Is the U.S. the biggest threat to peace? (1 Viewer)

[Tom Skerritt]

I read a statistic the other day from a global polling organization that roughly 25% of the people polled believe that the US is the biggest threat to peace.

I think that Pakistan came in second with just under 10%.

Do most Americans understand that we are viewed this way? I certainly do, but I don't know if most Americans do. I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.

And could it be true? Is the US the biggest threat to peace? We are probably at war with more countries than any other. I don't really know. I honestly haven't given it much thought. But seeing the stat got me to wondering about it.

I love our freedoms and our free markets. But I oftentimes wonder what it would be like to be Canadian.

 

[Run It Up]

I love our freedoms and our free markets. But I oftentimes wonder what it would be like to be Canadian.

Um, if I'm not mistaken, Canada has been a joint participant in every military conflict the United States has ever been in aside from the ones the publicly disagreed with (Vietnam and Iraq).

Anyways, I doubt most citizens know or care what the global opinion of our country is. Also, no one country is the biggest threat to world peace, top of that list is limited resources, followed closely by power, then money, then religion, then Nancy Grace.

 

[mon]

Of course we are. Weapons and war are what we're best at. Our military budget is more than that of the next 17 countries combined.

 

[Sinn Fein]

'Murica

'Nuff said

 

[LinusMarr]

I really don't care what some goat herder in the middle east thinks...

 

[[icon]]

I really don't care what some goat herder in the middle east thinks...

Ahhhh hilllbilly peenes.... Gotta love him.

 

[[icon]]

I really don't care what some goat herder in the middle east thinks...

Ahhhh hilllbilly peenes.... Gotta love him.

 

[satch]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

I'm proud of the fact that our nation has the will, the ability, and the balls to confront those who others will not. We're not a threat to peace, we protect the peace that does exist when threatened. Unfortunately that requires military force.

Suppose there's a bully on a playground beating up otherwise happy kids. Is the kid who stands up to the bully a threat to peace or a protector of peace? Now suppose after the first bully is stopped another bully pops up. The same kid then stands up to bully #2. Is that kid a threat to peace or a protector of peace? What about bully #3, 4,5, etc? The fact that the same one kid stands up to multiple bullies does not make him the threat to peace. He's still the protector of it, but against multiple threats possibly at the same time. The kid standing up to all the bullies may appear to be a threat to peace because he's seemingly always involved in conflict, but it's only because he's the only kid with the balls to stand up to all the bullies.

 

[LinusMarr]

I really don't care what some goat herder in the middle east thinks...

Ahhhh hilllbilly peenes.... Gotta love him.

Should I care? I will ponder this on my way for a ice, mocha-choka-locha at starbucks and then off for my pedicure..

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I read a statistic the other day from a global polling organization that roughly 25% of the people polled believe that the US is the biggest threat to peace.

I think that Pakistan came in second with just under 10%.

Do most Americans understand that we are viewed this way? I certainly do, but I don't know if most Americans do. I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.

And could it be true? Is the US the biggest threat to peace? We are probably at war with more countries than any other. I don't really know. I honestly haven't given it much thought. But seeing the stat got me to wondering about it.

I love our freedoms and our free markets. But I oftentimes wonder what it would be like to be Canadian.

Its pretty nice. Having a big dumb oaf to the south of us spend all their money on a military means we can use ours on stuff like healthcare, education, pension plans, etc.

 

[kutta]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

I'm proud of the fact that our nation has the will, the ability, and the balls to confront those who others will not. We're not a threat to peace, we protect the peace that does exist when threatened. Unfortunately that requires military force.

Suppose there's a bully on a playground beating up otherwise happy kids. Is the kid who stands up to the bully a threat to peace or a protector of peace? Now suppose after the first bully is stopped another bully pops up. The same kid then stands up to bully #2. Is that kid a threat to peace or a protector of peace? What about bully #3, 4,5, etc? The fact that the same one kid stands up to multiple bullies does not make him the threat to peace. He's still the protector of it, but against multiple threats possibly at the same time. The kid standing up to all the bullies may appear to be a threat to peace because he's seemingly always involved in conflict, but it's only because he's the only kid with the balls to stand up to all the bullies.

