Page 3 of 3
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:31 am
by Gruntboy
No, I think that is the UK's fault for setting Israel up in the first place. Burn us.
No, hang on a minute, isn't it Moses fault? Or that other geezer in the bible, the one who slept with the Eyptian woman. Blame them.
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:36 am
by Tamerlane
@ frogus, If you want. then yes.
However working off Curdis' points.
Originally posted by Curdis
Most dangerous as an agressive party?
Most dangerous as a global destabilizer?
Most dangerous as a place for any person to visit/be?
Most dangerous as a place to live?
Most dangerous for an *insert nationality here* to visit or live?
I chose Israel because of its internal problems. I never envisioned putting any politics into it. To me Israel is the most dangerous place to live in. Living in terror for so long is a terrible way of existence. No one should have to live through.
Notice- When I say Israel I mean both the Israeli's and Palestinian's. Just my way to pushing back any potential flamers and controversial topics.
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:38 am
by Kameleon
I went for the US too - they seem to be the cause, if not the source, of most of the worlds problems. And with GW in, there's no knowing what might happen if some Israelite ever talked about "burning bush". Nuclear holocaust anyone?
Darn colonials - we should have crushed them while we had a chance...
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:00 am
by Maharlika
My definition of dangerous...
... would be more on the context of the "potential" of such a country to cause maximum world damage...
...that is why I voted for the USA. This however should not be equated with 'the most "evil" country'. For me, that would be a different story altogether...
...I'm really sorry, but what do you mean exactly by dangerous?
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:51 am
by Gruntboy
This is yet another poorly informed "topic". Just what does dangerous mean (exactly, Maharlika).
On the other hand, I think the potential to cause damage increases security when in the right hands (i.e. United States of America).
Unfortunately, we do not live in a stable non-violent world. Hence by saying US = lots of weapons = dangerous you are living in a childlike state of utopia. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say, you desire the disarmament and subsequent destruction of the US. Why esle would you label them dangerous and desire their disarmament???
Peace through superior firepower.
Deterrence.
These are words that I respect.
Now lets talk about the UK. The USA wouldn't exist if it weren't for us floating around the world de-stabilising every country we came across. You want to get into historical pedantry? I can do that.
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2002 6:08 am
by Maharlika
Right on the head.
Originally posted by Gruntboy
Peace through superior firepower.
Deterrence.
These are words that I respect.
I agree.
During my uni days, this concept is very much parallel to what my fraternity brods were thinking as regard to our "special relationship" with our rival frat.
The best way to promote peace is to let your enemy know that you are ready for war. Roughly said: Don't even think about messing up with us or you'll feel sorry.
BTW, I'm very much interested in this historical pedantry of yours...
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2002 6:53 am
by Gruntboy
Maharlika - you can illustrate just about any point you desire, in support of an argument, with historical examples.
Its easy, most people try it. The same examples can even be used to illustrate different points!
Its all in the eye of the beholder.
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2002 7:05 am
by Maharlika
@Gruntboy
Gotcha.
Cya around, amigo. I'm off to dinner now.