Biggest Threat to World Peace: The United States

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/31-6


U.S. soldiers stop traffic on the road to the governor's compound in Kandahar, scene of a deadly battle on April 28, 2012 (Photo: AFP / Getty Images)

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.

[Scuba]

1. No brainer.

[Coyotl]

9. Ding, ding, we have a winner!

[Savannahmann]

2. It would be difficult to agree more

I could try, but the depression would probably be fatal.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. Your tax dollars at work.

[bemildred]

4. Totally and obviously.

If all those guns were going to bring peace, it seems it should have worked by now.

[xchrom]

6. one would think...but i keep thinking someone will be smart enough to stop

asking people who break everything...time and again...how to fix the things they broke.

[bemildred]

8. The basic problem is that taking a moral position can land you sleeping on the street.

Most people have responsibilities and limited means, they can't quit every time the boss makes an ass of him/her-self.

THAT is why we need a robust social safety net, it frees us ALL from the coercion of the wealthy. And that is why the wealthy like cheap labor, cheap labor is docile labor.

[xchrom]

12. +1

[valerief]

16. That's it, plus oil keeping the dollar propped up. nt

[bemildred]

19. Yes, many things contribute to the stability of the old order. It's well dug in.

Or so it thinks ...

[valerief]

21. Jesus plays a big role in keeping the old order. Can't get soldiers without Jesus. nt

[bemildred]

22. OK.

(Backs slowly away, while making eye contact and smiling ...)

[RC]

33. I tend to agree.

It is that promise of eternal life, if you die killing people for your country, in their country.

[valerief]

64. Yep, that dying with honor thing always seems to help the very wealthy get richer, too.

Funny how that works.

[Enthusiast]

112. That is also why concentrating the nation's wealth

in the hands of a few undermines democracy.

[bemildred]

123. If you let them grab all the money, they will try to defend it.

Not everybody wants to be Donald Trump, but ones that do, they really, really do; and they will do just about anything to get it and keep it ...

[woo me with science]

5. Well, a list we're at the top of.

[lastlib]

26. Amurika--Number 1!!

[RandiFan1290]

7. Christian terrorist gangsters. nt

[newfie11]

10. Bought & paid for polititians

The MIC and companies that supply it are insane. Money at the expense and misery of humans done on purpose = insanity.

[Coyotl]

11. A nation founded on invasion, genocide, slavery, and warfare. What would you expect?

No other nation in the world has a comparable record of sustained genocide.

[RKP5637]

13. The US has been a violent country from day one, often inflicting violence at

home and abroad. No surprise here. Just a brief look at what the US has done to some of its own citizens is chilling.

[daleanime]

14. K&R....

[Nye Bevan]

15. Yeah, look at the way Obama eagerly waged war in Syria, for example,

following their use of chemical weapons. He is a very, very dangerous man. It's a good thing we have sensible level-headed folks like the Iranian Ayatollahs and Kim Jong Un to maintain some kind of order in the world.

[RC]

35. He sure wanted to.

It was Putin stepping in with a diplomatic solution, that stopped that war. Now it is back to the drawing boards, to try something else.
Meanwhile, we have to make do with our drone assassin attacks, against wedding parties and families sleeping in their homes, in countries we are NOT at war with.

[NuclearDem]

61. And what brought the Ayatollah to power in Iran, pray tell?

Hint: the Iranians were kinda pissed about us overthrowing a democratically-elected government in their country.

[Enthusiast]

113. Precisely...............nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

117. Well, yes and no.

Yes, the USA helped overthrow a Democracy in Iran, the people were pissed enough in time, and the result was a theocracy.

Blowback at its worst.


If the USA had left the democracy alone I wonder what Iran would look like today.

[Scootaloo]

77. Well first, Obama was trying damn hard to get his war on in Syria

Had the Brits not demurred to signing on, we would currently be there. That's why John Kerry was poncing around Europe accusing the leaders there of having a "Munich Moment."

Second, Iran hasn't invaded anyone since their counter-invasion of Iraq in 1984 - nor had they invaded anyone prior. I can't recall them using flying robots to blow up civilians, either. They're also not spending a third of their budget on their military. So uh... yeah, less of a threat than the US is.

[morningfog]

127. Look at the way he expanded and escalated drone strikes.

Look at the way he surged in Afghanistan and has perpetuated that war. He was ready and wanted to strike Syria. Luckily, British parliament and US public opinion stopped it.