The problem is that a lot of people see us as the bully with no one strong enough to stand up to us.The Iraq war did not help this perception.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

I'm proud of the fact that our nation has the will, the ability, and the balls to confront those who others will not. We're not a threat to peace, we protect the peace that does exist when threatened. Unfortunately that requires military force.

Suppose there's a bully on a playground beating up otherwise happy kids. Is the kid who stands up to the bully a threat to peace or a protector of peace? Now suppose after the first bully is stopped another bully pops up. The same kid then stands up to bully #2. Is that kid a threat to peace or a protector of peace? What about bully #3, 4,5, etc? The fact that the same one kid stands up to multiple bullies does not make him the threat to peace. He's still the protector of it, but against multiple threats possibly at the same time. The kid standing up to all the bullies may appear to be a threat to peace because he's seemingly always involved in conflict, but it's only because he's the only kid with the balls to stand up to all the bullies.

The problem is that a lot of people see us as the bully with no one strong enough to stand up to us.The Iraq war did not help this perception.

This is what I wonder about.

Hitler and Germany, yes. We needed to get involved.

Japan, no. We did not need to annihilate them.

Korea, no. We did not need to get involved.

Cuba, no. We did not need to get involved.

Vietnam, no. We did not need to get involved.

And now we are thrusting our might all over the Middle East to what end? Democracy? Control of oil? Ousting dictators? Is it any of our business other than economic?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I thought our president was elected to fix this?

But to answer your question - well yeah considering the options over the last 150 years have been to capitulate to systems built in slavery, authoritarianism, fascism, communism, and Islamism.

So the next question to ask these people is, "If you want peace will you pay any and every price demanded of you?"

 

[danielmclark]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

If we didn't have a long history of fostering coups and installing friendly dictators who we later attack under the guise of taking out a "barbaric lunatic with dangerous weapons" (dangerous weapons which we've often sold to them), your glamorization of our military and world standing would carry more weight.

 

[DSP]

The biggest threat to peace is war

 

[satch]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

I'm proud of the fact that our nation has the will, the ability, and the balls to confront those who others will not. We're not a threat to peace, we protect the peace that does exist when threatened. Unfortunately that requires military force.

Suppose there's a bully on a playground beating up otherwise happy kids. Is the kid who stands up to the bully a threat to peace or a protector of peace? Now suppose after the first bully is stopped another bully pops up. The same kid then stands up to bully #2. Is that kid a threat to peace or a protector of peace? What about bully #3, 4,5, etc? The fact that the same one kid stands up to multiple bullies does not make him the threat to peace. He's still the protector of it, but against multiple threats possibly at the same time. The kid standing up to all the bullies may appear to be a threat to peace because he's seemingly always involved in conflict, but it's only because he's the only kid with the balls to stand up to all the bullies.

The problem is that a lot of people see us as the bully with no one strong enough to stand up to us.The Iraq war did not help this perception.

No one IS strong enough to stand up to us, because we're a nation of strong people willing to stand up for what's right, and willing to dedicate the necessary resources to do so. We UNselfishly devote a huge percentage of our time, energy, and resources to maintaining the ability to defend ourselves and others who can't defend themselves. Some other nations are not as brave, choosing to keep their time, energy, and resources to themselves while the US and our allies protect them. Those who see us as the bully are the bullies we stand up to, and people who don't know what they got 'till it's gone.

I agree that Iraq fed into the perception that the US is a bully.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

To the above, you really think the mullahs are better for Iran & the world than the Shah?

We did screw up on Mossadegh but back then we were in a literal death struggle with a Stalinist Russia. Think Kim Jung Un on steroids & the biggest baddest army on Earth. You make the call.

 

[The Commish]

Of course. The US is also the biggest ally to peace.

 

[satch]

The biggest threat to peace is war

So if we simply allow maniacs to kill everyone without fear of opposition, only then will we have peace?

 

[jonessed]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

I'm proud of the fact that our nation has the will, the ability, and the balls to confront those who others will not. We're not a threat to peace, we protect the peace that does exist when threatened. Unfortunately that requires military force.

