Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, first of all, there is no 'news' anymore; there's only the media, which most of us know that they big everything up so they can present it as a juicy and serious story. So I wouldn't be trusting the news, especially if it's CNN.
You asked who I'd rather invade. The answer is ISIS. Why? ISIS is a group of a thousand, maybe, guys with guns. If they invaded, we'd have the largest army on Earth to fight back and they wouldn't get past Texas. Now, let's use the most dangerous example you asked as an alternative, the US. Assuming they target the same people ISIS would in an invasion (everyone who doesn't agree with them), the bloodshed would be massive, even if I allow the US to still have it's own military to defend against it's military (so, two US militaries fighting each other; the scenario doesn't have to make sense given the extreme nature of the question).
ISIS is not capable of what the US is. This is a fact.
The US might not have any intent of ending the world, but that does not mean we aren't threatening. As it's been pointed out, much of what led up to the formation ISIS was due to US involvement and failed foreign policy. Perhaps negligence should be another factor?
Once more, ISIS can't end world peace. It is literally unable to. They are a regional threat. They occupy parts of Syria and Iraq that probably adds up to being about the side of Georgia, maybe. No, the US does not have any intent on ending the world. This means it is not an immediate threat. Just as ISIS is not able to do much outside of their Georgia-size section of the Iraq and Syria does not make them an immediate threat. But, let's say we have a change in leadership and political ideology in 4 years. The US could find an intent to end world peace and successfully do that. ISIS, with the same factors, could not. Even if ISIS grows exponentially, they still wouldn't become a world threat; just a larger still regional threat. Thus, the US is a larger threat to world peace simply by a size comparison.
You're trying to make an argument based on the facts of size and a different set of facts (fabricated) about the will to execute power. You're evaluating threat based on a set of facts that do not exist. With that process, I could just as easily suggest that ISIS would be a larger global threat if they took over nuclear counties etc. The question was about who is the bigger threat, not who could be the bigger threat if we changed the facts. You're engaged in a creative writing exercise when the question was about the threat as is. That's a long way to go to draw equivalence and make the US the world menace.
I tried going to the level of individual behavior to show the point, and it didn't work, so I'll go broader. The allies defeated Nazi Germany in WWII, thus it can reasonably concluded that they were more capable of exerting might and damage, however Nazi Germany was intent. By your rationale, the allied nations, some reluctant to join the effort and some actually appeasing at first, were the greater threat than Nazi Germany because they actually proved to have more military might, despite the fact that it was the intent of Nazi Germany that triggered the whole thing. After all, at that point, Germany was a regional threat.
Liberals hate USA while supporting our nation's enemies.
How is stating the US is more a potential threat a sign of hatred of the US or supporting ISIS? Honestly, even if you disagree with the answers given, how can you reach such an extreme and ridiculous conclusion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
You're trying to make an argument based on the facts of size and a different set of facts (fabricated) about the will to execute power. You're evaluating threat based on a set of facts that do not exist. With that process, I could just as easily suggest that ISIS would be a larger global threat if they took over nuclear counties etc. The question was about who is the bigger threat, not who could be the bigger threat if we changed the facts. You're engaged in a creative writing exercise when the question was about the threat as is. That's a long way to go to draw equivalence and make the US the world menace.
I tried going to the level of individual behavior to show the point, and it didn't work, so I'll go broader. The allies defeated Nazi Germany in WWII, thus it can reasonably concluded that they were more capable of exerting might and damage, however Nazi Germany was intent. By your rationale, the allied nations, some reluctant to join the effort and some actually appeasing at first, were the greater threat than Nazi Germany because they actually proved to have more military might, despite the fact that it was the intent of Nazi Germany that triggered the whole thing. After all, at that point, Germany was a regional threat.
You're assuming I think the US will act on this issue, and I don't. Being a threat does not make you the bad guy necessarily. The US, lucky for the world, has no intention of bring about the destruction of civilization. ISIS does. But again, ISIS can't do it and the US doesn't want to, even if they could. When asked who the threat is, neither are particularly good choices, but I'd still go with the one that is capable.
