Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The greatest threat to world peace is posed by...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The greatest threat to world peace is posed by...

    Calling all arm-chair strategists
    71
    Islamic Fundamentalism
    21.13%
    15
    International Terrorism
    9.86%
    7
    China/Tiawan
    4.23%
    3
    North Korea/USA
    1.41%
    1
    Pakistan/Kashmir/India
    2.82%
    2
    US foreign policy
    22.54%
    16
    Israel/Palestine
    8.45%
    6
    Iranian WMD programme
    0.00%
    0
    Competition for dwindling world oil supplies
    23.94%
    17
    Globalisation
    5.63%
    4

  • #2
    I went for US foreign policy because I do see it as a threat under this administration and the theoretical framework and ideology behind it.
    Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

    Comment


    • #3
      Haven´t decided yet, but China would be a strong nominee...
      Because overpopulation is the greatest threat of our world. Too many people, not enough resources.

      Comment


      • #4
        Nah, went to US numbnut foreign policy after all...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Käki
          Nah, went to US numbnut foreign policy after all...
          Well it encompasses a lot of the other selections too so its a good overal choice.
          Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

          Comment


          • #6
            Of those listed, I went with dwindling oil resources. It is the only option that clearly stands out as a global threat because of the decisive impact it can have over economic, military, and political conditions on a global scale. The other options can deteriorate into global threats, but are less likely to do so in all the critical categories which are vital to peace.

            Personally, I believe the greatest threat is imperalistic rivalries between the major powers. The impression of unity obscures the many differences that are at the root of bickering between the various powers. The US, Great Britian, France, and Germany are at the heart of this problem. If they are not arguing with each other, they are pursuing oppressive policies abroad. Great Britian, France, and Germany use the EU in much the same way the US employs the UN. They see it as a vehicle to enforce imperalistic policies which would be rejected otherwise.

            Whether it is the US-UK in Iraq, France in Congo, or the big three in Europe fighting with others over trade, we are seeing a strong re-emergence of neo-imperalism and interimperalism, which has been tailored by bureaucracies to fit a particular ideal, even though it really seeks to defile it. If you live in New York, Berlin, Paris, or London, you need not worry about one power oppressing you. The real threat to your livelihood is the people you elect and inadvertly support through nationalism and acceptance of appearances, with little interest of exploring the substance of domestic and foriegn policies.
            "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

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Temujin
              Well it encompasses a lot of the other selections too so its a good overal choice.
              Exactly. Only third and fifth selection are not related to it, and those are the least of a threat to WORLD peace.

              I wonder when senor Bush figures out Bin Laden has to be in Fin-land and soldiers in snowcamouflage rain down from the sky. In summer, when there is no snow.

              Comment


              • #8
                I had to go with fight over control of dwindiling oil supplies. I have a feeling that when it comes down to it alot of countrys are going to be willing to fight or support fighting for these supplies in order to have access to them

                Thanks for looking!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  I voted for the US and for wars for oil (water is missing, in many regions water is even more sparse than oil and wars to secures water reservoirs dont seem to unlikely), while all the other mentioned conflicts could indeed happen they will all probably be limited to a small area and wont spread (but could nevertheless get really nasty... North/South Korea or India/Pakistan) but only a US policy that continues and expands in its current track would be able to destabilize more than just a region. It doesnt seem too likely but nevertheless its still a possibility.
                  "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                  Henry Alfred Kissinger

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kraut
                    I voted for the US and for wars for oil (water is missing, in many regions water is even more sparse than oil and wars to secures water reservoirs dont seem to unlikely), while all the other mentioned conflicts could indeed happen they will all probably be limited to a small area and wont spread (but could nevertheless get really nasty... North/South Korea or India/Pakistan) but only a US policy that continues and expands in its current track would be able to destabilize more than just a region. It doesnt seem too likely but nevertheless its still a possibility.
                    Good point. We've seen disputes over water in the Middle East. It is a trend that is likely to continue.
                    "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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Käki
                      Haven´t decided yet, but China would be a strong nominee...
                      Because overpopulation is the greatest threat of our world. Too many people, not enough resources.
                      The world would probably have enough resources if everyone was more satisfied with just enough instead of having more.
                      "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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Deltapooh
                        Of those listed, I went with dwindling oil resources. It is the only option that clearly stands out as a global threat because of the decisive impact it can have over economic, military, and political conditions on a global scale. The other options can deteriorate into global threats, but are less likely to do so in all the critical categories which are vital to peace.

                        Personally, I believe the greatest threat is imperalistic rivalries between the major powers. The impression of unity obscures the many differences that are at the root of bickering between the various powers. The US, Great Britian, France, and Germany are at the heart of this problem. If they are not arguing with each other, they are pursuing oppressive policies abroad. Great Britian, France, and Germany use the EU in much the same way the US employs the UN. They see it as a vehicle to enforce imperalistic policies which would be rejected otherwise.

                        Whether it is the US-UK in Iraq, France in Congo, or the big three in Europe fighting with others over trade, we are seeing a strong re-emergence of neo-imperalism and interimperalism, which has been tailored by bureaucracies to fit a particular ideal, even though it really seeks to defile it. If you live in New York, Berlin, Paris, or London, you need not worry about one power oppressing you. The real threat to your livelihood is the people you elect and inadvertly support through nationalism and acceptance of appearances, with little interest of exploring the substance of domestic and foriegn policies.
                        Well said, the worry i have, and is due to my location in the world, is the growth of China in economic and foreign policy spheres. This does not mean i fear China i expect China to have a bigger influence in the world however i fear the US reaction to China. The neo-imperialist outlook you described and a rising China is going to cause some massive problems, i don't have a lot of fear from China because traditionally they are not as forcefully imperialistic as europeans/anglo's seem to be. They never really tried to dominate too far way from their homeland throughout history although they liked to think of themselves as the centre of the world and everyone else should respect that. but apart from that they have always been relatively calm in foriegn policy.
                        Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I chose oil indirectly because of waking giants like China and India. I think once these countries start demanding a larger and larger % of the world's oil supply, somebody isn't going to be happy. And there will be a very large potential for resource motivated proxy wars.
                          Even Jesus will never forgive what you do - Bob Dylan

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Menschenfresser
                            I chose oil indirectly because of waking giants like China and India. I think once these countries start demanding a larger and larger % of the world's oil supply, somebody isn't going to be happy. And there will be a very large potential for resource motivated proxy wars.
                            Yep, and then US foreign policy will dictate the rest.
                            Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Sigh...here we go....
                              Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                              "Aim small, miss small."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X