell the have done it not once but twice so third. times a charm. I did not vote though people seem to forget that every country has unique qualities and brings somthing diffrent to the table when you define "threat". when you look at it they formed like this.
The U.S: because it has a habbit of pressuring other countries.
China: becase of the sheer volume in population.
Israel: because of a place nearly the size of a state they have been fighting for decades and been holding thier own pretty well.
The Muslum countries: because they have religious resolve behind thier efforts.
and the list goes on and on. It would be nice if in there were clearly defined "threats" but the real world is not so simple and a hell of alot stranger than fiction...
Originally posted by Shelk With ever increasing special interest soft-money campaign contributions, the question isn't which country, its which Corporation can buy enough influence on the political stage to threaten world peace. They say greed is the root of all evil and since corporations exist for the sole purpose of making money having them influence the geo-political situation around the world probably won't have a positive effect. Shelk
Lockheed Martin - produces everything from bombs to nuclear missiles, including bombs and landmines that are illegal to produce.
Originally posted by Vergeltung Isreal does a lot of "provoking" actions but in my mind 99.99% of them are justified. because after all they are really teh only christian/jewish state surrounded by Fundamentalist islamic nations that want them dead.
I didn't bother reading all the posts in this forum, so if this has already been brought up then I'm sorry.
People often forget the true definition of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism just means going back to the basics or core teachings of a subject and rigidly adhering to those principles. If these Islamic nations were truly fundamentalist countries, then they wouldn't be nearly as violent and radical. The problem with those countries in the middle-east that they are mostly ruled by napoleonic theocratic leaders who would rather preach war from the pulpit instead of tolerance. Yes, it does say in the Koran that whoever dies in a holy war will get all kinds of fabulous prizes, but really does this war look the slightest bit holy? It would be a holy war if we were trying to erase their religion from the face of the earth. Civilians strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up other civilians for the sake of bringing facist clergy members into power is anything but holy... It saddens me that the clergy of any religion (or any person in a position of leadership, for that matter) would manipulate the faith of their followers to turn them into walking weapons. It has happened throughout time and almost always for the sake of saying, "My religion is better than yours." So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that no single country is holding back world peace. Politically driven organised religions are the problem.
Originally posted by Vergeltung Isreal does a lot of "provoking" actions but in my mind 99.99% of them are justified. because after all they are really teh only christian/jewish state surrounded by Fundamentalist islamic nations that want them dead.
I didn't bother reading all the posts in this forum, so if this has already been brought up then I'm sorry.
People often forget the true definition of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism just means going back to the basics or core teachings of a subject and rigidly adhering to those principles. If these Islamic nations were truly fundamentalist countries, then they wouldn't be nearly as violent and radical. The problem with those countries in the middle-east that they are mostly ruled by napoleonic theocratic leaders who would rather preach war from the pulpit instead of tolerance. Yes, it does say in the Koran that whoever dies in a holy war will get all kinds of fabulous prizes, but really does this war look the slightest bit holy? It would be a holy war if we were trying to erase their religion from the face of the earth. Civilians strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up other civilians for the sake of bringing facist clergy members into power is anything but holy... It saddens me that the clergy of any religion (or any person in a position of leadership, for that matter) would manipulate the faith of their followers to turn them into walking weapons. It has happened throughout time and almost always for the sake of saying, "My religion is better than yours." So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that no single country is holding back world peace. Politically driven organised religions are the problem.
QFE (Quoted for Emphesis) That is a good way to look at it. Makes you think. There seems like so many variables involved that it would or is impossible to ever come to the conclusion of world peace. As long as one person doesn't like something the way it is and has the power to bring people to his power then I just don't know. The only thing close to world peace would be the time between wars.
I find it very intersting that so many people voted for the US. I live in the US and i personally think we try to do too much peacekeeping. I just wish we'd mind our own damn business. We're spending billions in our "War on Terror" *said that with a southern accent and a slight grin*. You can call me greedy but i think we could use the money more wisely here in our own country.
I voted for China because their leader (not going to even pretend i know his name) scares the hell out of me.
I think alot of people, including me, don't see the war on terror as "peacekeeping". War is war and should be avoided if possible. No mather what motives a war has it's still a war, and with war you don't have world peace. No mather how good USA's intentions are, their war's still aren't peace. Regarding the other countries on the list. They aren't a real threat. First they don't have the military power, to do something with the country that has enough nukes to take out this planet and most things between us and Mars in one blow. The only way these countries can be a threat to the world peace is if they get USA pissed on them, and USA goes to war.
Originally posted by spineshank I find it very intersting that so many people voted for the US. I live in the US and i personally think we try to do too much peacekeeping. I just wish we'd mind our own damn business. We're spending billions in our "War on Terror" *said that with a southern accent and a slight grin*. You can call me greedy but i think we could use the money more wisely here in our own country. I voted for China because their leader (not going to even pretend i know his name) scares the hell out of me.