The US is by far the country of the greatest threat to peace.

[grilled onions]

17. If We Would Help..Not Hinder

If we would give what the countries need instead of taking what we want...instead of waiting to be asked for help instead of barging in with both feet..instead of helping ourselves until there is nothing left for us to use or take and leaving a country worse off then before we got there...instead of convincing our young troops that they are on their life's mission only for them to discover they had been used and left with the guilt of death and destruction while the upper war cogs count the loot of the spoils.

[7962]

18. Until there's a disaster. Then our phone starts ringing off the hook.

We top the list any time this is done. The fact that Japan is above Russia says a lot. India?
Although in a way, I wish the US WOULD pull out of everything. Then we'd see how "peaceful" the world could be without us.

And in no way do I say all of our actions are correct or justified. Iraq alone ruined what reputation we had with much of the world.

[treestar]

25. +1

Holy shit. What would happen if we did nothing? We'd get the blame for everything that happened.

[TwilightGardener]

37. All the supposed smart, serious foreign policy writers pound Obama for not intervening more

in Syria--Saudi Arabia is having public tantrums. And if he withdrew completely from Afghanistan, my God, the howls that will come from every corner. They blame him for Iraq going medieval again, too. There is nothing that American blood and money can't fix, apparently. We should be bankrupting ourselves by intervening in middle eastern conflicts that are unsolvable by Westerners. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We're either "weak" and "feckless" to our allies, or we're the world's bullies and tyrants.

[treestar]

40. Exactly, look at the Arab Spring

When it started in Egypt there was many posts blaming Obama for not helping the revolutionaries. Yet had he helped, he would have been a warmonger - or something. Libya, Syria, it goes on. Any report of atrocities from another country and it is "why hasn't the US done anything?"

[freshwest]

118. Curious. Would it be like what happened between WW1 and WW2? I think the *permanent* military stance

of the USA was due to a justified fear in that era of time, which created an international infrastructure that was so talented and organized, that it took on a life of its own. As if caught in a 'Skynet Becomes Self-Aware' universe some refuse to leave that is ultimately unsustainable for human life.

The MIC and our technocracy looks at everything in the same war prism and uses the same solutions. Everything is turned into fuel to save the homeland, but instead, it destroys it to save the infrastructure instead.

Wonder if the most die hard hawks, other than those who make tons of money off of it, are eternally paranoid. Some of the fear is logical, war breeds more war, hate more hate, fear more fear, etc. The results of what we have done, just as what other countries have done to each other, such as the English and the Irish, the peoples of Russia and the Ukraine, has extended past the lifetimes of most who lived through their worst events.

Within the USA itself, is a history that breeds deep conflicts we have not be able to overcome yet. There are signs we may do so, true, but not yet.

And yes, if we did nothing, we would get the blame by someone, if we were able to survive it. After all, a joining together of other nations might come looking for us, right or wrong.*

Looking back at the kind of weaponry developed during and since WW2, not for the love of knowledge, but for the purpose of defense and offense, we have let the genie out of the bottle that may never be put back in. The CWC that Kerry and Obama used to resolve Syria without traditional methods, is a big improvement. But we are not in the age of peace of love across the planet.

Some of what appear to be the worst things of our day, trade agreements and corporate rule, were once thought to be engines of equality and peace. They have not been successful, no more than religion. The reduction of all the world's cultures to one dominant one was thought to be a good idea to end warfare. We have that in capitalism, but the collateral damage to humans and the environment, and the spirit or freedom that we must have to be happy is not being met, it never was.

We're going into a different era, more inclusive, and more social changes than ever imagined. Many Americans are ready to embrace this, others are running away. I don't think there is going to be any escape for them, and they show their fear by buying big guns and lots of ammo and talking all kinds of trash. It won't last, though, but damn if they aren't gonna try. Fear does that, everyone wants to survive.

I dread what will happen as more people are under the authority of fewer elements. At this time, most of the wealth of the world is owned by corporations, not nations and they are making the rules by their hierarchical mindset. It does not bode well for social mobility that our government has nurtured, nor individual freedom to change large organizations. It is a structure that is never transparent, with power to make decisions (example would be corporate head choppers and getting fired - like getting killed - we see that mentality afflicting society now) and creating social stratification. Very bad for those not near the top, they are forced to exist as little more than robots, which in terms of humans or animals or any other living thing, is a tortured existence.

