Turn on thread page Beta

Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2007? watch

  • View Poll Results: Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2007?
    Syria
    2
    1.98%
    Iran
    22
    21.78%
    North Korea
    6
    5.94%
    Russia
    17
    16.83%
    China
    3
    2.97%
    United States of America
    36
    35.64%
    Lebanon
    0
    0%
    Zimbabwe
    0
    0%
    India
    1
    0.99%
    Sudan
    0
    0%
    Israel
    6
    5.94%
    United Kingdom
    0
    0%
    Pakistan
    2
    1.98%
    Iraq
    2
    1.98%
    Other
    1
    0.99%
    Don't know/No comment
    3
    2.97%

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dcarsten)
    Any of the other countries you'd remotely consider...Iran, Russia, North Korea, China are either content with regional power and/or minor sabre rattling....or smart enough to know that although they might be able to hold their own in the major war...its not worth the economic and financial cost.
    Nor is it to the US. The Iraq war cost, and is costing, America a lot of money. It may have the power to start multiple wars (although it's currently stretched to the extent that it probably wouldn't fare very well in any new ones) but it doesn't have the required degree of recklessness. Certainly not with public opinion favouring isolationism again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Im sorry but it can only really be the USA. nearly all the problems with iran + russia are related to the USA, and with the USA being so powerful (although how long this will last is debatable), she really is the largest threat to world peace. and most other countries politically manoeuvre around her/work with her. eg. the UK, lots of middle eastern countries.

    the USA already has a monopoly of the world stage, and is therefore the largest threat to it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    What about 'terrorist' groups getting their hands on chemical/biological/nuclear weapons? I'd say that that's a far more likely scenario - and thus a more dangerous one - than a country like Iran or NK declaring war.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roserose)
    the USA already has a monopoly of the world stage, and is therefore the largest threat to it.
    That doesn't make sense. Clearly the country that is currently "Top Dog" has a massive vested interest in maintaining the status quo, which involves not destabilising things any more than can possibly be avoided.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Nor is it to the US. The Iraq war cost, and is costing, America a lot of money. It may have the power to start multiple wars (although it's currently stretched to the extent that it probably wouldn't fare very well in any new ones) but it doesn't have the required degree of recklessness. Certainly not with public opinion favouring isolationism again.

    Yes but you've sort of proven my point...The Iraq war is costing the US a ton of money...yet we dove right into it anyway.....meaning the US is foolish enough to start wars without fully thinking through the economic and financial burdens.

    And yes public opinion seems to favor isolationism.....maybe..but tell me, when was the last time the US government appeared to give a ****e what the American people want? In plain English : Wars= financial hardship for the nation as a whole BUT a small group of corporations are making a ton of money on wars....so they're all for them. And they are the ones with hordes of lobbyists leaning on politicians to do what they want. I as a random American schmuck on the street am basically removed from the political process and no matter what I say on opinion polls the government doesn't really care what I think. Thats a fact.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I can only refer you to post #11. Enjoy
    Does Iran, China or Russia go into countries to effect regime change just because they have the might to do so and see themselves at the world's police?

    Umm...I'm not too sure they do...and if they did, I would accuse them of having the potential to endanger world peace, as I do the USA.

    I'm not selective in who I would condemn.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varsity)
    I present this as evidence that the American people are not jackass's! Just their leaders :P
    This man speaks like the many Americans I have the pleasure to be friends with.
    Thanks buddy....I have a hard time acting like most people in my country....I do this annoying thing called THINKING....I'm hooked on it....and it gets me in trouble all the time here in the Land of the Fat Home of the Stupid.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    As I see it:

    Syria, Lebanon and Israel might well end up in conflicts that disrupt their surroundings, but this is unlikely adversely to affect world peace on a larger scale.

    Iraq will continue to implode; different sectarian groups will gain more influence as allied troops are eventually forced out by domestic and international pressure.

    Iran might well have a hand in the above. It will probably also continue a policy of niggling aggression towards the west. I don't see it as a real threat during 2007/8 though.

    North Korea seems unlikely directly to destabilise world peace. I am more worried about its internal human rights record.

    Zimbabwe is in the same situation, but even more so.

    Sudan might cause local trouble, but not really a major player on the world scale.

    Russia is slightly worrying. Recent steps towards Cold War-style behaviour and attitudes are a cause for concern, but in themselves do not constitute a major threat (yet).

    China has no reason to seek military hegemony when economic dominance seems just over the horizon.