Suppose there's a bully on a playground beating up otherwise happy kids. Is the kid who stands up to the bully a threat to peace or a protector of peace? Now suppose after the first bully is stopped another bully pops up. The same kid then stands up to bully #2. Is that kid a threat to peace or a protector of peace? What about bully #3, 4,5, etc? The fact that the same one kid stands up to multiple bullies does not make him the threat to peace. He's still the protector of it, but against multiple threats possibly at the same time. The kid standing up to all the bullies may appear to be a threat to peace because he's seemingly always involved in conflict, but it's only because he's the only kid with the balls to stand up to all the bullies.

The problem is that a lot of people see us as the bully with no one strong enough to stand up to us.The Iraq war did not help this perception.

This is what I wonder about.

Hitler and Germany, yes. We needed to get involved.

Japan, no.We did not need to annihilate them.

Korea, no. We did not need to get involved.

Cuba, no. We did not need to get involved.

Vietnam, no. We did not need to get involved.

And now we are thrusting our might all over the Middle East to what end? Democracy? Control of oil? Ousting dictators? Is it any of our business other than economic?

 

[LinusMarr]

The biggest threat to peace is war

So if we simply allow maniacs to kill everyone without fear of opposition, only then will we have peace?

According to the liberal American lol

 

[DSP]

The biggest threat to peace is war

So if we simply allow maniacs to kill everyone without fear of opposition, only then will we have peace?

Where did you get that from?

 

[DSP]

The biggest threat to peace is war

So if we simply allow maniacs to kill everyone without fear of opposition, only then will we have peace?

According to the liberal American lol

Im not liberal. I advocate eliminating many groupsof people Iin order to finally have a peaceful planet

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

I'm proud of the fact that our nation has the will, the ability, and the balls to confront those who others will not. We're not a threat to peace, we protect the peace that does exist when threatened. Unfortunately that requires military force.

Suppose there's a bully on a playground beating up otherwise happy kids. Is the kid who stands up to the bully a threat to peace or a protector of peace? Now suppose after the first bully is stopped another bully pops up. The same kid then stands up to bully #2. Is that kid a threat to peace or a protector of peace? What about bully #3, 4,5, etc? The fact that the same one kid stands up to multiple bullies does not make him the threat to peace. He's still the protector of it, but against multiple threats possibly at the same time. The kid standing up to all the bullies may appear to be a threat to peace because he's seemingly always involved in conflict, but it's only because he's the only kid with the balls to stand up to all the bullies.

The problem is that a lot of people see us as the bully with no one strong enough to stand up to us.The Iraq war did not help this perception.

This is what I wonder about.

Hitler and Germany, yes. We needed to get involved.

Japan, no. We did not need to annihilate them.

Korea, no. We did not need to get involved.

Cuba, no. We did not need to get involved.

Vietnam, no. We did not need to get involved.

And now we are thrusting our might all over the Middle East to what end? Democracy? Control of oil? Ousting dictators? Is it any of our business other than economic?

We actually did not get involved in Cuba, but we should have.

The Nazis - fyi, they declared war on us.

Vietnam - we should not have gotten militarily involved, we should have grabbed them as our own corrupt puppet state back in the 50s. Instead they just ended up being the Soviets' corrupt puppet state.

Japan - wow, does this really need explaining? They were as bad as Germany, maybe as evil as the Nazis were actually even worse considering they had been invading countries and slaughtering people since 1931 or so well before the Nazis, and oh yeah they actually attacked us first. I could go on, but come on.

The middle east problems were created by the Brits and French Sykes-Pitot Pact after WW1. We just seem to be the guys everyone turns to to hold that piece of the world together. If your gas hit $15.00/gal. or just becomes plain unavailable or rationed, and the cost of everything you buy goes up 50% or more, do you think you would like your president to do something about it then?

 

[Tom Skerritt]

If your gas hit $15.00/gal. or just becomes plain unavailable or rationed, and the cost of everything you buy goes up 50% or more, do you think you would like your president to do something about it then?

Sure, but invading foreign nations so that gas won't be so expensive for ME?!? A little narcissistic don't you think?