*Speaking of the Axis powers. They were not going to leave anyone alone, so we could not stand behind idealism and expect to still make it unmolested.

I think the essay assignment that the judge gave the religious group who trespassed on the nuclear facility - he asked the best questions ever - will be very instructive on how the idealistic views of religion and morality met up with the reality that spawned nukes.

[rock]

20. This game is no competition to "Where's Waldo?"

[treestar]

23. Ridiculous

No the biggest threat is Al Qaeda, Chechen separatists, various groups in Africa, dictators like Assad.

Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch. This stuff is tiresome.

[niyad]

32. too much eggnog last night?

[treestar]

39. Guess you did have too much.

Doubling down on the lunacy that the US is the number one threat? Bigger than the ones I mentioned?

[niyad]

42. you keep on thinking that. pretty sure none of the groups you mentioned has the biggest military

in the world, is the biggest arms dealer, or has bases in something like 140 countries, and has the biggest supply of wmds. but, whatever lets you sleep.

[treestar]

43. So - those groups use what they do have for bad

A lot of our military hardware is defending us. And others.

[bobclark86]

45. And by defending "us," you mean

Halliburton. Oh, and Exxonn-Mobile.

[treestar]

47. I'm not that cynical

I do think we need defense of some kind. You seem to think we should be defenseless since someone will make money selling military hardware? Yeah that works for the continued existence of any country.

To me that extent of cynicism is self indulgence. It means no thinking in nuance is necessary.

[niyad]

49. like I said, whatever lets you sleep at night. denial is NOT a riiver in egypt.

[treestar]

52. Reality - what it is with this desire to see everything as

negatively as possible? Stay up all night worrying about nothing if you must. The lack of sleep probably promotes the black view.

[donheld]

120. Wow

just wow

[Ranchemp.]

38. +1000. eom

[bobclark86]

44. We spend more on "defense"

than the next 20 countries combined -- oh, and we are peaceful with all of them. We are CONSTANTLY bombing people almost every day in small backwaters in the name of "war on terror."

"Hey! Let's invade Afghanistan! Sure, nobody has ever successfully invaded it before, but let's give it a try ourselves!"

"Hey! Let's invade Iraq! Sure, my daddy didn't finish the job last time, so now it's MY turn!"

"Hey! Let's bomb Libya!"

"Hey! Let's bomb Syria!"

Fortunately, enough people said no to that last one. I've buried too many kids from my generation after they went to Iraq and Afghanistan (Poor rural areas are disproportionally joining the military, so I knew several kids killed overseas in my lifetime).

You blame the rest of the world for thinking poorly of us when we invade, burn, bomb and murder hundreds of thousands of people?

The chest-beating, flag-waving "Put a boot in yer ass, it's the Amurican Way!" stuff is tiresome, and it has been for more than 10 years now.

[treestar]

48. We are defending other countries also

It's likely why we lag behind in benefits like government health care.

It is telling you won't admit that, and want to make the most negative inference you possibly can, even if you have to twist the facts.

That doesn't mean you can't criticize mistakes or problems. But it's weird you have to take those to mean we don't do any good at all.

[bobclark86]

56. Yeah, like dictators who do business with America

Gulf War? Yeah, horrible dictator who opressed minorities, women, etc.

Oh, and Israel. If I lived in the Gaza Strip, I'd be pretty fucking pissed off, too.

BTW, I'm tired of the dead bodies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror#Casualties

More than 1 million dead.

Yeah, fuck that horseshit.

[Enthusiast]

114. + A shit load!

Way to say it, Bob!

There is no justification for the size and scope of the US military or its mission. The last decades wars have accomplished nothing other then to profit a very few at the expense of millions of us, especially the ones that lost their lives. A military around one quarter its present size would still be unjustifiably large.

[tomp]

125. the u.s. military defends the rich, period.

with all due respect, if you don't know that, you don't know anything.

[NuclearDem]

51. 1) Chechen separatists are hardly one of the greatest threats to world peace.

2) Our reckless actions in Afghanistan in the 80s formed the core of al-Qaeda (specifically, we armed and trained them), and every bombing, invasion, or drone attack since then has driven up AQ's numbers.

Oh, and we're funding and supplying them in Syria too.

So even if you want to go with AQ as the greatest threat to world peace, then at least acknowledge our role in creating and perpetuating it throughout the years.

