No announcement yet.

World Peace ?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • World Peace ?

    Which country(-ies) do you percieve to be a threat to world peace over the next twenty years ?
    European country - (specify in post)
    North Korea
    None of the above - (specify in post)
    No threat to world peace over next 20 yrs.

  • #2
    I voted for NKorea and the USA.

    NKorea because this land is lead by a lunatic and everything is possible here, especially becase their 'beloved leader' seems to develop increasing paranoia and feels cornered, such persons are always dangerous.

    USA is a little bit tricky, but if I look at the world of today I see only one nation really eager to go to war and that is the USA. Britain is different as Blairs support is decreasing daily and without Bushs lobbying for war Blair would never have made the first step.

    I don't think that China will be a threat in 20 yrs, I wont be too surprised if their system will collaps in the not to distant future and be replaced by a more western oriented democracy, probably with some chinese specialities
    "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

    Henry Alfred Kissinger


    • #3
      I voted for both China and the US.

      For European countries, strangely, I have the most confidence. I am not sure why, probably because the EU kind of stuff is my personal favorite ---- a global union would be the final destiny in my ideal. So I do not feel today's Europe would be like 100 years ago any more.

      But for China, there is a true uncertainty. Actually if there is a vote for the future of China, I would like to vote, "I hope good, but I really do not know". It is a very complex situation there. And right now, the system and the country is right on a crossroad either to prosperity or to disaster. The wits and luck of the Chinese people, esp. the leadership, within the next decade will be decisive for my motherland's future. But there is a real danger that China could fall apart and a horrible civil war (with sub powers each with nukes) would post grave threat to world peace.

      For the US ---- the democracy and science had been the trademark for the past century and it was the great contribution to the world by this country. Yet unfortunately, after the cold war, the only superpower position unavoidably drives the ego of this nation beyond a healthy limit. By this a Bush type administration is a very real product and highly possibly a consistent product by the democracy. This type of unileteral government and imperialism ideology will very dangerously push the nation into the opposite side of the rest of the world. Although the US is consuming 70% of the world's products, yet, it only produces 30%. This deep paradox lies there and will serve as a fundemental cause for a future confliction. And the militarily super strong reality of the US combined with this distortion, apparently will not be comfortable for anyone in the future --- esp. once the US ego advances beyond the barrier of all other major nations. Of course, this is hard to say. With a more politically competent government or leader (like Clinton administration), this danger would be greatly minimized or even completely go away. But certainly you cannot be sure that Bush admin would be the most hawkish group ever ---- what if you get a more radical dude? And this danger will be much more grave than the above Chinese civil war scenario, it almost means the end of world.

      Thus the vote.
      Attn to ALL my opponents:

      If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

      Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.


      • #4
        Can't believe what I hear!


        I cannot believe what I am hearing from both of you, ER_Chaser and Marko! USA as a real threat! Please!

        China is the real deal here. It is not a democratic nor it is showing any signs of moving toward establishing a democracy in China. China is aggressively expanding its power base and influence among the Asian countries, the one would have to be blind to see this.

        USA may be expanding its power base, but then who isn't doing that?

        USA is not an imperialist country, I don't know where you get that kind of silly idea, ER_Chaser.

        China is moving to modernize its navy which then would become a direct threat to US Navy. Though, this would take one or two decades to finish the construction of new Chinese Navy, nevertheless the very thought of any country challenging US Navy like Soviet Union did is chilling at least to say. China is pushing through missile technology by stealing secrets from us, and selling them to any country that offers the highest bids.

        You could argue USA did the same to the rest of world, fine, but then we are playing power games with each other.

        It can be said that European Union is also a threat to America simply because its newfound economic power and unified community that makes it a much stronger political voice than before.

        Marko, Kraut, and ER_Chaser, we are all threats to each other, we're no different from each other. I preceive some of your countries as threats to America's national security and interests, and in turn, you do preceive us as a direct threat to the so-called "world peace." It's all in relativism. Who's to say which threat is right?

        I am not eager to go to war with Iraq, I fully know the consequences of a deadly war with Iraq or any country for that matter. If you didn't like me calling your countries "Axis of Weasels" or "Old Europe," then I would respectfully ask you to stop calling America "Cowboy" country. Bush is not a cowboy President, he knows the consequences just as you and I do. He's got some advisors talking with him, Bush may make rash statements, but in no way, he will make poor judgments based on his emotions.