    USA has caused the biggest global disruption of peace in the past years. However, the current administration is a lame duck and I don't see the Republicans getting back in power, and even if they do I imagine it will be with a very different style of foreign policy.

    UK: without an ill-advised US policy to follow, I doubt it.

    India has no reason to upset world peace. I had an interesting chat with a guy the other day who thought that Hindu nationalism might eventually pose a threat to the secular way in which India is currently managed. But given the size of population and the number of different belief systems held, I think India is remarkably stable and will continue to remain so.

    Pakistan is getting my vote. Musharraf's not going to last much longer, and with its nuclear capability, strong strain of Islamic puritanism and potentially rife internal insurgencies, I think we could see Pakistan become a fairly serious threat to global peace.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Does Iran, China or Russia go into countries to effect regime change just because they have the might to do so and see themselves at the world's police?

    Umm...I'm not too sure they do...and if they did, I would accuse them of having the potential to endanger world peace, as I do the USA.

    I'm not selective in who I would condemn.
    Good for you, lol.

    My point is only that the USA's actions while objectively threatening world peace (i.e. by causing wars) they are at least aiming to maintain the strategic advantage of the West.

    The way I see it, those responding USA here are looking only at the small picture because the USA is reacting to acts by other governments rather than seeking out people to bully. Compare this to Russia who seem to be pushing for a fight or Iran who are also attempting to expand their sphere of influence. What you get is the USA trying to maintain and stabilise the status quo through war (and other tactics) while other countries try to destabilise the status quo. Thus the USA might appear to be the threat but they are not the underlying cause and thus are the effect more than the cause.

    PS: I'm sure I explained that badly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Good for you, lol.

    My point is only that the USA's actions while objectively threatening world peace (i.e. by causing wars) they are at least aiming to maintain the strategic advantage of the West.

    The way I see it, those responding USA here are looking only at the small picture because the USA is reacting to acts by other governments rather than seeking out people to bully. Compare this to Russia who seem to be pushing for a fight or Iran who are also attempting to expand their sphere of influence. What you get is the USA trying to maintain and stabilise the status quo through war (and other tactics) while other countries try to destabilise the status quo. Thus the USA might appear to be the threat but they are not the underlying cause and thus are the effect more than the cause.

    PS: I'm sure I explained that badly.
    I understand your argument but I don't agree with it. I don't see the US as being reactionary...but rather preemptive in its warfighting stance since invading Iraq. Clearly the US incursion into Afghanistan was reactionary....but it seems pretty clear that the US government CHOSE to invade Iraq as a preemptive war even thought Iraq had no capability to immediately threaten the United States. Additionally the US government recently declared an entire Regular and Uniformed branch of the Iranian military to be a "terrorist organization" which basically goes against previous ideas of what a terrorist organization is...i.e. NOT UNIFORMED and NOT REGULAR military. This also seems preemptive rather than reactionary...and even inflammatory towards Iran.

    I also don't see how you could argue that the Iraq war is an attempt by the United States to stabilize through war...the biggest stabilizing force in the Middle East for the last 25 years was Saddam Hussein (as tyrannical as he was) who the US removed from power. I might add after several decades, prior to the 91' Gulf War, of counting him as a valuable ally in the region. The entire US operation in Iraq has created a live action training ground for Islamic terrorism and de-stabilized the entire region, with the Saudis, Turks, and Iranians waiting on their respective borders for the United States to leave Iraq so they can carve it up.

    While I might agree with your point that the US might be attempting to maintain a strategic advantage to the West I would add that this has always been the agenda of the United States since the end of World War 2 and it has frequently, as now, blown up in their face. The Korean War cost countless lives to attempt to stop the spread of communism and maintain a Western advantage and the ceasefire was signed with practically the same border as when the war began. The US tried to do the same thing in Vietnam with an even worse outcome...the entire country became communist in 1974. Both of these wars also created a proxy war with the Soviet Union....the Soviets supplying arms to the Communist combatants and in the case of Korea even employing Soviet pilots to fly for the North Korean air force. The point is, the US attempting to maintain a western strategic advantage is nothing new, but it also is something that frequently has not worked.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Fairly obviously the USA, if the past five years are anything to go by
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why isn't Somalia on the list? There's a bunch of animals that needs to be dealt with.

    China's certainly a worry. If we'd been sensible earlier in the 20th century we'd have crippled her potential to do damage - now it's too late and we'll have to hope that Bird flu takes hold.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Ok I think alot of people have jumped up on the USA so far.

