which country is the most aggressive country?

We have to be, its not like the EU or UN is going to do anything unless they feel their lifes are in danger.
 
Big_Z said:
We have to be, its not like the EU or UN is going to do anything unless they feel their lifes are in danger.

since 911 ,the US guys developed the feeling of dangerous or
since long time ago?
 
I'm not sure if I understand that comment but if your asking if we just started being aggressive since 9/11 id say no, we have just become even more aggressive because of it. The US doesent have to feel like its in danger for us to go to war, I guesse thats why people tend to call us the "World police".
 
since our recent counter terrorism stance we have to be aggressive. there is a reason we have a pre-emptive strike policy. with a terrorist attack we can't wait to be hit before we can counter. if that were to happen the terrorist has already won.
 
At this point in time, its probably the USA. Its not about conquest or building an empire, despite what many nations and foreign peopel believe. Its about protecting our own interests and often it involves righting wrongs -- liberating Kuwait is a perfect example of that. The USA's military actions worldwide are somewhat unique in the history of the world. We aren't gaining any new territories or colonies for ourself. We're not subjecting anyone. I can't think of any example of anything like that from history.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
At this point in time, its probably the USA. Its not about conquest or building an empire, despite what many nations and foreign peopel believe. Its about protecting our own interests and often it involves righting wrongs -- liberating Kuwait is a perfect example of that. The USA's military actions worldwide are somewhat unique in the history of the world. We aren't gaining any new territories or colonies for ourself. We're not subjecting anyone. I can't think of any example of anything like that from history.

Indeed, for a good overview of American aggression, ya'll should pick up the book:

"The Savage Wars of Peace: Smalls wars and the rise of American power"
 
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.
 
they supported NK nuclear program

Whoa, Whoa, slow down a bit. They supported NK Nuclear program? Since when?

they have helped arm countries like pakistan and iran.

That doesn't mean that the country is aggressive.

look at what they did to tibet.

The takeover was almost bloodless. However it killed a great deal of PLA soldiers during the process. Perhaps you should visit Tibet one day.


In answer to this query:
China's agressive international policies are high, but are not as high as America, who supported assasinations, attack nations overseas, and is the only country that used Nuclear Weapons intentionally.

The only thing that China is more aggressive is on the domestic front.
 
Post sources for your claims. This is for everyone, so don't send me a PM saying "oh, but he did it first," I don't care.
 
rocco said:
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
egoz said:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top