logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> The US- biggest threat to world peace on the planet?, Psst- it's not Iran
CruisingRam
post Mar 18 2015, 01:25 AM
Post #1


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



A recent Gallup Poll shows that most of the Gallup- by a very, very wide margin- believe that the greatest threat to world peace is NOT North Korea, Pakistan or Iran- but the US. Netenyahu said that Iran is the greatest threat to peace in the world- however, only about 5% of those polled feel that way. By far and away- It is US that is seen as a global threat to peace. The US has been at war about 222 of it's 239 years in existence. Of course, the Republicans have actually asked for an increase in military spending in the next budget. rolleyes.gif

http://www.wingia.com/en/services/about_th...l_results/7/33/

1) Why do you think most of the world thinks the US is the greatest threat?
2) Do you believe thier fears about the US are valid?
3) Is the US the big bully and boogeyman to safety and security to the world.
4) Is American a military empire bent on global domination similar to say, Athens or England once was?
5) Is it possible for America to move away from a never-ending war economy to a peaceful country that doesn't spend so much of it's capital on ruining other countries?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Dingo
post Mar 20 2015, 02:22 AM
Post #2


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



1) Why do you think most of the world thinks the US is the greatest threat?
We're the biggest fellow in the room with the most weapons and a propensity for using them outside our borders.

2) Do you believe thier fears about the US are valid?
In many ways yes. We're undereducated, inexperienced, and fearful, not to mention needing lots of stuff and we often vote in folks like us.

3) Is the US the big bully and boogeyman to safety and security to the world.
Not THE big bully but we tend to feel the need to scare folks to assure our safety. A touch more understanding of others would avoid a lot of problems and internalizing simple ideas, like ABMs are not going to save us from a nuclear missile attack.

4) Is American a military empire bent on global domination similar to say, Athens or England once was?
I don't think of us as a true colonial power. However we do have these things called "interests" that often seem poorly defined but apparently need to be vigorously defended.

5) Is it possible for America to move away from a never-ending war economy to a peaceful country that doesn't spend so much of it's capital on ruining other countries?
I don't fully get it but the party that perpetually claims it wants to tighten our budget almost always wants to spend more money on the military. The MIC rides high for all sorts of reasons. One might be all those John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies, don't want to forget 'Patton', that give the military a certain kind of glow. rolleyes.gif us.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Mar 20 2015, 01:40 PM
Post #3


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



the link does not go to the data - the story is utterly reiculous.

surely if you go to Russia/China you will get lots of people who think this...lol

the question should be - which countries believe they would still be free if not for US protection form the likes of Russia.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Mar 27 2015, 11:34 AM
Post #4


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,943
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 20 2015, 01:40 PM) *
the link does not go to the data

Yes, it does. There is also a separate PDF of the "methodology", which shows sample sizes and method of interview - e.g. in each of the UK and USA, 1,000 inividuals filled in a web survey, whereas Greece used face-to-face interviews and India used computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI). The sample sizes are all statistically valid for roughly a 95% confidence level. So,,,

QUOTE
the story is utterly reiculous.

... No, it isn't, this is what people around the world really think. You could argue that they are wrong*, but there's nothing to suggest that the survey itself is inaccurate or incorrect.

*But that, in itself, would be daft - this is an opinion survey. It's just opinions - people's perceptions of how the world is. As you and I both know, our perceptions colour our opinions and our actions. Nobody consistently does things they don't believe in or that go against their settled worldview (well, nobody who isn't a professional actor or politician). So in order to change the world (for what we would perceive to be 'the better'), we first have to understand where it is starting from.

After


QUOTE
surely if you go to Russia/China you will get lots of people who think this...lol


Yes, but the survey there used the same kinds of sample sizes (1000 Russians and 150 Chinese) as they used in the USA (1,000), Canada (1,006), Europe (around a thousand in each country surveyed), or Japan (1200). And it's worth saying that their perceptions of the second and third most damaging countries to world peace are Pakistan and China - would you argue either of those are illegitimate too?

Would a Pakistani or Chinese patriot find it any easier to swallow how dangerous everyone else perceives them to be than you do? Does that make the survey results ridiculous also?

