As a non-US resident I don't. I find the voters consider local issues (and I've lived in the US during an election) and national issues but not global issues. The voters can't see that where the US leads any number of countries are obliged to follow (Australia for instance). Therefore the people they vote for aren't always the best people for the role the US is thrust into. We've seen that when the US leaders decide on a course of action that no amount of voter angst will turn them away from it. Accountability is a token gesture.
who else would you find suitable for calling the shots? new zealand? lol! the reason we get to call the shots is because we have the power to do so. if new zealand tried to make demands of other countries you guys would be 100 different islands right now. we have the power so naturally we have a default right to call shots most of the time. im not saying we run the world im just saying naturally the strongest have the biggest say in things.
Actually, on the list, USA is the most accurate choice. Al Queda is nothing good as well, but come on, comparing USA to Al Queda, Al Queda is just a bunch of extremist stupids. USA has far more financial power than Al Queda does, and has hurt world more than Al Queda can ever do.
The fact that Australia is "obliged to follow" the USA indicates a problem of leadership in that country, as well.
Please, America is not a threat for world peace, are you people on crack? We get involved when others are afraid, now we are a threat to world peace, my God people, we are trying to help! What is this envy? Jealousy? America is trying to do some good, and clean up this crappy planet, and you people think we are a threat. That right there is why peace has never existed, and never will.
Sure.. Perhaps, but look at Latvia's contribution in WWII.. It far exceeds Kazakhstan's in terms of loss of life.. I doubt very much those living in what once was Russia, like to be called Russians.. I have, and I just conveyed the sentiments of 100% of former Russian controlled regions.. They did not want to be controlled then, and would never return to the old ways... Again, what does this have to do with this thread? You just misspelled Kazakhstan.. What are you trying to say? You are like Bush?
Look at the countries that the USA "helps". Although we do contribute money, food, and other aid to many countries around the world, we rarely go into the countries, unless there is a strategic or economic interest. This would make some sense, being that we are a finite resource, but it is NOT close to being that we "trying to do some good, and clean up this crappy planet". Although not the worst, we are hardly a shining example of environmental friendliness compared to many other countries around the world. There are many more reasons "why peace has never existed, and never will", such as cultural conflicts, human behavior, economic and strategic interests, geographic arguments over territory, etc. The USA didn't exactly jump into the last two world wars, but stayed out of them until things were at their worst point or because we were drawn in. Most of the news we hear in the US doesn't highlight events around the world unless it has a sensational quality or the US is involved. There a likely many conflicts and problems in the world that we don't involve ourselves, but other countries are being very active.
Even still, it doesn't make us a threat to world peace, now if we did bad things, like blow up France just to watch them run, then id say OK, we are a threat, but we don't do anything like that. We may benefit from certain military or political activities, but that is not the primary goal. Peace is what America seeks, maybe a little respect. But we are not out to get oil and money. I mean come on. We have Texas, if thats not enough, we have Alaska, we will never "need" oil. And to think money is our primary reason is ridicules, i don't think war has ever made a country rich. The problem is when we feel threatened, we step up to the plate to defend ourselves, and I'm proud to say that we do that. We always confront with diplomacy first. it is not our intention to blow up people. The bottom line is, we are the peace keepers, not the threat, most of you seem a bit confused,and that is understandable.
<sigh> Where to begin... Oil is a finite resource as well. Texas and Alaska would only last us a few years and it doesn't come without costs. The only reason we really keep a constant presence in the Middle East is for the strategic/economic reasons of maintaining access to their resources, mainly oil. Why don't we have a large presence in Africa? They have plenty of problems, ie genocide, famine, war. Why aren't we there saving people and "doing good"? Because they don't have the specific resources that our economy and infrastructure depend upon. Our economy depends upon our infrastructure and our infrastructure depends upon oil. The Middle East has the resources that we crave, not Africa. As for the threat we pose, when we enter a country with our troops civilians die in relatively large numbers. It is a fact of war. However, the reasons for going into a country has to be questioned. We went into Panama for questionable reasons. We went into Iraq for questionable reasons. We have a president that openly declares Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the "Axis of Evil". That's just great for international relations. If it's respect we seek, then why are we so disrespected by so many people around the world?
It's called "world" peace. That's the topic. When we invade, enter, or whatever into a country, we risk destabilizing the region or leaving the country in an unstable state. Thereby potentially pulling other countries into the fray. Also, look at Pakistan, Panama, and an assortment of others, which are considered puppet regimes of the US. These countries are not exactly at the peak of stability, either shortly after our influence or entry there (Panama) OR are considered in a fragile state now (Pakistan). Just as we or any large/wealthy/powerful country can positively influence world politics/economics/security, we/they can negatively influence them. This is the risk of being who we are currently. Right now, instead of keeping to ourselves, we are trying to influence things. This may make a lot of sense, but we are doing a lot of things that negatively effect relations/stability/economics around the world. In addition, although our politicians can wield the most influential powers, so do our soldiers, corporations (big and small), the media (entertainment and news), and our citizens traveling. Pretty much in that order too. All of this, acting together influences things.
Sure. Every time I turn on the TV and watch news, I see Iraqi children, women and innocent people died with the pieces of "peace" in their bodies. I hear public places being hailed down "peace"s..
theres no such thing as world peace and there never will be, without war of any kind you wouldn't be on a computer right now, 80% of all our technology came from war and the race to build better technology through our goverment.
The three Baltic SSR's were taken by force and although Russia refuses to recognize these modern nations as free, independent and sovereign states (i.e., Putin refusing to recognize border treaties executed by his diplomats after negotiations with Estonia were successfully concluded). The Baltic states are heavily in favor of integration with Western Europe. For good reason. Beyond the Baltics, several things are suggestive to me that Russian influence over its former republics has significantly waned: -Beyond the Baltic nations, the other post-Soviet Republics have established linkages both east and west that make it difficult to discern where "allegiance" truly lies (Kazakhstan, for instance, courting markets both east and west, as well as in Turkey, belongs to both the CIS and NATO'S Partnership for Peace); -the establishment of GUAM/Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, comprised of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova, as a collective security and economic entity; -Relatedly, the fragmentation of the CIS, with outright withdrawal or official downgrading of participation, or a ratcheting-up of rhetoric which suggests a loss of confidence in CIS as a means to ensure a "friendly divorce" from the USSR.
How can we have world peace if the evil dictators arent taken out? Would your home be clean if the trash never got taken out?
I wonder why most people voted the use. lol USA "people" were most of are no threat but the goverment is. lol
Man maybe you should change you topic to "which country is the greatest threat to world peace" For me,the great threats to the world are uneducated brains,hungered stomach & poor wallet.
I would take them by force too, otherwise they would join Germany. I pefer to occupate them than fight against them.