Nazi Germany and ISIS are not comparable. ISIS is a glorified gang of guys with guns. Nazi Germany was an industrial, imperial world power. It had an army that I am convinced had the ability to take on the US army and win. However, the Germany's demise came from fighting to wars; one with the west and one with the Soviets. There arguably superior military might was split in half. The very fact that even half there armies could do as much damage as they did in their respective regions illustrates my point that ability and intent are the key factors. But let's say Nazi Germany was exactly the way it was; anti-Semitic and rapidly industrializing, but it had no interest in invading the rest of Europe. Would they not still have been a threat? Germany had intent long before it had ability though. Had Chamberlain not appeased Hitler, would Nazi Germany have been a legitimate threat? Of course not. The only reason the Nazis could do what they did was because they were given the opportunity to gain the ability. This is why ability is a more essential component than desire.
I do want to make clear this point; I do not side or sympathize with ISIS. Regional threat or not, they are not good to have around and if we were to appease them, they could become a threat. But until we start letting them take things they shouldn't have (as you said, nuclear countries) then they remain a threat only to the region, not the world.
Those who have no responsibly can just about look at anyone who does and see fault. Talk tho is as always cheap especially when you have no responsibly.
REYHANLI, Turkey — The U.S.-led air war in Syria has gotten off to a rocky start, with even the Syrian rebel groups closest to the United States turning against it, U.S. ally Turkey refusing to contribute and the plight of a beleaguered Kurdish town exposing the limitations of the strategy.
U.S. officials caution that the strikes are just the beginning of a broader strategy that could take years to carry out. But the anger that the attacks have stirred risks undermining the effort, analysts and rebels say.
The U.S. targets have included oil facilities, a granary and an electricity plant under Islamic State control. The damage to those facilities has caused shortages and price hikes across the rebel-held north that are harming ordinary Syrians more than the well-funded militants, residents and activists say.
ISIS or the USA, which is a greater threat to WORLD PEACE. There is only one correct answer. The USA. Quite amazing that each student knew the correct answer and so many on the thread who participate in Politics and Other Controversies are so ignorant. The students backed up their answer with supporting argument. Can anyone disagreeing do the same?
Who has possession of nuclear bombs and who has used them in war time ?
Who has a military with over 100 bases around the word for the purpose of staging and delivering a military response.
Who has repeatedly engage in wars for the last 75 years and the largest military budget in the world.
The list is endless. The answer is not ISIS. Are they bad neighbors ? Yes. And their neighbors have more to lose by not stopping them than anyone else. Have other groups done the same as ISIS at other times in that part of the world ? Yes.
As an independent who will never vote for a party. I have to say if you think these students are liberals, and wrong, on the question, then prove it. The students didn't bring up party politics but I have noticed many conservatives never fail to refer to it in most of their responses when it should not be an issue. When it's done, like it so often is, do you really think it will attract anyone that might be considering which party to support. IMO your starting to make the liberals look inviting like a badge of courage because no one wants to join the party of hate. Your biggest challenge and worst enemy comes from the one you see when you look in the mirror. I don't care which party is in power. They are equally meaningless in a corrupt system and equally disastrous in different ways. Not worth the time if the voting booth was across the street.
The communists via "education" are teaching the kids to hate America.. they have been doing this for years.
How is recognizing America's power hatred?
Do any of the people who are accusing the students in the video (or apparently student's in general) actually think about what you're saying? It makes NO sense. As a current college student, I can pretty assure you, it is not a 'communist' institution. I had a history teacher who was very clearly against the idea of communism, referred to the US as his favorite country, but was also skeptical of all forms of government, including the conservatives apparent 'small government' which despite having plenty of conservatives involved in government, has no actually surfaced for anyone who isn't either in congress or wealthy enough to buy their own personal congressman. I've honestly had maybe two professors who were clearly liberal bias; a sociology and an English professor, and English one did not let it influence her teaching at all. There was some influence on sociology, but the foundation of the class was based upon non-partisan, peer reviewed studies.
If conservatism is losing traction in the US, maybe instead of blaming universities and you can think about (yes, think) what might be turning people off of the right? Start with the Bible thumping and the indefinite patriotism. Like it or not, America does NOT always have the moral high ground. We have it over ISIS, but ISIS, despite what Fox and CNN are saying, are not 'the world.'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