And necessity is the mother of invention. Without fossil fuels, we would be forced to come up with another way. That cannot be controlled. It just happens.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

I'm proud of the fact that our nation has the will, the ability, and the balls to confront those who others will not. We're not a threat to peace, we protect the peace that does exist when threatened. Unfortunately that requires military force.

Suppose there's a bully on a playground beating up otherwise happy kids. Is the kid who stands up to the bully a threat to peace or a protector of peace? Now suppose after the first bully is stopped another bully pops up. The same kid then stands up to bully #2. Is that kid a threat to peace or a protector of peace? What about bully #3, 4,5, etc? The fact that the same one kid stands up to multiple bullies does not make him the threat to peace. He's still the protector of it, but against multiple threats possibly at the same time. The kid standing up to all the bullies may appear to be a threat to peace because he's seemingly always involved in conflict, but it's only because he's the only kid with the balls to stand up to all the bullies.

The problem is that a lot of people see us as the bully with no one strong enough to stand up to us.The Iraq war did not help this perception.

This is what I wonder about.

Hitler and Germany, yes. We needed to get involved.

Japan, no. We did not need to annihilate them.

Korea, no. We did not need to get involved.

Cuba, no. We did not need to get involved.

Vietnam, no. We did not need to get involved.

And now we are thrusting our might all over the Middle East to what end? Democracy? Control of oil? Ousting dictators? Is it any of our business other than economic?

Yeah, all those places were so peaceful before we got involved.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

I read a statistic the other day from a global polling organization that roughly 25% of the people polled believe that the US is the biggest threat to peace.

I think that Pakistan came in second with just under 10%.

Do most Americans understand that we are viewed this way? I certainly do, but I don't know if most Americans do. I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.

And could it be true? Is the US the biggest threat to peace? We are probably at war with more countries than any other. I don't really know. I honestly haven't given it much thought. But seeing the stat got me to wondering about it.

I love our freedoms and our free markets. But I oftentimes wonder what it would be like to be Canadian.

Its pretty nice. Having a big dumb oaf to the south of us spend all their money on a military means we can use ours on stuff like healthcare, education, pension plans, etc.

Yep

 

[Zigg]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

I'm proud of the fact that our nation has the will, the ability, and the balls to confront those who others will not. We're not a threat to peace, we protect the peace that does exist when threatened. Unfortunately that requires military force.

Suppose there's a bully on a playground beating up otherwise happy kids. Is the kid who stands up to the bully a threat to peace or a protector of peace? Now suppose after the first bully is stopped another bully pops up. The same kid then stands up to bully #2. Is that kid a threat to peace or a protector of peace? What about bully #3, 4,5, etc? The fact that the same one kid stands up to multiple bullies does not make him the threat to peace. He's still the protector of it, but against multiple threats possibly at the same time. The kid standing up to all the bullies may appear to be a threat to peace because he's seemingly always involved in conflict, but it's only because he's the only kid with the balls to stand up to all the bullies.

The problem is that a lot of people see us as the bully with no one strong enough to stand up to us.The Iraq war did not help this perception.

No one IS strong enough to stand up to us, because we're a nation of strong people willing to stand up for what's right, and willing to dedicate the necessary resources to do so. We UNselfishly devote a huge percentage of our time, energy, and resources to maintaining the ability to defend ourselves and others who can't defend themselves. Some other nations are not as brave, choosing to keep their time, energy, and resources to themselves while the US and our allies protect them. Those who see us as the bully are the bullies we stand up to, and people who don't know what they got 'till it's gone.

I agree that Iraq fed into the perception that the US is a bully.

That is the most propaganda filled load of crap I've read in a long time. I apologize if that was sarcasm.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If your gas hit $15.00/gal. or just becomes plain unavailable or rationed, and the cost of everything you buy goes up 50% or more, do you think you would like your president to do something about it then?

Sure, but invading foreign nations so that gas won't be so expensive for ME?!? A little narcissistic don't you think?

And necessity is the mother of invention. Without fossil fuels, we would be forced to come up with another way. That cannot be controlled. It just happens.

Actually that is not selfishness or narcissism, that's basic human survival at that point. I mean things could get really bad for everyone, not just you (or me).

I agree on the alternative energy thing, but we see how that is going with our current alternative president, not any different at all actually.