QUOTE
the question should be - which countries believe they would still be free if not for US protection form the likes of Russia.


Well, if you want to add in loaded questions like that, you can either lobby Gallup to change their survey questions, or you can start your own survey. Shall we just fiddle with all of the survey questions so that it comes out with what you would say are the "right" answers?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Mar 27 2015, 01:22 PM
Post #5


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,343
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



1) Why do you think most of the world thinks the US is the greatest threat?

Because when you're the sole global superpower, you get drug into every conflict, by one side or the other. We aren't even the one who took military action most recently...that would be Russia. Also, most of the world is woefully ignorant of global realities.

2) Do you believe thier fears about the US are valid?

No.

3) Is the US the big bully and boogeyman to safety and security to the world.

No. More the opposite.

4) Is American a military empire bent on global domination similar to say, Athens or England once was?

This question is farcical, and that it was even asked demonstrates my point in question 1. The U.S. is the most benevolent global superpower the world has even known. If we were bent on global domination, we certainly could have largely achieved it. But we haven't even kept any of the ground we've fought over. If this were true, much of Europe, and pretty much the entire Pacific, including Japan, would be part of the U.S. Colin Powell's statement sums it up pretty well:

QUOTE
We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we€™ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.


Which also addresses the issue of whether the U.S. should rely soley on 'soft power' means.

5) Is it possible for America to move away from a never-ending war economy to a peaceful country that doesn't spend so much of it's capital on ruining other countries?

Bias questions much? Did you stop beating your wife? I'll answer your question as asked. We don't spend any capital on ruining other countries, so the answer is clearly 'Yes'. Nor do we have a never-ending war economy. What was the quote DTOM provided, about America not going to war, but going to the mall? We are not remotely close to a war economy. Can you buy gas? Rubber? Has the government taking over private production facilities? Has the draft been re-enacted? Do we devote the majority of our economy to producing military goods, rather than consumer goods?

The worst thing America can do for world peace is become a paper tiger, but that doesn't mean that military force is the solution to every problem, either. But that has NEVER been our viewpoint to begin with. There are FAR more examples of problem areas the U.S. has NOT intervened in militarily than there are of situations we have. In fact, outside of Iraq...what examples are there (and even Iraq was a reaction to them invading another country)? The score would seem to be something like 100 to 1 against that thought process...which again demonstrates my statement in question 1. 100 to 0, actually. When has the U.S. EVER taken military action FIRST in any conflict we've been involved in? No, Iraq is not it...the cease fire from the Gulf War, which started over Iraq invading Kuwait, was still in effect and violated repeatedly by Saddam. I can't think of any, again demonstrating the invalidity of this perception. Well, the Indian nations might disagree with that, although even there one could make a case about the U.S. not using military action first, although we were aggressors in other ways.

And anyone who thinks the China won't be a major adversary in the coming years isn't paying attention, although the recent surge in our internal oil production definitely minimizes the potential for future conflict over resources. World Wars have started over that issue...no reason to think that can't happen again.

QUOTE(Julian)
QUOTE(Ted)
the question should be - which countries believe they would still be free if not for US protection form the likes of Russia.


Well, if you want to add in loaded questions like that


How is that a loaded question? Especially compared to, say, question 5 in this debate? I can easily see how people could answer that question either way, even in countries where the U.S. was directly involved in getting or keeping them free. I think it would have been an interesting question to add, and would have balanced the survey.

FWIW, the survey, like almost all surveys, didn't use any of the methods required to balance it to determine statistical objectivity. To do that, you need to ask the question multiple times, in different ways, and also have some of the questions reversed to see if their answer changes. Doing so is always cumbersome, and hence is almost never done.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Mar 27 2015, 01:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Mar 27 2015, 07:14 PM
Post #6


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Mar 27 2015, 06:22 AM) *
1) Why do you think most of the world thinks the US is the greatest threat?

Because when you're the sole global superpower, you get drug into every conflict, by one side or the other.