    Now I have had a little bit of time to consider this, and as for a conflict that is the most likely to escalate, I think I will go for China and its claim over Taiwan.

    The only other conflicts I can see are as follows.

    Israel Vs Arab States- Insta win for Israel as Arab are terrible war fighters.

    North Vs South Korea - South Korea has a massive technological advantage, and even without the USA's help would have little trouble here over a medium term conflict.

    USA Vs Iran- Provided there is no plans for an occupation, inst win for the USA. And even if there is an occupation, very little chance of this escalating to include more parties (Other than US allies involved in the initial conflict)

    China Vs Taiwan would be the most global problem. The USA has a legal obligation to help Taiwan, and Taiwan is the home of the USN 5th Fleet, so is of strategic importance to the USA. This conflict has a chance to both drag Japan into a conflict, and ignite trouble between both North and South Korea whilst the rest of the worlds attention is focused on China.
    I would imagine that Australia (and by extension the UK commonwealth) would enter into a conflict in this area, which could invoke a response from Russia due to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

    As unlikely as it sounds this could lead to a wider NATO response and a full blown World War. Unlikely yes, but the most likely situation for a threat to 'world peace'.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dcarsten)
    I understand your argument but I don't agree with it. I don't see the US as being reactionary...but rather preemptive in its warfighting stance since invading Iraq. Clearly the US incursion into Afghanistan was reactionary....but it seems pretty clear that the US government CHOSE to invade Iraq as a preemptive war even thought Iraq had no capability to immediately threaten the United States. Additionally the US government recently declared an entire Regular and Uniformed branch of the Iranian military to be a "terrorist organization" which basically goes against previous ideas of what a terrorist organization is...i.e. NOT UNIFORMED and NOT REGULAR military. This also seems preemptive rather than reactionary...and even inflammatory towards Iran.

    I also don't see how you could argue that the Iraq war is an attempt by the United States to stabilize through war...the biggest stabilizing force in the Middle East for the last 25 years was Saddam Hussein (as tyrannical as he was) who the US removed from power. I might add after several decades, prior to the 91' Gulf War, of counting him as a valuable ally in the region. The entire US operation in Iraq has created a live action training ground for Islamic terrorism and de-stabilized the entire region, with the Saudis, Turks, and Iranians waiting on their respective borders for the United States to leave Iraq so they can carve it up.

    While I might agree with your point that the US might be attempting to maintain a strategic advantage to the West I would add that this has always been the agenda of the United States since the end of World War 2 and it has frequently, as now, blown up in their face. The Korean War cost countless lives to attempt to stop the spread of communism and maintain a Western advantage and the ceasefire was signed with practically the same border as when the war began. The US tried to do the same thing in Vietnam with an even worse outcome...the entire country became communist in 1974. Both of these wars also created a proxy war with the Soviet Union....the Soviets supplying arms to the Communist combatants and in the case of Korea even employing Soviet pilots to fly for the North Korean air force. The point is, the US attempting to maintain a western strategic advantage is nothing new, but it also is something that frequently has not worked.
    The fact that it often has failed spectacularly doesn't alter the intention. And as for Iraq being destablising this is merely another example of the US messing up. But its aim when invading was to create a stable Iraq that could serve to stabilise the area and spread democracy to the area.

    My point is only that the US has and is trying to be a stabilising agent not a provacative one. The same cannot be said for the other countries on the list.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    The fact that it often has failed spectacularly doesn't alter the intention. And as for Iraq being destablising this is merely another example of the US messing up. But its aim when invading was to create a stable Iraq that could serve to stabilise the area and spread democracy to the area.

    My point is only that the US has and is trying to be a stabilising agent not a provacative one. The same cannot be said for the other countries on the list.
    I see your argument but at what point do you separate alleged intention from results? The US has spent most of the last 50 years destabilizing regions of the world........BY ATTEMPTING TO STABILIZE THEM.

