Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
that doesn´t make anyone a threat to world peace.
Which countries pose the greatest threat to world peace?
- Thread starter Ralph Masters
- Start date
that doesn´t make anyone a threat to world peace.
kained&able
Here for the football.
USA have have defence treaties with various countires very near to em i think.
Although thinking about it i reckon im confusing china and n.korea.
dave
which country has the greatest destabilising effect, it could be due to its government, it's resources, it's ambiguous sovereignty, groups within the country, it's political situation etc
Fictionist
Serving Eargasms....
I disagree.
A nation state can, because of it's politics, or pursuit of technological goals, or support of terrorism or subversion, or support of and dissemination of religious propoganda, constitute a threat to world peace.
I'd say the situation in the Balkans was very central to the causes of WWI,
that and the Berlin-Baghdad railway
that and the Berlin-Baghdad railway
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
no, it can constitute a threat to the geopolitical interests of major world powers. Iran, which you´re obviously hinting at, is as much threat to peace in my country as a tangerine.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
only because the associated powers decided to make it so. The Austrians could have decided that blowing up A-D FF didn´t bother them, the Germans could have told them they wouldn´t support an invasion of Serbia which would provoke world war 1, to sort out their problems diplomatically (which undoubtedly they would have or done, or to have done), the Russian could have let their client state Serbia get invaded, the French and British could have decided it was nothing to do with them.
Unrest in the Balkans was a load of shit that the Allies chose to take seriously for a variety of motives. That doesn´t mean that Serbia was a threat to world peace, it means that imperialist wankers building lots of weapons and competing over who gets to take over and exploit various bits of the world are.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
The US seem pretty fucking dangerous. Pretty much the first thing they (were they american then?) did was go to war over land and they have been doing the same ever since.
If the Imperial Powers didn't have a fear, a grievance, a need for resources or the need to spread their "message" there would be very little reason to start a major war. Events, resources or politics in little countries such as Serbia, Afghanistan and Poland are often cited as the reason major wars happen.
The US harbours the most terrorists, both the state terrorists in the government, and lots of cuban terrorists too.
I would not defend any terrorist, but it's worth remembering that without abuses and crimes by states, civilian terrorists would hardly exist.
The US is the prime and only empire, there is no candidate that comes anywhere near them. They influence, dominate, infiltrate all round the word through military, cultural, and economical means. They're in everyone's faces. Just like britain was before. Arguably the US empire is just an extension of the original british one anyway.
No, that was the british at that time. We educated them in the ways of empire. We handed the reigns over to them.
Any country or region that perceives itself to be the victim of an injustice can become a 'threat to peace'. They won't see themselves as a threat though, just as trying to redress a wrong.
There are many places where there are historical grievances that just need a shift of power among those who hold them down to enable a re-assertion of demands for land or freedom that have been suppressed.
Kurdistan is such an example. No such country exists any more, but there are Kurds in Iraq and Turkey who would like a restoration of their nation.
North Korea which one poster described as 'not expansionist' might want to take over South Korea at some stage. South Korea already has robot machine gun posts on the border
Israel has nuclear weapons but nuclear weapons can't be used close to home without getting nuclear fallout so they can't use them on the Palestinians directly. They could of course use them further afield on a country that is a supporter of the Palestinians. That is Iran of course. The Israelis would prefer that the Americans did the job for them but American politics is a bit more subtle now that Obama is in the White House. He will wait to watch the growth of dissent within Iran itself which might take a few years yet to become politically dominant.
Pakistan is in a very dangerous position. It has been a military dictatorship effectively for years, with a veneer of democracy. They had and have American support but that itself is feeding discontent and encouraging the Taliban. If America wants to put troops into Pakistan it might have to pull them out of Afghanistan to do so.
I would think that the idea that Pakistan and India would start a nuclear war between them is absurd. Not only are they next door neighbours (with the fall out risk) having once been one country, but neither would be suicidal enough to consider trying to survive a nuclear war based on population numbers. India is just turning the corner into being a major economic player on the world stage, they have too much to lose.
Afghanistan is not going to be a threat to any other country. The Americans really only went in there to secure a pipeline deal that the Taliban reneged on. That is all over as far as I know. They may as well pull out. Afghanistan is not really a country, it is a set of tribal regions. A Western inspired government is not going to be able to control those regions as if it were one entity. We have lost the pipeline lets get out and leave them to live their own lives.
Sri Lanka may come up again and trouble us in the future. The defeat of the Tamil Tigers could be - from their perspective a simmering injustice of the kind that breaks out as I mentioned at the beginning of the post.
