Country That is Worst Threat to World Peace?

A perceived threat is quite different from a real threat, and I suspect the responses indicate emotional mindset, not critical appraisal and objective quantification. Sort of like blaming the cop for shooting the dangerous gunman, if you get my drift. The US, in my view is not "A threat to World Peace", it is actively seeking, pretty much by itself, to reduce and minimize the real threats to World Peace. Its a dirty job, someone has to do it, and those who stand to benefit most from our vigilance sometimes are the most vocal in criticizing us. No matter, gratitude is not to be expected. The world would be a more unsettled and unpleasant place today if not for some of our "Meddling" ... a fact all too often overlooked. We've had our failures, but most folks on the planet draw some benefit from our successes. We can stand the criticism ... though I wish we would work less hard at earning it, sometimes.



timber

It's the Netherlands of course! Geez...
I mean, we have wooden shoes. Absloutely lethal, wooden shoes. Don't get kicked by men or women with wooden shoes. Not only that, but with sufficient training we can launch them wooden shoes towards our enemies with great speed and deadly accuracy...
And as far as our windmills go : Just ask Don Quichotte about his experiences...

Seriously now,
Don't know. Any country liable to start a war for territorial gain is a threat to world peace. Who's the greatest threat I reckon is a question of numbers and equipment.

Timber,

You are an oasis of sanity in a seemingly endless desert.

timber,

Cops without the desegnation of peace officers are just renegades. It's easy to say it's an emotional response but that ignores the fact that most probably aren't comfortable with a police force that is self appointed.

Nobody loves a policeman. But they are necessary. Consider the state of the world if the US were to become isolationist and not involved in world affairs.

That police are needed is a given. Ideally they should represent more than a segment of society.

I don't think we are "Self Appointed", CDK. I perceive that the others have abdicated responsibility in the matter, leaving us by default alone in the job. Its a matter of perspective, I suppose.
No one has feelings of fondness for the traffic cop writing them a ticket at the moment, but all would prefer not to participate in a grinding crash. Can't have one without the other.



timber

Craven


The problem is and it always has been that in general society turns it's back on problems unless they are directly effected. A good example is Europe in the thirties.

We've always been in a damned if we do, damned if we don't position in the world. As far as isolationism and messages to the world that we would prefer isolationism no matter how subtle they are: yes, look what happens.

I go strictly to the core of the question: "Country that is Worst Threat to World Peace".
The question is not: "Country with the Looniest Tyrant" or "Country With Most Chances of Creating Limited Havoc".

In this unilateral world, the US posseses armament enough to destroy mankind. Has the power to set the world agenda. Has a President who likes war talk.
Luckily for us, the US also has democratic institutions, a system of balances and counterbalances, democratic culture and freedom of speech to prevent the threat from becoming a reality.

timber's actually an oasis of sanctity in an endless dessert.

Cops are supposed to be impartial, we are not.

Cops are supposed to be desegnated by a higher authority, we are not.

It's easy to say that the whole world is irresponsible but that doesn't negate the fact that America is a self appointed cop.

Sure it's a matter of perception, 90% of the members of a society think that Fred doesn't need to die, the renegade cop thinks he does.

I place enormous value on the service America provides to the world but that doesn't mean I'm blind to the fact that as just as American war efforts can be we are not impartial and are self appointed lords of the land.

It's ludicrous to say the world through disinterest made us cop by default, power made us cops by default. Many in the world are highly interested in divesting us of the title but any attempt to do so makes them the bad guys.

So yes it's a matter of perception. But please make the analogies somewhat relevant to current reality.

We are not traffic cops, traffic cops don't attack people preemptively. Traffic cops stick to their district and can't ignore jurisdiction. The situation is MUCH more complicated than a "everyone hates authority" cop out.

Hey ... Are you accusing humble little moi of pontificating, there, LW?



timber

The problem is and always has been that in general society bad men use the specter of crisis to further their own goals. Bad men on both sides are saying "we must be armed and ready to kill the enemy because he is about to kill us".

Now what could give you that idea, timber?

CDK, I don't dispute the validity of your criticisms. I admit my inference was overly simplistic. I submit that much criticism of US action is likewise overly simplistic. Much is warranted ... far more than I am comfortable with.

The EU had plenty enough power to quell things in The Balkans before we stepped in. Why didn't they? (just one example)

Things as they are may not be "Right", but they are as they are.
Progress in the endeavor to better the situation is slower than most would desire, but is being made. Many who could be part of the more broadly desired remedies choose to criticize, not to cooperate or to take self-help action. It bothers me a lot ... both The US as "Cop", and nobody else willing to take part the role. Its a "damned if you do-damned if you don't" situation. Often when trouble breaks out, the world cries "Where's The US". If the US gets involved, the US is derided for "Serving purely selfish goals". There is an inconsitency there which irritates hell out of me.



timber

flbaezer -- yes, isn't it fortunate that the king got checked and thrown off balance.

Sure the criticism is simple. It's a "who made them our master" type and it usually ignores the fact that the action that is/will be taken is to their benefit.

As to why nobody steps up to it:

The idea governing body would be a consensus of nations, we do everything in our power to undermine anything that would remove ourselves from the top dawg position.

I don't fault our government for doing this, if I had power I wouldn't relinquish it.

But to say that the only factor is military ability is not entirely true.

We dropped a bomb on a Chinese embassy (or was it a consulate?) in that conflict. We apologized and told them to get over it. How many other nations could have done that.

Russia's war on their terrorists is second guessed.

It takes more than military ability. Isreal is perfectly able to kick all the Palestinians out in an enthnic cleansing/"transfer" polls have shown their society supports this, their leader has said that Palestinians belong in Jordan. So why don't they do it? Because we won't allow it (justly IMO).

If inconsistency irks you so, why don't our own inconsistencies chafe? I mean, we undermine U.N. resolutions that don't go our way, we veto anything against Israel unless we need Arab friends at the time.

The world isn't apathetic as to its governance. They aren't apathetic to crisis and problems. They are simply aware that unless we want something to happen on the geopolitical landscape there is little chance of it happening.

To end my rant, do you really think we have nothing to do with the reason the world doesn't have their own cop?

Timber

Re your questian about the EU and the Balkans.
When you have a look here

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/bureaus/eur/releases/951101BosniaChronology.html

You'll notice that the EU did what could be done by a community, which has no own armed forces and actually is just 'growing up' from a common market to a political 'voice'.