Where there's smoke there's almost always fire.And if so many people vote for the Us it is because a lot of people have come to understand that the US "politics of peace" are nothing more than a sad attempt at personally-breeded- Bug crushing .
Yes , because all the present "Hotheads"
(for you to know just so you can increase a bit your knowledge capacity)
Have formerly been trained and instructed by your beloved government , during the coldwar.So your "politics of peace" are just an attempt to cover the crap shuffled long time ago. That should make you think ...
and should increase your will to learn more about what is going around in the world , because one which knows is less easy to manipulate .
And believe me , each and every government (i don't put "my one" aside here) knows very well why he puts so much money into something.
Don't think your politicans are a bunch of Sammaritans that care so much about other countries for nothing . They're no mother teresas in a suit . If they spend so much money, than most certainly they think they will get something out of it too .
On the war subject there is something i said before and i'll say it again , having received such a back up exactly from you :
The wars explode because of conflictual interests, but now that there is no "eastern front" that is way harder to hide.People manage to see the real reason behind it . Coming to the example i said you gave me :
No one cared crap about china untill 6 months ago when the multinationals and governments saw that the wares-production-rate ,which in that country was huger and sold at waayy cheaper prices than the western products, had become a threat for the westerner industry
Than the propaganda began : Documentaries about their "weird" traditions , about their "weird" culture , the pathetic calls at patriotic consumism :
(our wares cost you one eye but you should buy them because they are made by proud *insert random western country name here* )
all with one purpose : * Think about it and insert purpose here i aint gonna feed you everything*
Now china has suddenly become a threat for the world and their leader (whichs name a lot of people don't even know ..) suddenly scares the hell out of people
China, one of the most pacific countries in the world , one with thousands of years of culture..
Boy o boy.
But as a great man once said:
"Ignorance is a blessing , i wish i could turn back in time and let them fill my head with crap for i would sleep better at night , i wouldn't have to stand against millions and their wrong doings..."
As i said up there : The UsofA should stop taking all the goddamn oil for itself.
Peace
just looking for trouble ..anyone got a problem with that..?
Who cares? We're all gonna blow ourselves up with mankind's own stupidity anyway, but If I had to say which country(ies) would expedite apocalypse id have to say the rising tensions between China and us in the USA.
Though Russia, Iraq, or Korea might have a hand in it too. Yes, I know, I have very little faith left in mankind, but what we've been doing these past centuries you shouldn't be surprised.
I think it's the objective of your past self to make you cringe.
you people are nuts. first off, there are 'wars' at least the size of the iraq war going on nonstop in some parts of the world. there would be alot more if not for the presence of the u.s.a. only reason they get any votes is that its 'cool' to bag on america
that being said, you left out the main anit-peace country
Mozambique, particularly those jerks holed up in chicualacuala
Originally posted by Saggitarius Denmark ****** Rules , they have John dahl Thomasson who would..score..even if he was 144 teethles and with excessive viagra usance needs denmark rules
Originally posted by Phoenixs Usa The last 2 wars have been started by them. The next will too, the question is where? Libya or Iran? They are currently the only country that goes to war.And btw Gz Razorback and you other Aussies. Australia just made it to the Football WC next year
That statement works only if you take into account wars or conflicts started by the U.S., which even then doesnt work. Also thats pretty un-fair to only look at the U.S. and not other countries when comparing who has started wars.
If by saying the U.S. has started the last two wars, then thats wrong. I gather you are talking about the Gulf War and this current war in Iraq. The first war in Iraq wasnt started by the U.S., it was started with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
There have been many wars/conflicts started around the world by other countries. Many countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East have gone to war (or started conflicts) with other countries or with groups of people within a country fighting each other.
Honestly there isnt world peace right now, so how can world peace be broken? Thousands of people get killed in different countries each year over different conflicts such as religious or "ethnic cleansing" being done.
Originally posted by fulmanfu you people are nuts. first off, there are 'wars' at least the size of the iraq war going on nonstop in some parts of the world. there would be alot more if not for the presence of the u.s.a. only reason they get any votes is that its 'cool' to bag on americathat being said, you left out the main anit-peace countryMozambique, particularly those jerks holed up in chicualacuala
Yes there are and we know it. This may sound abit harsh, but most of them are internal conflicts that don't pose a big threat to other countries. It's sad that those things happen, but they don't have much to say for the overall stability in the world. There is no WW3 errupting because of a conflict in a small country in Africa. We the western world have shown to many times that we don't give a damn shit about Africa.
