which country is the most aggressive country? - Page 2




 
--
 
December 9th, 2004  
NgoDinhdiem
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocco
china is just as aggressive. look at what they did to tibet.
they started a war with india, they back invasions in both vietnam and korea. they supported NK nuclear program, they have helped arm countries like pakistan and iran. have a bad human rights record. etc.
\

seriously my friends you need to read more books, cause the books you are reading and who ever is teaching you is relaly one sided.

yes they invaded tibet, yes that have kill criminals without conscience.

China nevver started a war with Inida. they gave pakistan nukes only to balnce out the region against India. rusiia gave India nukes to balnce china, Nk also got help from russia. If you CHina is aggressicve and notthe U.S then you sure aint knowing what hapening in the world.

the U.S by far is the most aggressive country in the world
December 9th, 2004  
Kane
 
As far that I'm concerned, America's foreign relations and how it handles things becomes too complicated. Several reasons is that in 4-8 years, the administration change, which causes political views and goals become inverted or different. Hence, America's involvement in world Affairs swings like a pendullum.
December 9th, 2004  
egoz
 
In defense of the US, the country is aggressive. But they are put in a position where they need to be. People look to the US to settle conflicts and aid world peace. So you can't take things out of context by saying the US invades other countries and supports assassins and starts wars. There are a lot of countries that have done the same thing. The fact of the matter is the US is put in the spotlight because of recent events and their position as a super power. They are like the "big brother" of the international community that should set a good example for the world. But at the same time you can't name a single other country that hasn't supported some type of assassination or hasn't gone to war over their own interests, be it land or oil or whatever you come up with.
--
December 9th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
China is probably the worst... well probably biased because my country's a bit close to China.
December 9th, 2004  
Kane
 
Quote:
well probably biased because my country's a bit close to China.
No actually you're very close to China.
December 9th, 2004  
Kane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by egoz
In defense of the US, the country is aggressive. But they are put in a position where they need to be. People look to the US to settle conflicts and aid world peace. So you can't take things out of context by saying the US invades other countries and supports assassins and starts wars. There are a lot of countries that have done the same thing. The fact of the matter is the US is put in the spotlight because of recent events and their position as a super power. They are like the "big brother" of the international community that should set a good example for the world. But at the same time you can't name a single other country that hasn't supported some type of assassination or hasn't gone to war over their own interests, be it land or oil or whatever you come up with.
Aggressiveness for defense? Other people looking up to the US for peace? really!? Are you forgetting about America's role in the Cold War *hint *hint?
December 9th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
My former British education has taught me to understate on occasion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane
Quote:
well probably biased because my country's a bit close to China.
No actually you're very close to China.
December 9th, 2004  
Kane
 
hehe, quite modest of you.
December 9th, 2004  
egoz
 
Yes, aggressiveness for peace. You can't wait for a terrorist to strike first before you attack them back. It voids the point of counter terrorism. If they strike first then they've already won. Hence the new rules of engagement when dealing with terrorists.
As far as the US attempting to settle conflicts. Kosovo was an issue because of genocide. Was anyone seriously going to sit around and wait for the UN to do something about it?
I wasn't saying that everything the US has done or will do will be strictly in the name of defense. I said that it will be done for the interest of the country. If that means killing the leader of a drug cartel in South America or overthrowing a leader in Asia then they'll do it. The point is to defend our interests at all costs.

Memo by Hoover Commission 1950
There are no rules in [this] game. Hitherto acceptable norms of human conduct do not apply. If the United States is to survive, long-standing American concepts of "fair play" must be reconsidered. We must develop effective espionage and counterespionage services and must learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated, and more effective methods than those used against us. It may become necessary that the American people be made acquainted with, understand and support this fundamentally repugnant philosophy. Memo by the Hoover Commission written to President Eisenhower.
December 9th, 2004  
Kane
 
Quote:
I said that it will be done for the interest of the country. If that means killing the leader of a drug cartel in South America or overthrowing a leader in Asia then they'll do it. The point is to defend our interests at all costs.
Well said.

It have been demonstrated excesively in the Cold War by the Soviet Union and the United States.