So we're passive actors in the world, drug around by everyone else. Interesting perspective.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Mar 27 2015, 08:32 PM
Post #7


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,426
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



There is no threat about it. It is happening. The United States kills more civilians than any other country. The United States locks up more people than any other country.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Mar 28 2015, 08:58 PM
Post #8


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Mar 27 2015, 10:32 AM) *
There is no threat about it. It is happening. The United States kills more civilians than any other country. The United States locks up more people than any other country.


GW Bush said "Saddam Hussien has killed 50,000 Iraqis and we must go over there and stop that"

So WE killed over 200k Iraqis and created over 7 million refugees and destabilized the entire region. ISIS has grown out of GW Bush's Policy, and there are people that actually want us to lose another 5k American troops, 1 million injured Americans, spend 6 trillion dollars. Then blame Obama for why things are bad there. thumbsup.gif

Grey Seal is right- we kill more civilians than any country on the planet, and lock up far more.

Might be time for a change in behavior.

Hobbes- other than the torture and killing of innocent civilian- yeah, we are pretty benevolent. We killed four times as many innocent civilians in Iraq than Saddam Hussien- by any measurement. How benevolent is that?

This post has been edited by CruisingRam: Mar 28 2015, 09:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Mar 29 2015, 06:55 PM
Post #9


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,343
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Mar 27 2015, 01:14 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Mar 27 2015, 06:22 AM) *
1) Why do you think most of the world thinks the US is the greatest threat?

Because when you're the sole global superpower, you get drug into every conflict, by one side or the other.

So we're passive actors in the world, drug around by everyone else. Interesting perspective.


I didn't say we were passive...and we DO get drug into many conflicts. Interesting that you say 'interesting' rather than disagree, or offering any evidence it isn't true.


QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Mar 27 2015, 02:32 PM) *
There is no threat about it. It is happening. The United States kills more civilians than any other country. The United States locks up more people than any other country.


That just demonstrates a gross lack of understanding of history. More than Stalin? More than Hitler? More than Hirohito? More than Pol Pot? Heck, more than Genghis or Kublai Khan? Rome? Greece? Britain? this list goes on and on....

If you want to say that this implies only what is happening currently....I don't see the U.S. topping that list either. How many civilians has the U.S. killed in, say, the last 6 months, and where, vs Russian, any of several other ongoing conflicts, Libya, Jordan, even ISIS?

So, wrong either way you look at it.

As for incarceration, that is correct, and a very good debate topic, but not sure how putting more people in prison make you a threat to world peace?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blackstone
post Mar 29 2015, 07:03 PM
Post #10


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,995
Member No.: 5,539
Joined: October-13-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Independent



1) Why do you think most of the world thinks the US is the greatest threat?

Why does the UN "Human Rights" Council spend nearly all of its time issuing resolutions against Israel, and next to nothing against North Korea, China, Iran, Cuba, or a dozen other similarly lovely spots throughout the more unfortunate parts of the world? I think you'll find that that the answers to both questions are very closely related.

2) Do you believe thier fears about the US are valid?

I belive they're regurgitating what they're being told by their governments and state-run media. The question hardly merits a response beyond that.

3) Is the US the big bully and boogeyman to safety and security to the world.

Oh yes, the world would be so much safer without us. Just look at how peaceful the Middle East has become since we withdrew most of our our forces and involvement.

4) Is American a military empire bent on global domination similar to say, Athens or England once was?

If we are we're doing a pretty lousy job of it.

5) Is it possible for America to move away from a never-ending war economy to a peaceful country that doesn't spend so much of it's capital on ruining other countries?

I have a better question: Why is it that the liberals on this forum can get away with asking extremely biased and loaded questions in their introductory comments while anyone else gets excoriated for doing anything remotely similar in their intros? Anyone have any insights on that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Mar 30 2015, 07:01 AM
Post #11


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Blackstone @ Mar 29 2015, 12:03 PM) *
1) Why do you think most of the world thinks the US is the greatest threat?

Why does the UN "Human Rights" Council spend nearly all of its time issuing resolutions against Israel, and next to nothing against North Korea, China, Iran, Cuba, or a dozen other similarly lovely spots throughout the more unfortunate parts of the world? I think you'll find that that the answers to both questions are very closely related.

Your indifference to Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians seems pretty obvious. Like most Americans you appear to support it as Israel can do no wrong.