[treestar]

53. All I see here is a desire to blame us for everything

Afghanistan had plenty of problems without us, got help from us.

If we did nothing, we'd get a shitload for that, too.

Yes AQ is the greatest threat to world peace right now, along with any terrorist group. We would not have been there before AQ. And they have no excuse for what they did, no matter what we did there to attempt to help. Jesus! Do you actually excuse AQ for its actions, saying that were justified by our previous actions?

World peace is put on our shoulders as our responsibility, and apparently no one else is responsible for their own actions/governments. Stupidly and blindly anti-American.

[bobclark86]

57. Yeah, like no opium production.

The Taliban eradicated it the year before we invaded. Now, it's the world's largest supplier.

And I'm going to go with the country that has killed millions over the last decade without real reprisal -- no ICC trials, no sanctions, no coordinated military strikes -- and not a bunch of dudes with some 40-year-old AKs in a cave thousands of miles from American soil as the REAL threat to world security.

[NuclearDem]

58. And we had the chance to fix Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal.

But we didn't even try, and a power vacuum allowed the Taliban to rise to power and bin Laden was allowed to form the core of his group there and start coordinating attacks against the US (and much to his credit, Clinton worked as hard as he could to fight).

Acknowledging the reality that our reckless actions overseas tend to perpetuate terrorism and foment anti-American sentiment is NOT making excuses for AQ. In fact, I want us to stop bombing Yemen so that AQAP can stop finding more recruits in the people who have seen their family members and friends evaporated by a Hellfire missile.

But then here we are again, funneling weapons to Islamic insurgents in a country in the middle of a civil war.

But I guess I'm either with us or against us. If I criticize American foreign policy, I like the terrorists. Etc etc.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

71. 67,000 respondents worldwide, and your head is firmly in the sand.

Stamp your feet all you want, but it won't do shit to change the fact that the vast majority of the rest of the world thinks we're the biggest problem in that world. Congratulations--you've just staked out a position that claims everyone in the world except Treestar is wrong. Good luck selling that outside of your own head.

[bvar22]

104. Nailed It.

Well Done.

[Scootaloo]

79. Ah yes. "Anti-American," and "blame america first"

Coming from a person who pounds on about people being disloyal to the party and president.

Where have I seen this song and dance before?

[niyad]

106. let's see--who the hell TRAINED osama bin laden and began the al-qaeda group?? oh, yes, that

would be THIS COUNTRY--its cia.

world peace is NOT the sole responsibility of the united states, nor is war-mongering all over the damned world. but you live in your "ain't america just friggin' wonderful" bubble of denial. it would be quite charming if that view didn't support the mic so completely.

[jessie04]

60. Thank you.

.

[totodeinhere]

110. +1

[sorefeet]

24. Just another thing that

we are NUMBER ONE at.

[Vashta Nerada]

27. We're number one!

Whoo! Whoo! Whoo! USA! USA! USA!

[Jefferson23]

28. More Americans need to understand why we rank on top, so we can work together to get

to the bottom of the list.

K&R


Thanks for posting xchrom and Happy New Year too.

[marmar]

29. k/r

[HoosierCowboy]

30. Unrestrained International Corporations

..backed up by a military that is supposed to be used otherwise are the greatest threat to peace, especially if you are an undeveloped nation with resources in the ground.

Point to the man behind the curtain

[mountain grammy]

31. In a short period of less than 75 years, we went from saving the world

from Nazi domination and using our resources to rebuild a peaceful Europe to being an aggressive, warring nation.
We like to think of ourselves as the same brave nation led by FDR who defeated Hitler, but we are so far from that it's pathetic.

[indepat]

82. But, but, but we had to keep the dominoes from falling and the world safe for democracy

(so voracious unfettered capitalism can run amok free of governmental oversight or regulation).

[The2ndWheel]

34. Sure, because there's no governing body that can tell the US Government no

Because the US military is essentially the developed world's military. Pretty much by default, since the US was the last power standing after the 20th century. The US won't get bombed by another country. The US won't be economically sanctioned.

The US Government won the 20th century, and was able to dictate the rules of the game. When that eventually changes in some way, the US won't be #1 on this kind of list.

[avebury]

36. No surprise here. nt

[DCBob]

41. America cant win.. if we do too much we get bashed..if we do too little we also get bashed.

For sure we have done some horrible things in the past but imagine what the world would look like if we were an isolationist country. I suspect most of the world would be speaking either German or Japanese.