        ER_Chaser, Clinton is not a competent leader, he had Omasa bin Laden a couple of times in sight, but due to political wranglings, he allowed him to escape. And it was embarrassing to us when Clinton choose to withdraw from Somanlia instead of staying put to prevent further bloodshed even though it might cost us 20 or so American lives. Moreover, it irritates me that Clinton apparently thought the cruise missiles (Tomahawk missiles) would solve every problem requiring a strong military force. It was humiliating to me, when Clinton refused to place American troops directly in the way of danger in Kosvo, and it proved Serbs to be right in claiming we were a bunch of chickens afraid to duke it out in guts and blood.

        Clinton's economic programs were lousy and out of control. The recovery and prosperity experienced during Clinton years was the result of Bush Sr.'s economic programs preceding Clinton's first term in 1993.

        You have to understand, the economy is not based on presidential elections, rather, it is a continuous process that goes on forever come and go the presidents. The recessions may have do nothing with a president's ability to guide the nation economically.

        Lastly of all, Clinton had an affair, while our current President does not have, which I can say more than anybody could have say.

        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

        "Aim small, miss small."


        • #5
          I'm not concerned about the EU becoming an economic/military threat in the near future, the burdens placed by their extensive social welfare system are limiting thier economic growth to a fraction of the US rate, and preclude the possibility of thier building up a military capable of challenging the US. Long term demographic trends are also working against europe. With birthrates falling well below the deathrate an increasingly large number of retired people will be putting a severe burden on the shrinking productive elements of the economy.
          "Lord... forgive me my actions, speech and thoughts. Because, Lord, I am seriously going to kick some unrighteous ass in Your Name, Amen."
          Princess of Wands by John Ringo (Jan 2006)


          • #6
            Interesting posts.

            China is a clear threat, and one of the main reasons the US is shifting toward Asia. Europe is quite stable, and should remain so for the next ten to twenty years.

            China is certainly gearing up to make it's mark globally. PLAN is abandoning it's 50 year policy of coastal defense and is expanding it's regional power projection abilities. Right now, they lack the necessary assets to truely be a threat. However, by 2010, they should have a 3rd generation fleet. By 2020, PLAN will likely have fielded at least one carrier. This along with all the frigates, destroyers, oilers, stores ships, etc will give China the ability to more effect foriegn policy.

            China will come under increasing internal strife. The progressive liberalization of the Chinese economy has yielded negative results. Decentralization meant to stimulate encomic growth has created political liberation. Beijing responded to this development with further decentralization. Now you have a bunch of provincial governments who really don't listen too much to their political leaders in the capital. Autonomy granted to larger industrial cities is like "creating warlords to fight warlords," as one analyst put it.

            While about $100 million per day of foriegn investment flow into China, it's economy is in question. If I'm not mistaken, Beijing claims their unemployment rate is around 2%. However, that means around 20 million people are unemployed. Some western analysts have the number at around 70-100 million.

            In addition, we must look at the China's political situation. Uprisings in Xinijang (sorry if I mispelled) are just one example of the social issues threatening the country's stability. Beijing's use of imprisonment and executions is becoming less effective. The result is a government slowly spiraling toward chaos.

            All this makes for a very dangerous situation in Asia.

            Cheetah772, the US is a threat to global security. We are the most powerful nation on Earth. A foolish move by an American President can have devastating global effects.

            The way I see it, Europe is wants to retain the Cold War like foriegn policy structure, where it's voice was amplified by American power. Most of Europe is in no position to join America militarily or economically in a multilateral effort. The United Kingdom is really the only exception to that rule. France is expanding it's navy, but will likely meet resistance.

            The US tolerated and accepted the opinions of it's allies because it was in our interest during the Cold War. Most of America's foriegn policy involved the allies because they could be so effected. More importantly, the US believed unity within the NATO alliance was critical to deterring the Warsaw Pact.

            That's all changed. The US hasn't abandoned multilateralism. Just because we're not listening listening to Europe doesn't mean we are ready to go it alone. And that seems to be the centerpiece of this talk of unilateralism. The US is unified with Russia and China on North Korea, and have allowed the Asian nations to take the lead. Bush is not saying or doing anything without close consulation.

            If Europe wants to see multilateralism return between it and America, it will have to do alot more than just stand in their backyard shouting orders. We're in Asia now, and can't hear. Europe must show it is concerned about Asia, or just global matters in general and back up their foriegn policy more sternly.

            If you believe the US has walked away from multilateralism, it only shows just how little you are paying to US foriegn policy and action. As I believe Tzar stated, Europe's problem is that they think they know the US. And America's problem is that we're not listening to Europe.

