Greatest Threat To World Peace: The United States of America

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:14 pm

Greatest Threat To World Peace: The United States of America

By Sarah Lazare

Global Research, January 01, 2014

Over 12 years into the so-called “Global War on Terror,” the United States appears to be striking terror into the hearts of the rest of the world.

In their annual End of Year survey, Win/Gallup International found that the United States is considered the number one “greatest threat to peace in the world today” by people across the globe.

The poll of 67,806 respondents from 65 countries found that the U.S. won this dubious distinction by a landslide, as revealed in the chart below.

http://www.countercurrents.org/464x560x ... tM206x.png

The BBC explains that the U.S. was deemed a threat by geopolitical allies as well as foes, including a significant portion of U.S. society.

Greatest Threat To World Peace: The United States of America | Global Research

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:22 am

Yeah, we're a great threat to peace...every time someone attacks us. When we are left alone, we tend to become very isolationist. Kind of like the big kid on the playground you shouldn't mess with.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:36 pm

Saint_;1447908 wrote: Yeah, we're a great threat to peace...every time someone attacks us. When we are left alone, we tend to become very isolationist. Kind of like the big kid on the playground you shouldn't mess with.

Why do americans believe this myth that they don't interfere with other nations? You're not actually isolationist and haven't been for some decades.

Having said that i don't actually think they are the greatest threat to world peace I think that's pakistan. nuclear weapons, and unstable. Maybe india and china will take them out.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:18 pm

gmc;1447915 wrote: Why do americans believe this myth that they don't interfere with other nations? You're not actually isolationist and haven't been for some decades.

Well sure we are. The American people, for the most part, are extremely wrapped up in their own lives, the lives of their celebrities, and their neighbors. Most could not care less about other countries, people, or the world.

But when you said, "Americans," you probably meant "The American government." Then you'd be correct. They haven't minded their own business since Pearl Harbor. But hey, being the "New Rome" that's what we expect out of them, right? Somebody has to keep the cheap oil flowing.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:14 pm

What "cheap" oil? That's Nicaragua you're thinking of. Also, please refresh my memory, Saint. When exactly did Vietnam attack us? I try to think of when, but nothing happens.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:33 pm

Saint_;1447921 wrote: But when you said, "Americans," you probably meant "The American government."

The American government headed up by that Kenyan ?

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:40 pm

A friend of mine in Germany once referred to America as the family Teen with Tourette's

You just never know what he is going to say or do.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:46 pm

AnneBoleyn;1447944 wrote: What "cheap" oil? That's Nicaragua you're thinking of. Also, please refresh my memory, Saint. When exactly did Vietnam attack us? I try to think of when, but nothing happens.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident

Gulf of Tonkin incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:07 pm

Saint_;1447956 wrote: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident

Gulf of Tonkin incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously? You must have been in the military, then.

It seemed pretty obvious that was a set-up to give us an excuse.

Besides, the fact that the Maddox fired first. Where I come from the first guy to throw a punch is the one that started the fight.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:41 pm

Saint_;1447956 wrote: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident

Gulf of Tonkin incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded[7] that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated regarding August 2:

At 1500G, Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.[7]

Regarding August 4:

It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.[8]

The Gulf of Tonkin incident has long been accused of being a false flag operation.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15]"

Gulf of Tonkin incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WE started it, WE were there looking for it. WE WERE WRONG & were not attacked first. I recommend the movie The Ugly American starring Marlon Brando for a simple way for anyone to understand the background of our interference.

Hard to believe we used the same link, but there you go.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:43 pm

America always appeared to me to be like the big guy in the bar/school playground/queue, or whatever..... that just stood and looked back waiting for your eyes to meet his, so he could ask if you had a problem.......................it could just be me though.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:45 pm

It's just you.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:25 pm

Works for me. That's why I've never condoned that "police action."

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:26 pm

Bruv;1447949 wrote: The American government headed up by that Kenyan ?

Actually, I'm not really sure who's in control. Possibly the NSA.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:31 pm

Bruv;1447965 wrote: America always appeared to me to be like the big guy in the bar/school playground/queue, or whatever..... that just stood and looked back waiting for your eyes to meet his, so he could ask if you had a problem.......................it could just be me though.

Well people said things like that about the British Empire when the sun never set on it in it's heyday. I think there's a natural reaction of dislike to whoever's at the top of the pecking order.

Read "The Lucifer Principle." The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History: Howard K. Bloom: 9780871136640: Amazon.com: Books

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:35 pm

LarsMac;1447959 wrote: Seriously? You must have been in the military, then.

Affirmative. Air Force Pilot.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:29 am

It looks like 2015 will be the first year since at least 1914 that British soldiers, sailors and air crews will not be engaged in fighting somewhere in the world. probably if you look at the two centuries before 1914 you will find the same thing - there was always a war somewhere. You would find it very difficult to find a family in britain that did not have soldiers in their family history ww1 especially ww2 as well to a lesser extent and all the forgotten wars in between.

British forces' century of unbroken warfare set to end with Afghanistan exit | UK news | The Guardian

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:54 am

Does that mean a new age of enlightenment.....................or are we just skint?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:15 pm

Bruv;1448027 wrote: Does that mean a new age of enlightenment.....................or are we just skint?

Take your pick. If being able to afford it was a factor that mattered no one would ever go to war.

I thought an=merica was more of a threat under bush. For a while there it seemed to be taking a massive lurch to the right and becoming more militaristic in it's foreign policy

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:56 pm

an=merica

That supposed to mean something?

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:06 pm

gmc;1448030 wrote: Take your pick. If being able to afford it was a factor that mattered no one would ever go to war.

I thought an=merica was more of a threat under bush. For a while there it seemed to be taking a massive lurch to the right and becoming more militaristic in it's foreign policy

One might think so.

An interesting statistic, though.

Bush was the first Republican Pres to be in office when the US started a war since McKinley in 1898

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:49 am

AnneBoleyn;1448056 wrote: an=merica

That supposed to mean something?

It means my typing is rubbish.

posted by larsmac

One might think so.

An interesting statistic, though.

Bush was the first Republican Pres to be in office when the US started a war since McKinley in 1898

Not done much checking on the matter but i read somewhere that one of the main america came in to ww1 was they discovered the germans were trying to persuade mexico to invade america. Does help make a bit more sense of the decision to get involved