QUOTE
2) Do you believe thier fears about the US are valid?

I belive they're regurgitating what they're being told by their governments and state-run media. The question hardly merits a response beyond that.

They just lack your independent impartial perspective. flowers.gif

QUOTE
3) Is the US the big bully and boogeyman to safety and security to the world.

Oh yes, the world would be so much safer without us. Just look at how peaceful the Middle East has become since we withdrew most of our our forces and involvement.

Clearly our past support of the Jihadists in Afghanistan, their sponsors Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, our invasion of Iraq and funding Israeli expansion has nothing to with the present situation in the ME.

QUOTE
4) Is American a military empire bent on global domination similar to say, Athens or England once was?

If we are we're doing a pretty lousy job of it.

One thing we can agree on.

QUOTE
5) Is it possible for America to move away from a never-ending war economy to a peaceful country that doesn't spend so much of it's capital on ruining other countries?

I have a better question: Why is it that the liberals on this forum can get away with asking extremely biased and loaded questions in their introductory comments while anyone else gets excoriated for doing anything remotely similar in their intros? Anyone have any insights on that?

You seem to be doing a little excoriating yourself and no doubt, as you should, you will be getting away with it. This is an opinion forum after all. us.gif As for what we are doing to other countries I recall a memorable heads up from President Eisenhower who worried about the powerful influence of the military industrial complex. Maybe he was a liberal or maybe even a commie sympathizer as that good conservative group the John Birch Society seemed to think.

----------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE(Hobbes @ Mar 29 2015, 11:55 AM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Mar 27 2015, 01:14 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Mar 27 2015, 06:22 AM) *
1) Why do you think most of the world thinks the US is the greatest threat?

Because when you're the sole global superpower, you get drug into every conflict, by one side or the other.

So we're passive actors in the world, drug around by everyone else. Interesting perspective.


I didn't say we were passive...and we DO get drug into many conflicts.

We actively get dragged in. Let me contemplate that. hmmm.gif

QUOTE
Interesting that you say 'interesting' rather than disagree, or offering any evidence it isn't true.

My interest should transmute into disagree. Obviously you should write my posts for me. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Mar 31 2015, 03:28 AM
Post #12


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Mar 29 2015, 08:55 AM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Mar 27 2015, 01:14 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Mar 27 2015, 06:22 AM) *
1) Why do you think most of the world thinks the US is the greatest threat?

Because when you're the sole global superpower, you get drug into every conflict, by one side or the other.

So we're passive actors in the world, drug around by everyone else. Interesting perspective.


I didn't say we were passive...and we DO get drug into many conflicts. Interesting that you say 'interesting' rather than disagree, or offering any evidence it isn't true.


QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Mar 27 2015, 02:32 PM) *
There is no threat about it. It is happening. The United States kills more civilians than any other country. The United States locks up more people than any other country.


That just demonstrates a gross lack of understanding of history. More than Stalin? More than Hitler? More than Hirohito? More than Pol Pot? Heck, more than Genghis or Kublai Khan? Rome? Greece? Britain? this list goes on and on....

If you want to say that this implies only what is happening currently....I don't see the U.S. topping that list either. How many civilians has the U.S. killed in, say, the last 6 months, and where, vs Russian, any of several other ongoing conflicts, Libya, Jordan, even ISIS?

So, wrong either way you look at it.

As for incarceration, that is correct, and a very good debate topic, but not sure how putting more people in prison make you a threat to world peace?


More than Stalin or Hitler? Nope. I think we have passed Pol Pot at this point. Wow- that is what our defense is now "Well, we are not as bad as Hitler, but worse than Saddam Hussien"?

Note that we actually treat a larger population worse than China, Cuba and close to North Korea. I know that you will blanch at that statement- but look how many we have incarcerated in this country- many for nothing or wrongly. More than China, Cuba or North Korea. Yes- we killed far, far more people than ISIS in Iraq by a large margin. Jordan and Libya too. We really only incarcerate the poor- we let rich criminals get away with it for the most part. Heck, at least in Russia being rich is a very dangerous thing. Those in power pay the price- not those without any power at all.