Originally posted by Lanmoragon Originally posted by Phoenixs Usa The last 2 wars have been started by them. The next will too, the question is where? Libya or Iran? They are currently the only country that goes to war.And btw Gz Razorback and you other Aussies. Australia just made it to the Football WC next year
That statement works only if you take into account wars or conflicts started by the U.S., which even then doesnt work. Also thats pretty un-fair to only look at the U.S. and not other countries when comparing who has started wars.
If by saying the U.S. has started the last two wars, then thats wrong. I gather you are talking about the Gulf War and this current war in Iraq. The first war in Iraq wasnt started by the U.S., it was started with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
There have been many wars/conflicts started around the world by other countries. Many countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East have gone to war (or started conflicts) with other countries or with groups of people within a country fighting each other.
Honestly there isnt world peace right now, so how can world peace be broken? Thousands of people get killed in different countries each year over different conflicts such as religious or "ethnic cleansing" being done.
I was thinking about the 2 major wars after 9/11. Afghanistan (With Nato) and now the Iraq war (Us only). Yes there are alot of conflicts around in the world, but as far as I know no country has attacked (This was what I meant with starting a war) another in the last years besides USA.
only reason they get any votes is that its 'cool' to bag on america
Who gives a retarded donkeys *** about being "cool"? You aint talkin to no milklipped-pinkdiapered-highschoolteenie which's sole life purpose is to be "Cool"
Do not go generalizing things . And stop your sad attempts at making things personal by unleashing personal insults on people which are presumibly "Free" to express their thoughts on the matter .
1)The "war's " you mentioned are usually civil wars , and not wars between countries .
2) Who said that if it wasnt for america there would be more wars and not the opposite ? What Facts do you have for that besides your propaganda filled head?
People in some countries should wake up when they hear that their government ,that is persumibly the most democratic government in the world , censures and threatens their major networks with closure when they attempt to do what every other network in the world does : spread the news ...
Done with this before things get nasty
just looking for trouble ..anyone got a problem with that..?
Comments
Well it's not Uruguay we just pwned them.
Remember they also have Saruman and Sauron !
Saurons a big eye what'll he do? Stare us to deatg
Those people that voted USA your out of your @$@%in minds!!
Because?
just looking for trouble
..anyone got a problem with that..?
With ever increasing special interest soft-money campaign contributions, the question isn't which country, its which Corporation can buy enough influence on the political stage to threaten world peace.
They say greed is the root of all evil and since corporations exist for the sole purpose of making money having them influence the geo-political situation around the world probably won't have a positive effect.
Shelk
Me myself I would say Germany. hell the have done it not once but twice so third. times a charm. I did not vote though people seem to forget that every country has unique qualities and brings somthing diffrent to the table when you define "threat". when you look at it they formed like this.
The U.S: because it has a habbit of pressuring other countries.
China: becase of the sheer volume in population.
Israel: because of a place nearly the size of a state they have been fighting for decades and been holding thier own pretty well.
The Muslum countries: because they have religious resolve behind thier efforts.
and the list goes on and on. It would be nice if in there were clearly defined "threats" but the real world is not so simple and a hell of alot stranger than fiction...
It..Burns..
Lockheed Martin - produces everything from bombs to nuclear missiles, including bombs and landmines that are illegal to produce.
I didn't bother reading all the posts in this forum, so if this has already been brought up then I'm sorry.
People often forget the true definition of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism just means going back to the basics or core teachings of a subject and rigidly adhering to those principles. If these Islamic nations were truly fundamentalist countries, then they wouldn't be nearly as violent and radical. The problem with those countries in the middle-east that they are mostly ruled by napoleonic theocratic leaders who would rather preach war from the pulpit instead of tolerance. Yes, it does say in the Koran that whoever dies in a holy war will get all kinds of fabulous prizes, but really does this war look the slightest bit holy? It would be a holy war if we were trying to erase their religion from the face of the earth. Civilians strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up other civilians for the sake of bringing facist clergy members into power is anything but holy... It saddens me that the clergy of any religion (or any person in a position of leadership, for that matter) would manipulate the faith of their followers to turn them into walking weapons. It has happened throughout time and almost always for the sake of saying, "My religion is better than yours." So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that no single country is holding back world peace. Politically driven organised religions are the problem.
I didn't bother reading all the posts in this forum, so if this has already been brought up then I'm sorry.
People often forget the true definition of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism just means going back to the basics or core teachings of a subject and rigidly adhering to those principles. If these Islamic nations were truly fundamentalist countries, then they wouldn't be nearly as violent and radical. The problem with those countries in the middle-east that they are mostly ruled by napoleonic theocratic leaders who would rather preach war from the pulpit instead of tolerance. Yes, it does say in the Koran that whoever dies in a holy war will get all kinds of fabulous prizes, but really does this war look the slightest bit holy? It would be a holy war if we were trying to erase their religion from the face of the earth. Civilians strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up other civilians for the sake of bringing facist clergy members into power is anything but holy... It saddens me that the clergy of any religion (or any person in a position of leadership, for that matter) would manipulate the faith of their followers to turn them into walking weapons. It has happened throughout time and almost always for the sake of saying, "My religion is better than yours." So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that no single country is holding back world peace. Politically driven organised religions are the problem.