            If Europe wants America to hear them, they're going to have prove they have broad global interest that they must protect. And the US will have to realize we can't fight the new Cold War like the last. Creating alliances with just the people immediately effected by policies is not enough. We must remain committed to our other obligations.
            "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942


            • #7
              Originally posted by Deltapooh
              By 2020, PLAN will likely have fielded at least one carrier.
              By that time we should have the Photon Torpedoes installed on the USS Enterprise.

              the US is a threat to global security.
              Well the original question was whether the US is a threat to World Peace, not World Security, but you have raised the important point. This is the question that everyone is debating in most of the threads in this forum: does peace = security?

              Certainly the US is a threat to world peace in the short run: we are about to start a war! Whether this war increases or decreases security in the long run remains to be seen. Let's hope so.


              • #8
                I haven't voted yet - it won't let me, but I think I'd vote for China. Any country with 500 million bicyles is asking for trouble. Has anyone wondered what will happen when those bicycles all become leaded petrol fueled cars ?


                • #9
                  I voted for China too.

                  As of now, China is not a threat because it is focusing on economic matters. China has stayed pretty quiet on most global issues in the last decade.

                  And China might not become a threat if it succeeds in maintaining strong economic growth with, at some point, the inevitable political liberation.

                  But, if the economic success comes to a halt and greatly slow down (and there are already signs that this may be happening), then the social pressures could build up to a point where it would threaten the stability of the country and prompt Beijing to turn towards more totalitarian and militaristic behavior. That's where the threat resides.

                  Some people have said that China has been smarter than Russia in keeping tight political control while freeing the economy. However, that can badly backfire when the economy will slow down or stop. Because when it will, there will be no security valve to absorb the boiling social discontent. That security valve is called democracy and free speech. China (and the whole World) could dearly miss that security valve when things will go wrong in China - and it eventually will.

                  I have to say I was almost prompted to vote for Israel as a threat to peace, especially if a Middle Eastern country ever get nuclear weapons.

                  Israel's political and social sanity has been greatly affected since 3 years and this society is currently in decay, slowly falling into chronic extremism, inequality, racism and paranoia - and please, I don't want to be dragged into a debate to understand on whom to place the blame for that state of things, my only concern now is to understand where this sad situation can lead Israel. What I see for the coming years is a lot of big red flashing indicators on their social and political dashboards.

                  I would not be surprised to see Israel fall into authoritarianism in the next decade and lose a lot of its democratic varnish. Of course, that depends on how events will play out in the Middle East. But the light is currently going down on the Jewish state and its inhabitants.

                  The window of opportunity for peace that existed in the 1990s is now closed and nobody knows when it will open again. The longer it will stay closed, the longer Israel will suffer and unravel as a society.
                  Last edited by Tzar; 26 Feb 03, 18:41.


                  • #10
                    China and USA First and Formost...

                    North Korea Second, But really should be first...

                    Iran and Iraq Third...

                    USA will be in War of Latter three all for the terrorist reasons of the chance of the highest bidder getting a WMD.

                    How about India and Pakistan?

                    How about a drug lord getting a WMD?

                    I believe the world has a balance of GOOD and Evil and there has been proof of this in all history? I just pray that my Children's Grandchildren have a safe place to play and grow up and have a place to raise their families as they choose.
                    Come on, you apes! You wanta live
                    - Unknown platoon sergeant, 1918


                    Warfare HQ Staff
                    CM Tournament Cooridnator


                    • #11
                      I voted none of the above.
                      I think the biggest threat to "world peace" per say is actually the internal strife/problems in many European countries and the USA.
                      If a major domestic upheaval happens in a major nation it can destablize the whole region its in, maybe even the world.

                      "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"


                      • #12
                        im abstaining from voting.. playing ms cleo with international events never helped me much. But I will back up marko (!!GASP!?!)
                        because unfortunitely the US can easily makes itself the bad guy. In a matter if 10 - 15 weeks the US went from victim to oppressor. Our ego is a problem. But where peace is concerned... im afraid of China trying to destabilize Russia, and pick up some serious serious resources in the eastern plains.
                        Doesn't read Al Franken, can't watch Al Jazeera, will attack dumbasses. Anyone but Rumsfeld '04.


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Headshot
                          im afraid of China trying to destabilize Russia, and pick up some serious serious resources in the eastern plains.
                          You read Tom Clancy's "The Bear and the Dragon" didn't you ?
                          Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!


                          • #14
                            yeah but ive read all his other books... thats the only one thats ever made me think. and its the only one that makes a whole lot of sense. and it keeps me up at night
                            Doesn't read Al Franken, can't watch Al Jazeera, will attack dumbasses. Anyone but Rumsfeld '04.


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Headshot
                              yeah but ive read all his other books... thats the only one thats ever made me think. and its the only one that makes a whole lot of sense. and it keeps me up at night
                     interesting and thought provoking read indeed.


                              Latest Topics