There are many places where there are historical grievances that just need a shift of power among those who hold them down to enable a re-assertion of demands for land or freedom that have been suppressed.
Kurdistan is such an example. No such country exists any more, but there are Kurds in Iraq and Turkey who would like a restoration of their nation.
North Korea which one poster described as 'not expansionist' might want to take over South Korea at some stage. South Korea already has robot machine gun posts on the border
Israel has nuclear weapons but nuclear weapons can't be used close to home without getting nuclear fallout so they can't use them on the Palestinians directly. They could of course use them further afield on a country that is a supporter of the Palestinians. That is Iran of course. The Israelis would prefer that the Americans did the job for them but American politics is a bit more subtle now that Obama is in the White House. He will wait to watch the growth of dissent within Iran itself which might take a few years yet to become politically dominant.
Pakistan is in a very dangerous position. It has been a military dictatorship effectively for years, with a veneer of democracy. They had and have American support but that itself is feeding discontent and encouraging the Taliban. If America wants to put troops into Pakistan it might have to pull them out of Afghanistan to do so.
I would think that the idea that Pakistan and India would start a nuclear war between them is absurd. Not only are they next door neighbours (with the fall out risk) having once been one country, but neither would be suicidal enough to consider trying to survive a nuclear war based on population numbers. India is just turning the corner into being a major economic player on the world stage, they have too much to lose.
Afghanistan is not going to be a threat to any other country. The Americans really only went in there to secure a pipeline deal that the Taliban reneged on. That is all over as far as I know. They may as well pull out. Afghanistan is not really a country, it is a set of tribal regions. A Western inspired government is not going to be able to control those regions as if it were one entity. We have lost the pipeline lets get out and leave them to live their own lives.
Sri Lanka may come up again and trouble us in the future. The defeat of the Tamil Tigers could be - from their perspective a simmering injustice of the kind that breaks out as I mentioned at the beginning of the post.
Sri Lanka would also appear to be a very strategically important location, although not as important as Afghanistan might become.
maximilian ping
Grrrrr
San Marino
it's always the little guys...
it's always the little guys...
do you predict a conflict in international waters, or on land? Whar is going to be the trigger and where will the wrath be directed?
no ones mentioned space yet
I reckon Chinese interests will likely prolong some regional conflicts , could get tricky on the Indian border as well.
China could do with a bit of Siberia and its gas, while Indonesia would be perfect stewards for Northern Australia
No it's not. The US will be the world's last empire. The world cannot carry on in its unjust, cruel, negative, manner. It is moving closer to a crucial point in its history i reckon, and this is hastened by the pace at which technology is pushing us along which runs at a totally different speed to spirituality. What on earth are we doing talking about nations being threats to world peace here in the 21st century? Are we, as a species, so pathetic that we've still not found a way for peace as a default, rather than our default of constant war?
Until people realise it's up to them whether we have peace or war, then we will continue to have leaders who think it's okay to have poverty and war, and it's okay to use us humans all over the world as their playthings to be expended wherever necessary in order to satiate their lust for wealth and power.
There's no need for poverty, no need for war. So why do we have both all the time? Where are the leaders and brains we need to get rid of world war, and to usher in world peace? The answer is nowhere. The whole system needs reevaluating.
Fictionist
Serving Eargasms....
It would appear that your own bias is wildly distorting your understanding and projection of what I wrote.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
For about four years after WW2, the US was the only country in the world with nuclear weapons. The supreme power on earth, capable of obliterating any country, had they chosen, without fear of retaliation.
The world can't carry on being so unfair?
Bet they were saying that back in Sumerian times.The world can't carry on being so unfair?
Back in whenever those times were they didn't have the technology we have today, so your comparison has no standing.
All the technological advances in the 5000 years since the Sumerians' heyday didn't do much to make the world a fairer or peaceful place, it's a little optimistic to imagine that the Internet/ or the iPhone 3G will usher in some new golden age.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Technology has just made it easier for the emperors to keep the subjects under their imperial thumbs.
Well, that's all very well, and i for one have no argument with that, but my point about technology was that we now have the power to kill ourselves off. So fighting and warring and arguing has potentially far worse outcomes these days, and therefore i argue that we need to spend a bit more effort in bringing ourselves up to date in more spiritual ways in order to remove constant war and poverty from our world.
All it needs is the people to realise they have power over the leaders, if only they were to exercise it. And if the internet can help bring about this awareness, then it can help, but only to that extent.
As for a 'new' golden age, was there ever one without war and injustice?
But humans have shown their skills and resources in creating constant war, so in the interests of balance i'm sure we could get constant peace if we went for it. We seem able to do almost anything in our world except deliver ourselves from ourselves...
Similar threads