 

[DiStefano]

Universities in most places are dominated by Marxists. It is only natural that they would harbor strong resentment against the US.

 

[Geezil]

I don't think Iraq or Afghanistan are better off since we showed up. Trillions of dollars wasted on two pointless wars with not much if anything to show for it 10 plus years later. Libya, Syria. Where have we gotten it right in recent memory?

I'm sure the money is being spent and the wars are being fought for reasons, but I highly doubt those reasons are for world peace and security. Our leaders are inept and the world can see that as easily as I can.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't think Iraq or Afghanistan are better off since we showed up. Trillions of dollars wasted on two pointless wars with not much if anything to show for it 10 plus years later. Libya, Syria. Where have we gotten it right in recent memory?

I'm sure the money is being spent and the wars are being fought for reasons, but I highly doubt those reasons are for world peace and security. Our leaders are inept and the world can see that as easily as I can.

What about Iran, 1979?

Putting aside whether we should have done more to make the Shah's regime better...

Do you think the people are better under the mullahs than under the shah?

Are we better with the mullahs or were we better with the Shah?

We could have taken them out in 79 and we wouldn't be dealing with some serious religious and quasi-fascists having access to loose nukes.

 

[satch]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

I'm proud of the fact that our nation has the will, the ability, and the balls to confront those who others will not. We're not a threat to peace, we protect the peace that does exist when threatened. Unfortunately that requires military force.

Suppose there's a bully on a playground beating up otherwise happy kids. Is the kid who stands up to the bully a threat to peace or a protector of peace? Now suppose after the first bully is stopped another bully pops up. The same kid then stands up to bully #2. Is that kid a threat to peace or a protector of peace? What about bully #3, 4,5, etc? The fact that the same one kid stands up to multiple bullies does not make him the threat to peace. He's still the protector of it, but against multiple threats possibly at the same time. The kid standing up to all the bullies may appear to be a threat to peace because he's seemingly always involved in conflict, but it's only because he's the only kid with the balls to stand up to all the bullies.

The problem is that a lot of people see us as the bully with no one strong enough to stand up to us.The Iraq war did not help this perception.

No one IS strong enough to stand up to us, because we're a nation of strong people willing to stand up for what's right, and willing to dedicate the necessary resources to do so. We UNselfishly devote a huge percentage of our time, energy, and resources to maintaining the ability to defend ourselves and others who can't defend themselves. Some other nations are not as brave, choosing to keep their time, energy, and resources to themselves while the US and our allies protect them. Those who see us as the bully are the bullies we stand up to, and people who don't know what they got 'till it's gone.I agree that Iraq fed into the perception that the US is a bully.

That is the most propaganda filled load of crap I've read in a long time. I apologize if that was sarcasm.

Smilies have their place, but in a discussion like this they come across as childish, and serve only to detract from the point you're trying to make.

As far as the text of your post, you can call it propaganda if you like. I call it being proud to be an American and standing behind our country, our military, and our history. Hard to believe that's considered propaganda in our own country nowadays.

 

[Geezil]

I don't think Iraq or Afghanistan are better off since we showed up. Trillions of dollars wasted on two pointless wars with not much if anything to show for it 10 plus years later. Libya, Syria. Where have we gotten it right in recent memory?

I'm sure the money is being spent and the wars are being fought for reasons, but I highly doubt those reasons are for world peace and security. Our leaders are inept and the world can see that as easily as I can.

What about Iran, 1979?

Putting aside whether we should have done more to make the Shah's regime better...

Do you think the people are better under the mullahs than under the shah?

Are we better with the mullahs or were we better with the Shah?

We could have taken them out in 79 and we wouldn't be dealing with some serious religious and quasi-fascists having access to loose nukes.

I don't know. Who lives in that neighborhood? Not us. Saudi Arabia and Israel seem to have so much to say about Iran and Syria, let them handle it and spend their treasure.

Iran has never done anything to me, honestly. Mullahs or Shahs I could really care less. Let the squeaky wheels fix the problem in the Middle East for once.

Every action the American government has taken in the Middle East is furthering the cause of the Caliphate. They must know this. So WHY do they want a Caliphate in the Middle East?

And why are we Saudi Arabias proxy in their intra religious war?