When we go into a country- there are lots and lots of innocent people that are going to die. Typically in the hundreds of thousands, depending on the conflict (Vietnam, Iraq).

You can guarantee if the US gets involved in your politics and country- things are going to get real bad, real quick.

We kill and torture a large amount of people for you to call us "benevolent" - and I am talking about innocents, not "the bad guys".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Mar 31 2015, 09:20 PM
Post #13


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,343
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Mar 30 2015, 09:28 PM) *
More than Stalin or Hitler? Nope. I think we have passed Pol Pot at this point. Wow- that is what our defense is now "Well, we are not as bad as Hitler, but worse than Saddam Hussien"?


When the question is should we be viewed as the greatest threat to world peace...yes.

QUOTE
Note that we actually treat a larger population worse than China, Cuba and close to North Korea. I know that you will blanch at that statement- but look how many we have incarcerated in this country- many for nothing or wrongly. More than China, Cuba or North Korea. Yes- we killed far, far more people than ISIS in Iraq by a large margin. Jordan and Libya too. We really only incarcerate the poor- we let rich criminals get away with it for the most part. Heck, at least in Russia being rich is a very dangerous thing. Those in power pay the price- not those without any power at all.


I still haven't seen any explanation of what on earth incarceration rate has to do with being a threat to world peace. If anything, it works AGAINST that notion.

As for ISIS...that was 'currently'. Who are we currently killing in Iraq, besides ISIS?

QUOTE
When we go into a country- there are lots and lots of innocent people that are going to die. Typically in the hundreds of thousands, depending on the conflict (Vietnam, Iraq).


Note that we were NOT the initial aggressor in either of those cases...as is the case in just about every conflict we've ever been involved in.
QUOTE
You can guarantee if the US gets involved in your politics and country- things are going to get real bad, real quick.


Really. We are 'involved' in the politics of pretty much every country on earth. How have we made things 'real bad, real quick' in Germany? France? Great Britain? China? Mexico? ..... pretty much the entire list of countries on earth.

QUOTE
We kill and torture a large amount of people for you to call us "benevolent" - and I am talking about innocents, not "the bad guys".


By all means, please do list all the world superpowers in history who have been more benevolent than we have. Persia? Greece? Rome? Germany? Russia? Nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope. What's your list, then?

What innocents do we torture, anyway? In fact, who are we currently torturing at all...and have you written Obama to complain about it?

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Mar 31 2015, 09:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Mar 31 2015, 10:55 PM
Post #14


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Mar 31 2015, 11:20 AM) *
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Mar 30 2015, 09:28 PM) *
More than Stalin or Hitler? Nope. I think we have passed Pol Pot at this point. Wow- that is what our defense is now "Well, we are not as bad as Hitler, but worse than Saddam Hussien"?


When the question is should we be viewed as the greatest threat to world peace...yes.

QUOTE
Note that we actually treat a larger population worse than China, Cuba and close to North Korea. I know that you will blanch at that statement- but look how many we have incarcerated in this country- many for nothing or wrongly. More than China, Cuba or North Korea. Yes- we killed far, far more people than ISIS in Iraq by a large margin. Jordan and Libya too. We really only incarcerate the poor- we let rich criminals get away with it for the most part. Heck, at least in Russia being rich is a very dangerous thing. Those in power pay the price- not those without any power at all.


I still haven't seen any explanation of what on earth incarceration rate has to do with being a threat to world peace. If anything, it works AGAINST that notion.

As for ISIS...that was 'currently'. Who are we currently killing in Iraq, besides ISIS?

QUOTE
When we go into a country- there are lots and lots of innocent people that are going to die. Typically in the hundreds of thousands, depending on the conflict (Vietnam, Iraq).


Note that we were NOT the initial aggressor in either of those cases...as is the case in just about every conflict we've ever been involved in.
QUOTE
You can guarantee if the US gets involved in your politics and country- things are going to get real bad, real quick.


Really. We are 'involved' in the politics of pretty much every country on earth. How have we made things 'real bad, real quick' in Germany? France? Great Britain? China? Mexico? ..... pretty much the entire list of countries on earth.