QFE (Quoted for Emphesis) That is a good way to look at it. Makes you think. There seems like so many variables involved that it would or is impossible to ever come to the conclusion of world peace.
As long as one person doesn't like something the way it is and has the power to bring people to his power then I just don't know. The only thing close to world peace would be the time between wars.
i voted america for obvious reasons.
I find it very intersting that so many people voted for the US. I live in the US and i personally think we try to do too much peacekeeping. I just wish we'd mind our own damn business. We're spending billions in our "War on Terror" *said that with a southern accent and a slight grin*. You can call me greedy but i think we could use the money more wisely here in our own country.
I voted for China because their leader (not going to even pretend i know his name) scares the hell out of me.
There is no best MMORPG, only favorites.
I think alot of people, including me, don't see the war on terror as "peacekeeping". War is war and should be avoided if possible. No mather what motives a war has it's still a war, and with war you don't have world peace. No mather how good USA's intentions are, their war's still aren't peace.
Regarding the other countries on the list. They aren't a real threat. First they don't have the military power, to do something with the country that has enough nukes to take out this planet and most things between us and Mars in one blow. The only way these countries can be a threat to the world peace is if they get USA pissed on them, and USA goes to war.
just looking for trouble
..anyone got a problem with that..?
Who cares? We're all gonna blow ourselves up with mankind's own stupidity anyway, but If I had to say which country(ies) would expedite apocalypse id have to say the rising tensions between China and us in the USA.
Though Russia, Iraq, or Korea might have a hand in it too. Yes, I know, I have very little faith left in mankind, but what we've been doing these past centuries you shouldn't be surprised.
I think it's the objective of your past self to make you cringe.
You should care , it's the world you live in , and the crap happening around will influence your life.
What is right is that most probably these serious discussions have no place in places where kids
"Pwnd K? Bai11 Suxxorrr22 yeye mmorpgfanboi kickassmymmo best"
They are wasted
....I'm too old ...
just looking for trouble
..anyone got a problem with that..?
you people are nuts. first off, there are 'wars' at least the size of the iraq war going on nonstop in some parts of the world. there would be alot more if not for the presence of the u.s.a. only reason they get any votes is that its 'cool' to bag on america
that being said, you left out the main anit-peace country
Mozambique, particularly those jerks holed up in chicualacuala
I would have to say Denmark!
Denmark ****** Rules , they have John dahl Thomasson who would..score..even if he was 144 teethles and with excessive viagra usance needs
denmark rules
just looking for trouble
..anyone got a problem with that..?
And we also have BonBon Land
-In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
|
RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos
That statement works only if you take into account wars or conflicts started by the U.S., which even then doesnt work. Also thats pretty un-fair to only look at the U.S. and not other countries when comparing who has started wars.
If by saying the U.S. has started the last two wars, then thats wrong. I gather you are talking about the Gulf War and this current war in Iraq. The first war in Iraq wasnt started by the U.S., it was started with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
There have been many wars/conflicts started around the world by other countries. Many countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East have gone to war (or started conflicts) with other countries or with groups of people within a country fighting each other.
Honestly there isnt world peace right now, so how can world peace be broken? Thousands of people get killed in different countries each year over different conflicts such as religious or "ethnic cleansing" being done.
Yes there are and we know it. This may sound abit harsh, but most of them are internal conflicts that don't pose a big threat to other countries. It's sad that those things happen, but they don't have much to say for the overall stability in the world. There is no WW3 errupting because of a conflict in a small country in Africa. We the western world have shown to many times that we don't give a damn shit about Africa.
That statement works only if you take into account wars or conflicts started by the U.S., which even then doesnt work. Also thats pretty un-fair to only look at the U.S. and not other countries when comparing who has started wars.
If by saying the U.S. has started the last two wars, then thats wrong. I gather you are talking about the Gulf War and this current war in Iraq. The first war in Iraq wasnt started by the U.S., it was started with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
There have been many wars/conflicts started around the world by other countries. Many countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East have gone to war (or started conflicts) with other countries or with groups of people within a country fighting each other.
Honestly there isnt world peace right now, so how can world peace be broken? Thousands of people get killed in different countries each year over different conflicts such as religious or "ethnic cleansing" being done.
I was thinking about the 2 major wars after 9/11. Afghanistan (With Nato) and now the Iraq war (Us only). Yes there are alot of conflicts around in the world, but as far as I know no country has attacked (This was what I meant with starting a war) another in the last years besides USA.
just looking for trouble
..anyone got a problem with that..?