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

I'm proud of the fact that our nation has the will, the ability, and the balls to confront those who others will not. We're not a threat to peace, we protect the peace that does exist when threatened. Unfortunately that requires military force.

Suppose there's a bully on a playground beating up otherwise happy kids. Is the kid who stands up to the bully a threat to peace or a protector of peace? Now suppose after the first bully is stopped another bully pops up. The same kid then stands up to bully #2. Is that kid a threat to peace or a protector of peace? What about bully #3, 4,5, etc? The fact that the same one kid stands up to multiple bullies does not make him the threat to peace. He's still the protector of it, but against multiple threats possibly at the same time. The kid standing up to all the bullies may appear to be a threat to peace because he's seemingly always involved in conflict, but it's only because he's the only kid with the balls to stand up to all the bullies.

The problem is that a lot of people see us as the bully with no one strong enough to stand up to us.The Iraq war did not help this perception.

No one IS strong enough to stand up to us, because we're a nation of strong people willing to stand up for what's right, and willing to dedicate the necessary resources to do so. We UNselfishly devote a huge percentage of our time, energy, and resources to maintaining the ability to defend ourselves and others who can't defend themselves. Some other nations are not as brave, choosing to keep their time, energy, and resources to themselves while the US and our allies protect them. Those who see us as the bully are the bullies we stand up to, and people who don't know what they got 'till it's gone.

I agree that Iraq fed into the perception that the US is a bully.

This is some funny stuff. It's frightening how powerful propaganda and brainwashing is. Like it's ever been about "what's right". Like it's ever been "unselfish".

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

I'm proud of the fact that our nation has the will, the ability, and the balls to confront those who others will not. We're not a threat to peace, we protect the peace that does exist when threatened. Unfortunately that requires military force.

Suppose there's a bully on a playground beating up otherwise happy kids. Is the kid who stands up to the bully a threat to peace or a protector of peace? Now suppose after the first bully is stopped another bully pops up. The same kid then stands up to bully #2. Is that kid a threat to peace or a protector of peace? What about bully #3, 4,5, etc? The fact that the same one kid stands up to multiple bullies does not make him the threat to peace. He's still the protector of it, but against multiple threats possibly at the same time. The kid standing up to all the bullies may appear to be a threat to peace because he's seemingly always involved in conflict, but it's only because he's the only kid with the balls to stand up to all the bullies.

The problem is that a lot of people see us as the bully with no one strong enough to stand up to us.The Iraq war did not help this perception.

No one IS strong enough to stand up to us, because we're a nation of strong people willing to stand up for what's right, and willing to dedicate the necessary resources to do so. We UNselfishly devote a huge percentage of our time, energy, and resources to maintaining the ability to defend ourselves and others who can't defend themselves. Some other nations are not as brave, choosing to keep their time, energy, and resources to themselves while the US and our allies protect them. Those who see us as the bully are the bullies we stand up to, and people who don't know what they got 'till it's gone.

I agree that Iraq fed into the perception that the US is a bully.

This is some funny stuff. It's frightening how powerful propaganda and brainwashing is. Like it's ever been about "what's right". Like it's ever been "unselfish".

Oh really?

how do you think North Korea turned out?

Do you think those folks are wishing they were pretty much like South Korea right about now?

 

[satch]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

I'm proud of the fact that our nation has the will, the ability, and the balls to confront those who others will not. We're not a threat to peace, we protect the peace that does exist when threatened. Unfortunately that requires military force.

Suppose there's a bully on a playground beating up otherwise happy kids. Is the kid who stands up to the bully a threat to peace or a protector of peace? Now suppose after the first bully is stopped another bully pops up. The same kid then stands up to bully #2. Is that kid a threat to peace or a protector of peace? What about bully #3, 4,5, etc? The fact that the same one kid stands up to multiple bullies does not make him the threat to peace. He's still the protector of it, but against multiple threats possibly at the same time. The kid standing up to all the bullies may appear to be a threat to peace because he's seemingly always involved in conflict, but it's only because he's the only kid with the balls to stand up to all the bullies.

The problem is that a lot of people see us as the bully with no one strong enough to stand up to us.The Iraq war did not help this perception.