    Based on these results you can almost count on the United States to destabilize any region they stick their dirty little fingers into.....which they do...hence my argument that the United State poses the greatest threat to peace around the globe.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varsity)
    Israel Vs Arab States- Insta win for Israel as Arab are terrible war fighters.
    The Middle East doesn't operate in terms of winning and losing wars any more. The aftermath of another war would be a campaign of medium- and large-scale terror attacks on Israel for months if not years.
    North Vs South Korea - South Korea has a massive technological advantage, and even without the USA's help would have little trouble here over a medium term conflict.
    Who charged to the North Koreans' aid last time round? China. Is there any reason to suspect they wouldn't do so again?
    USA Vs Iran- Provided there is no plans for an occupation, inst win for the USA. And even if there is an occupation, very little chance of this escalating to include more parties (Other than US allies involved in the initial conflict)
    See above; winning a war is no longer a cut-and-dried state. Insurgency and terrorism would be rife. And if the US pulls out, then said terrorism will simply switch to focusing on Israel instead.
    China Vs Taiwan would be the most global problem. The USA has a legal obligation to help Taiwan, and Taiwan is the home of the USN 5th Fleet, so is of strategic importance to the USA. This conflict has a chance to both drag Japan into a conflict, and ignite trouble between both North and South Korea whilst the rest of the worlds attention is focused on China.
    I would imagine that Australia (and by extension the UK commonwealth) would enter into a conflict in this area, which could invoke a response from Russia due to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

    As unlikely as it sounds this could lead to a wider NATO response and a full blown World War. Unlikely yes, but the most likely situation for a threat to 'world peace'.
    I think that's a fairly good analysis, but as you say, it's pretty unlikely. All the big players, on both potential sides, know that while they may argue about who's steering the ship it's in their interest not to capsize it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dcarsten)
    I see your argument but at what point do you separate alleged intention from results? The US has spent most of the last 50 years destabilizing regions of the world........BY ATTEMPTING TO STABILIZE THEM.

    Based on these results you can almost count on the United States to destabilize any region they stick their dirty little fingers into.....which they do...hence my argument that the United State poses the greatest threat to peace around the globe.
    Personally I think you are wrong to say that the US has destabilised rather than stabilised. In some individual cases they have made things worse. But in general the world is fairly stable and that is mostly as a result of the USA, in my opinion anyway.

    Without the US the world would be far more unstable than it is. Hence imo the USA isn't a danger to world peace it is rather the obstacle to those who try to destabilise the world and therefore end up being involved in lots of things and appear to be destabilising all the time when in fact they don't.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dcarsten)
    Yes but you've sort of proven my point...The Iraq war is costing the US a ton of money...yet we dove right into it anyway.....meaning the US is foolish enough to start wars without fully thinking through the economic and financial burdens.
    However, I expect they'll learn from the mistake.
    And yes public opinion seems to favor isolationism.....maybe..but tell me, when was the last time the US government appeared to give a ****e what the American people want?
    Excuse me? Britain was the one with the massive anti-war protests. The Americans were baying for blood. The government gave it them in plentiful supply, and they found out it stains so they went off the idea. Also some of them realised what Europe found out a century ago, namely that if you send your young men off to fight, some of them do not come back.
    In plain English : Wars= financial hardship for the nation as a whole BUT a small group of corporations are making a ton of money on wars....so they're all for them. And they are the ones with hordes of lobbyists leaning on politicians to do what they want.
    How quickly we come back to the conspiracy theories. You think anyone's profitting from Iraqi oil right now? the place is a war zone. No-one's making any money from it.
    I as a random American schmuck on the street am basically removed from the political process and no matter what I say on opinion polls the government doesn't really care what I think. Thats a fact.
    Try voting?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    The Middle East doesn't operate in terms of winning and losing wars any more. The aftermath of another war would be a campaign of medium- and large-scale terror attacks on Israel for months if not years.Who charged to the North Koreans' aid last time round? China. Is there any reason to suspect they wouldn't do so again?See above; winning a war is no longer a cut-and-dried state. Insurgency and terrorism would be rife. And if the US pulls out, then said terrorism will simply switch to focusing on Israel instead.I think that's a fairly good analysis, but as you say, it's pretty unlikely. All the big players, on both potential sides, know that while they may argue about who's steering the ship it's in their interest not to capsize it.
    Israel Vs Arab states- All more or less true. However by Israel Vs Arab states I was referring to a 2nd, 6 day war.

    North vs. South Korea- I don't see China getting involved here, they seem to be distancing themselves from North Korea, and will stay clear (especially if the North are the aggressors, as I think we can all assume they would be)

    USA Vs Iran- I believe would be limited to a large bombing campaign, but as with all these I am trying to tick of conflicts that can or cant spark World War 3 or at the very least a large war. An invasion of Iran will more or less stay inside Iran, just like Iraq and Afghanistan.

    I'm glad we can agree with the whole Taiwan thing, even if it is really REALLY unlikely.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    The USA is the country which actually throws its troops around the world to cause havoc, not to mention its long history of proping up corrupt governments which are friendly to it.
    Sounds like the Socialist revolution, until the fall of the Soviet Union.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.