QUOTE
We kill and torture a large amount of people for you to call us "benevolent" - and I am talking about innocents, not "the bad guys".


By all means, please do list all the world superpowers in history who have been more benevolent than we have. Persia? Greece? Rome? Germany? Russia? Nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope. What's your list, then?

What innocents do we torture, anyway? In fact, who are we currently torturing at all...and have you written Obama to complain about it?


FYI- at least 25% of the folks the GW administration have tortured were innocent. I have written to him (Obama) and my federal rep about letting the GW administration and the CIA get away with it. As long as we have a Republican majority we will not have any real justice or even a real investigation, clearly.

You don't kill over 1 million people in Iraq and make over 7 million people refugees and call yourself "benevolent" as a habit Hobbes. OH, and Russia comes under "not lately" just like the US- right? I mean, Russia hasn't killed millions since Stalin. So actually- yeah, Russia is far more peaceful and safe than the US right now- by a very, very large margin. We are a far, far more dangerous threat to world peace than China OR Russia, combined.

This post has been edited by CruisingRam: Mar 31 2015, 10:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Apr 1 2015, 12:57 AM
Post #15


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Mar 27 2015, 04:32 PM) *
... The United States locks up more people than any other country.

QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Mar 30 2015, 11:28 PM) *
...
... look how many we have incarcerated in this country- many for nothing or wrongly. ...
...

"GS", "CR", et al.:

Imagine, ...

... how much lower the U.S. incarceration rate would be if the penalty for theft (a.k.a. muggings/burglaries/car-jackings/etc.), instead of jail/prison, would be just plain "amputation of the full length of four fingers of the right hand of the thief in such a manner that the thumb and palm of the hand remain." And that's just for the first offense. Second offense? Now we're talkin' ... "[A]mputation of the left foot from the end of the knob [on the foot] in such a manner that half of the sole and part of the place of anointing [during ablution] remain".

... and imagine ...

... how much lower the U.S. incarceration rate would be if the penalty for possessing (let alone selling) drugs, instead of jail/prison, would be just plain ... execution. ...

... etc..

ps:

"The attitude of the intellectual community toward America is shaped not by the creative few but by the many who for one reason or another cannot transmute their dissatisfaction into a creative impulse, and cannot acquire a sense of uniqueness and of growth by developing and expressing their capacities and talents. There is nothing in contemporary America that can cure or alleviate their chronic frustration. They want power, lordship, and opportunities for imposing action. Even if we should banish poverty from the land, lift up the Negro to true equality, withdraw from Vietnam, and give half of the national income as foreign aid, they will still see America as an air-conditioned nightmare unfit for them to live in."
--- Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time, ... 1967

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Apr 1 2015, 04:17 AM
Post #16


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(akaCG @ Mar 31 2015, 05:57 PM) *
Imagine, ...

... how much lower the U.S. incarceration rate would be if the penalty for theft (a.k.a. muggings/burglaries/car-jackings/etc.), instead of jail/prison, would be just plain "amputation of the full length of four fingers of the right hand of the thief in such a manner that the thumb and palm of the hand remain." And that's just for the first offense. Second offense? Now we're talkin' ... "[A]mputation of the left foot from the end of the knob [on the foot] in such a manner that half of the sole and part of the place of anointing [during ablution] remain".

... and imagine ...

... how much lower the U.S. incarceration rate would be if the penalty for possessing (let alone selling) drugs, instead of jail/prison, would be just plain ... execution. ...

... etc..

The general rule of honest argumentation is you compare like with like. I realize that applies to more than yourself. Try some democratic countries. As far as gruesome solutions, we're the democratic country with the death penalty and a relatively draconian approach to illegal drug use.

Another quote from your Eric Hoffer link.

QUOTE
Free men are aware of the imperfection inherent in human affairs, and they are willing to fight and die for that which is not perfect. They know that basic human problems can have no final solutions, that our freedom, justice, equality, etc. are far from absolute, and that the good life is compounded of half measures, compromises, lesser evils, and gropings toward the perfect. The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestation of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity.