No one IS strong enough to stand up to us, because we're a nation of strong people willing to stand up for what's right, and willing to dedicate the necessary resources to do so. We UNselfishly devote a huge percentage of our time, energy, and resources to maintaining the ability to defend ourselves and others who can't defend themselves. Some other nations are not as brave, choosing to keep their time, energy, and resources to themselves while the US and our allies protect them. Those who see us as the bully are the bullies we stand up to, and people who don't know what they got 'till it's gone.I agree that Iraq fed into the perception that the US is a bully.

This is some funny stuff. It's frightening how powerful propaganda and brainwashing is. Like it's ever been about "what's right". Like it's ever been "unselfish".

Ever consider the possibility that YOU have been the victim of propaganda and brainwashing?

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

I'm proud of the fact that our nation has the will, the ability, and the balls to confront those who others will not. We're not a threat to peace, we protect the peace that does exist when threatened. Unfortunately that requires military force.

Suppose there's a bully on a playground beating up otherwise happy kids. Is the kid who stands up to the bully a threat to peace or a protector of peace? Now suppose after the first bully is stopped another bully pops up. The same kid then stands up to bully #2. Is that kid a threat to peace or a protector of peace? What about bully #3, 4,5, etc? The fact that the same one kid stands up to multiple bullies does not make him the threat to peace. He's still the protector of it, but against multiple threats possibly at the same time. The kid standing up to all the bullies may appear to be a threat to peace because he's seemingly always involved in conflict, but it's only because he's the only kid with the balls to stand up to all the bullies.

The problem is that a lot of people see us as the bully with no one strong enough to stand up to us.The Iraq war did not help this perception.

No one IS strong enough to stand up to us, because we're a nation of strong people willing to stand up for what's right, and willing to dedicate the necessary resources to do so. We UNselfishly devote a huge percentage of our time, energy, and resources to maintaining the ability to defend ourselves and others who can't defend themselves. Some other nations are not as brave, choosing to keep their time, energy, and resources to themselves while the US and our allies protect them. Those who see us as the bully are the bullies we stand up to, and people who don't know what they got 'till it's gone.

I agree that Iraq fed into the perception that the US is a bully.

This is some funny stuff. It's frightening how powerful propaganda and brainwashing is. Like it's ever been about "what's right". Like it's ever been "unselfish".

Oh really?

how do you think North Korea turned out?

Do you think those folks are wishing they were pretty much like South Korea right about now?

Yeah I do. What's your point because I'm not seeing one.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well, first of all you can't really be a threat to something that doesn't exist. Peace doesn't exist in the places we are militarily involved in. It's not like the US randomly attacks happy, peaceful nations. Considering the people and places we're militarily involved with, I think if the US avoided these confrontations and let barbaric lunatics with dangerous weapons terrorize the world there would be less peace not more

I'm proud of the fact that our nation has the will, the ability, and the balls to confront those who others will not. We're not a threat to peace, we protect the peace that does exist when threatened. Unfortunately that requires military force.

Suppose there's a bully on a playground beating up otherwise happy kids. Is the kid who stands up to the bully a threat to peace or a protector of peace? Now suppose after the first bully is stopped another bully pops up. The same kid then stands up to bully #2. Is that kid a threat to peace or a protector of peace? What about bully #3, 4,5, etc? The fact that the same one kid stands up to multiple bullies does not make him the threat to peace. He's still the protector of it, but against multiple threats possibly at the same time. The kid standing up to all the bullies may appear to be a threat to peace because he's seemingly always involved in conflict, but it's only because he's the only kid with the balls to stand up to all the bullies.

The problem is that a lot of people see us as the bully with no one strong enough to stand up to us.The Iraq war did not help this perception.

No one IS strong enough to stand up to us, because we're a nation of strong people willing to stand up for what's right, and willing to dedicate the necessary resources to do so. We UNselfishly devote a huge percentage of our time, energy, and resources to maintaining the ability to defend ourselves and others who can't defend themselves. Some other nations are not as brave, choosing to keep their time, energy, and resources to themselves while the US and our allies protect them. Those who see us as the bully are the bullies we stand up to, and people who don't know what they got 'till it's gone.

