Which nation is the greatest threat to world Stability?

[Tajir]

I started this thread while watching an episode of The O'Reilly Factor whereby Bill O'Reilly asked his audience what the greatest threat to America was.

Then I thought to myself why the world's premier superpower and Bully (LOL) would be on the defensive to such a degree.

I saw a poll a week later, from Europe. This poll (can't remember the source) showed that 44% of Europeans from England to Italy, believed that America is the greatest threat to world stability. Israel and Iran didn't even come close. Not even Al Qaeda - most Europeans are smart enough to know that it has no real power.

Then I got to thinking, if this poll included Americans, Aussies, Canadians, Russians, and the Chinese, it would be a real poll and we would finally know which nation is the greatest threat to world stability.

Give explanations, please.

[Kscott]

Well most say America because it is the super power and therefore will undoubtedly make blunders that adversely affect the world.

The thing is, if America is not the power any more who will be? Will the really be more benevolent than America? Will they be more malevolent? Its really a rather complicated issue.

[Tajir]

Well most say America because it is the super power and therefore will undoubtedly make blunders that adversely affect the world.

The thing is, if America is not the power any more who will be? Will the really be more benevolent than America? Will they be more malevolent? Its really a rather complicated issue.

Might be true, and I understand where you're coming from. But, even during the Cold War, the United States partook in far more military adventures than the Soviet Union.

The United States is just naturally a militant nation, at least that's the where Europeans are getting their belief.

The list of things that ruin America's reputation are abundant. Its either time for revolution or self-destruction. Time will tell.

[Nutsack]

Israel, I most definately do not hate that country nor most things about it, the thing is other people do, which causes instability. Israels simple existence causes unrest in the entire Middle East. I'm not saying we should remove Israel, I'm just saying that currently this country is causing instability in that region of the world, which in the long run may cause instability in the entire world.

EDIT: I think the Chinese are alright, they've launched missiles against sattelites, but so has the U.S before them. China seems to have gained a new personality recently if I'm not wrong, it feels like they are becoming very responsible. Anybody disagree?

[Tajir]

Israel, i most definately do not hate that country nor most things about it, the thing is other people do, which causes instability. Israels simple existence causes unrest in the entire Middle East. I'm not saying we should remove Israel, I'm just saying that currently this country is causing instability in that region of the world, which in the long run may cause instability in the entire world.

The thing that bothers many about Israel is not the state itself, but also its double-faced backer, the US.

A nation like Syria can't understand the fact that its an ultra-secular nation, but a Theocratic government like Israel gets the love and attention of the secular world, mainly America.

This then leads to anti-Americanism. Its purely politics, and Israel is shrouded in deep poop that it cannot get itself out of unless it as a nation ceases to exist. And this might take a while.

[Feliks]

I see America being the biggest threat to stability for oh, say the next 697 days 4 hours and 47 minutes. I hope.

But after we get things cleared over I hear I can see China emerging as a major destabilizer in the world. They have the potential to tie up the world's interests (world: The leaders of America and Western Europe, except France). While I doubt we'll ever go to war with them now that our economies have gotten so intertwined, a Cold War II might just take its toll on everyone.

[Tajir]

I see America being the biggest threat to stability for oh, say the next 697 days 4 hours and 47 minutes. I hope.

But after we get things cleared over I hear I can see China emerging as a major destabilizer in the world. They have the potential to tie up the world's interests (world: The leaders of America and Western Europe, except France). While I doubt we'll ever go to war with them now that our economies have gotten so intertwined, a Cold War II might just take its toll on everyone.

The major reason the US is the world's premier 'de-stabilizer' is because it does the same things the British Empire did (play puppet master) but the US has sadly been caught red-handed an even number of times in the last 5 years.

China, however won't have much success because I personally believe China doesn't have the ideological motivation to spread its message (which no one knows -- is it Atheism or Communism??)!

And not to mention, China has a god-awful military record. China is lucky if the Muslim Hui ethnic group don't secede in becoming their own nation. China is more likely to see Balkanization of its own land than actually balkanizing other nations.

[Roy Batty]

I had to go with the 'States. Not because we are a Super Power, but because we are imperialistic and the greatest exporter of a hedonist culture since the Romans.

[Feliks]

greatest exporter of a hedonist culture since the Romans.

I think Japan is our equal in that department.

And the Roman analogy stops short, we stopped being truly aggressive conquerers over a century years ago, now we're just fairly ineffective "muck arounderers".

[Sétanta]

Well seeing that the United States is the only, and I mean only benevolent superpower the world has ever had, I don't know why people think it is a threat. Must be that nasty European inferiority complex.

[Markas]

Well seeing that the United States is the only, and I mean only benevolent superpower the world has ever had

Nonsense. Selflessness and capitalism don't mix. Self-interest has always been the prime component of post-war American foriegn policy.

[Kscott]

Nonsense. Selflessness and capitalism don't mix.

We are not Selfless by any means, but compared to previous world powers we could certainly be labeled as benevolent. Most people I talk to supported the Iraqi War because the genuinely believe that we are doing them a service. I sincerely believe for the most part America's motives are good. The problem is really what we think is best for countries is not always what is actually best for those countries.

[Feliks]

Nonsense. Selflessness and capitalism don't mix. Self-interest has always been the prime component of post-war American foriegn policy.

Evidence...?

Even if that were true, it doesn't make the slightest difference. name a country that does not regularly act in its own self-interest. In America, we do wonderful things, regulated capitalism may be fueled by self interest, its end result is innovation and effectiveness.

[Last Roman]

Well seeing that the United States is the only, and I mean only benevolent superpower the world has ever had

ya, what did Rome or Britain ever do?

I don't know why people think it is a threat. Must be that nasty European inferiority complex.

maybe it's these wars that we keep on starting?

I fear our lasting impression, once America falls from super power status, will be that of one where we help only when it benefits us, one of destruction, one of imperialism.

[Caelius]

This thread is so retarded. Who thinks anyone here that posts or comments about a single nation being the "greatest threat to world stability" could ever hope to be objective in their views?

[hunter260859]

I think if the U.S keep having this war doctrine then they are the greatest threat to world stability.

It's funny the world police is the worlds nightmare.

[Kscott]

It's funny the world police is the worlds nightmare.

Im not sure about that one. Im sure you would much rather have China as the world's police.

[Tom Paine]

America, on the basis that it is the sole superpower, and this "benevolent" thing is claptrap. Selfinterested is more accurate. If it was in the interests of the US to incinerate Europe, they'd do it without too many qualms. And they have the power to do whatever they want (ie, feel at that moment is in their national - ie economic - interest).

[Kscott]

America, on the basis that it is the sole superpower, and this "benevolent" thing is claptrap. Selfinterested is more accurate. If it was in the interests of the US to incinerate Europe, they'd do it without too many qualms. And they have the power to do whatever they want (ie, feel at that moment is in their national - ie economic - interest).

Incenerate Europe? As an American I can tell you I would be entirely opposed to this even if it meant I gained a million dollars. And I know many Americans and I would put the population that would actually do something at about 3%. We are greedy as we are human, but America is not evil.

[Tom Paine]

Incenerate Europe? As an American I can tell you I would be entirely opposed to this even if it meant I gained a million dollars. And I know many Americans and I would put the population that would actually do something at about 3%. We are greedy as we are human, but America is not evil.

If it was in your national self interest... it appears you were willing to wage war in Aghanistan and Iraq as a nation, I don't think any difference would be seen between that and waging war in Europe, if America came out better than it went in or could be persuaded that that would end up the case.