Looks like he has his finger pointed directly at the republican tea party. We're so pure it has got to be our way or crash the system. flowers.gif

This post has been edited by Dingo: Apr 1 2015, 04:32 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Apr 1 2015, 03:43 PM
Post #17


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Apr 1 2015, 12:17 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Mar 31 2015, 05:57 PM) *
Imagine, ...

... how much lower the U.S. incarceration rate would be if the penalty for theft (a.k.a. muggings/burglaries/car-jackings/etc.), instead of jail/prison, would be just plain "amputation of the full length of four fingers of the right hand of the thief in such a manner that the thumb and palm of the hand remain." And that's just for the first offense. Second offense? Now we're talkin' ... "[A]mputation of the left foot from the end of the knob [on the foot] in such a manner that half of the sole and part of the place of anointing [during ablution] remain".

... and imagine ...

... how much lower the U.S. incarceration rate would be if the penalty for possessing (let alone selling) drugs, instead of jail/prison, would be just plain ... execution. ...

... etc..

The general rule of honest argumentation is you compare like with like. I realize that applies to more than yourself. ...
...

Categorical statements such as "look how many we have incarcerated in this country ... More than China, Cuba or North Korea", by not taking into account ANY variables, leave themselves wide open to having the utter absurdity of their comparisons exposed. Which was the point of my reply to "GS" and "CR".

QUOTE(Dingo @ Apr 1 2015, 12:17 AM) *
...
... Try some democratic countries. ...
...

Sure. By all means, let's do that. Here's how things look when the U.S. incarceration rate is compared to that of a group of such countries, while taking crime rates into account (in this case, intentional homicide rates, which I'm using as a rough proxy for the overall rate of crimes that involve jail/prison time).

Incarceration rate per 100,000:

Australia: 143
Canada: 118
Denmark: 73
France: 103
Germany: 78
Italy: 100
Japan: 51
New Zealand: 183
Sweden: 60
Switzerland: 87
UK: 148

US: 707

Ratio (US/average of afore-listed countries): 5.3

Intentional homicide rate per 100,000:

Australia: 1.1
Canada: 1.6
Denmark: 0.8
France: 1.0
Germany: 0.8
Italy: 0.9
Japan: 0.3
New Zealand: 0.9
Sweden: 0.7
Switzerland: 0.6
UK: 1.0

US: 4.7

Ratio (US/average of afore-listed countries): 6.8

"Poof" goes the meme that the U.S. incarceration rate is out of line with that of "some democratic countries".

Anyway, this is off-topic (as "Hobbes" has been pointing out), so I'll stop here.


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...arceration_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...rate#By_country

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Apr 1 2015, 06:27 PM
Post #18


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,426
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Not impressed with numbers of civilians killed nor imprisonment numbers?

How about numbers of troops stationed in foreign lands? Is this a sign of an overly aggressive government?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Apr 1 2015, 09:46 PM
Post #19


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Apr 1 2015, 02:27 PM) *
...
How about numbers of troops stationed in foreign lands? Is this a sign of an overly aggressive government?

1.
I look forward to seeing you argue, should you choose to do so, that the roughly 220,000 U.S. troops stationed abroad (about 170,000 of whom are in Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Kuwait) are detrimental to "world peace on the planet".

2.
North Korea, which has no troops stationed in foreign lands, is obviously really good for "world peace on the planet". Heck, they're really good for the planet, period. After all, they observe Earth Hour all year long, and have done so for decades, even before there was an Earth Hour.

This post has been edited by akaCG: Apr 1 2015, 09:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Apr 2 2015, 03:00 AM
Post #20


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Apr 1 2015, 11:27 AM) *
Not impressed with numbers of civilians killed nor imprisonment numbers?

How about numbers of troops stationed in foreign lands? Is this a sign of an overly aggressive government?

I think we've had for the most part a low intelligence policy, exhibited, for example, by our invasion of Vietnam and Iraq and the idiocy of ABMs. Low intelligence policies require lots of force to keep up with all the inevitable blowback. In addition the MIC has its own stake in self-perpetuating itself. Strange that conservatives with all their supposed concern for government featherbedding keep overlooking this bureaucratic giant right under their nose.

Well maybe it isn't so strange. ph34r.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: January 25th, 2022 - 02:18 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.