I agree that Iraq fed into the perception that the US is a bully.

This is some funny stuff. It's frightening how powerful propaganda and brainwashing is. Like it's ever been about "what's right". Like it's ever been "unselfish".

Oh really?

how do you think North Korea turned out?

Do you think those folks are wishing they were pretty much like South Korea right about now?

Yeah I do. What's your point because I'm not seeing one.

Because if it wasn't for the US, South Korea would be part of North Korea and would living like them.

 

[jon_mx]

The world has never been at peace. How can we be a threat to something that does not exist. So stupid. Many places in this world are ####holes where governments terrorize and kill their citizens.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I read a statistic the other day from a global polling organization that roughly 25% of the people polled believe that the US is the biggest threat to peace.

I think that Pakistan came in second with just under 10%.

Do most Americans understand that we are viewed this way? I certainly do, but I don't know if most Americans do. I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.

And could it be true? Is the US the biggest threat to peace? We are probably at war with more countries than any other. I don't really know. I honestly haven't given it much thought. But seeing the stat got me to wondering about it.

I love our freedoms and our free markets. But I oftentimes wonder what it would be like to be Canadian.

Its pretty nice. Having a big dumb oaf to the south of us spend all their money on a military means we can use ours on stuff like healthcare, education, pension plans, etc.

Is that why everyone from your country comes to ours for all of that stuff?

 

[jon_mx]

When the Philippines or Japan or Indonesia or Haiti gets devastated by a natural disaster who is the biggest relief agency there on the scene? When the Nazi's come storming in trying to take over the world, who is there to save them and give them liberty? When the communists try to spread their ruthless form of oppression , who is there to stop it? The only reason there is relative peace and freedom throughout the world is because of the might of the US. What peace there is is because of the US.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Cool. The "blame America first crowd" started a thread. Let's bash the USA!

 

[Fennis]

I say the US should bomb anyone who says the US is the biggest threat to peace.

 

[zoonation]

I read a statistic the other day from a global polling organization that roughly 25% of the people polled believe that the US is the biggest threat to peace.

I think that Pakistan came in second with just under 10%.

Do most Americans understand that we are viewed this way? I certainly do, but I don't know if most Americans do. I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.

And could it be true? Is the US the biggest threat to peace? We are probably at war with more countries than any other. I don't really know. I honestly haven't given it much thought. But seeing the stat got me to wondering about it.

I love our freedoms and our free markets. But I oftentimes wonder what it would be like to be Canadian.

Its pretty nice. Having a big dumb oaf to the south of us spend all their money on a military means we can use ours on stuff like healthcare, education, pension plans, etc.

Is that why everyone from your country comes to ours for all of that stuff?

MAX!!!!!!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I read a statistic the other day from a global polling organization that roughly 25% of the people polled believe that the US is the biggest threat to peace.

I think that Pakistan came in second with just under 10%.

Do most Americans understand that we are viewed this way? I certainly do, but I don't know if most Americans do. I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.

And could it be true? Is the US the biggest threat to peace? We are probably at war with more countries than any other. I don't really know. I honestly haven't given it much thought. But seeing the stat got me to wondering about it.

I love our freedoms and our free markets. But I oftentimes wonder what it would be like to be Canadian.

Its pretty nice. Having a big dumb oaf to the south of us spend all their money on a military means we can use ours on stuff like healthcare, education, pension plans, etc.

Right. - We pay for everyone else's peace so they can take it easy and not kill each other.

If Iraq and Iran and the middle east would get with the program, and invite in the NFL and hot cheerleaders and whatnot, we could get on with this thing.

 

[GroveDiesel]

The world is actually the most peaceful it's ever been. The U.S. has acted as the world's policeman over the last century, and over that time, the world has gotten progressively more peaceful.

So a little gratitude would be nice.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I say the US should bomb anyone who says the US is the biggest threat to peace.

But do it in a peaceful way.

 

[Fennis]

The world is actually the most peaceful it's ever been. The U.S. has acted as the world's policeman over the last century, and over that time, the world has gotten progressively more peaceful.

So a little gratitude would be nice.

All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the American done for us?

 

[FUBAR]

Democracy is the modern Christianity.