[treestar]

54. +1

North Korea would have taken over South Korea.

Geez, we have our mistakes and overreactions, but blaming us for it all is beyond ridiculous.

[DCBob]

62. The Chinese and Russians must be loving this.

They get away with all kinds of "under-the-radar" aggressive expansionist actions while the focus is on whatever the US is doing.

[treestar]

67. These OTT exaggerators are

probably blissfully unaware of what the Chinese and Russians might be doing. Or any other country.

[ronnie624]

66. So in your estimation,

killing millions of Koreans and utterly destroying the country was preferable to allowing Koreans to determine their own political destiny.

This is the sort of illogical reasoning that causes so much trouble in the world.

[treestar]

68. No. But I guess you are saying it'd be OK to have them all under Kim Jong Un?

I don't think so. LOL, their own political destiny? Why does anyone accept our help then? They can just live with whatever their destiny was going to be.

[NuclearDem]

75. So what do you suggest we do with North Korea?

Keeping in mind, of course, that it sits in the backyard of two nuclear-armed countries with some of the largest militaries in the world, and three of our largest trading partners?

[treestar]

85. I think the point was limited to how evil we are for

getting involved in other countries' business. Yet in SK they are probably not saying that, as they'd likely prefer not to live under a tin pot cult-like despot.

And that it's our problem is inherent in your question isn't? The argument made was that we are the biggest threat to peace in the world. I guess that includes NK in their minds.

NK is the threat to peace, not us.

[NuclearDem]

93. I'm not arguing that the Korean War shouldn't have been fought.

We overstepped our bounds when it turned into an offensive war instead of simply a campaign to stop the North's invasion, though.

North Korea is a threat, yes, and they shouldn't be allowed to get their hands on nuclear weapons, but they're hardly the greatest threat on the planet.

[ronnie624]

76. Koreans did not "ask" for US "help".

In fact, there were no Koreans involved in the decision to divide their country, at all. The only Koreans who supported it, was a tiny fraction of the population that stood to gain by it. That's why the US government and its puppet S. Korean dictatorship slaughtered so many S. Koreans.

It wasn't our place to decide anything for Korea.

[treestar]

86. The Russians administered NK and us SK

at the time, SK certainly needed help of some kind. Unless you think they preferred the Japanese. That divide stuck, due to the actions of North Koreans. If we are to be responsible for everything that happens, then you'd think we'd have a say in how it goes.

China supports NK to exist, yet they are no threat to world peace. No, just us. Geez.

[davidpdx]

115. If you really want to place the blame on a divided Korea then blame Japan

It was Japan that colonized Korea for over three decades and treated the people like slaves. Had that not happened, Korea would have not been in complete ruin by the end of WWII and may have had the leadership to keep the country whole. The truth is that there were already communist Koreans who supported a non-democratically elected state. Either way with the leadership vacuum there was not way to figure out a compromise with such little time left and no government (again thanks to the Japanese).

Feel free to shit on the US all you want, but when it comes to Korea we defended the Republic of Korea (South Korea) when the North Koreans invaded. The only people I know that call the South Korea government a "puppet government" is North Koreans. In that case, please tell Comrade Kim Jong Un he can kiss my fat white ass if he thinks he's ever going to take over this country.

My father-in-law fought on the side of the South Korean government in the Korea war. He deserves a hell of a lot more respect then you do.

[ronnie624]

119. It was not Japanese bombers that destroyed Korea during the Korean War,

murdering millions of people. US bombers did that.

Syngman Rhee

Syngman Rhee (Korean: 이승만 I Seungman, pronounced [iː sɯŋ.man]; March 26, 1875 – July 19, 1965) was a Korean statesman, authoritarian dictator, and the first president of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea as well as the first president of South Korea. When the way for the independence movement in the Japanese colonial period and the comments stood apart, he announced the domestic situation to foreign countries. His latter three-term presidency (August 1948 to April 1960) was strongly affected by Cold War tensions on the Korean peninsula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngman_Rhee

Park Chung-hee

Park Chung-hee (Korean: [paktɕ͈ʌŋhi] 14 November 1917 – 26 October 1979) was a Korean general and statesman who led South Korea from 1961 until his assassination in 1979. Park seized power through a military coup d'état that overthrew the Korean Second Republic in 1961 and ruled as an unelected military strongman at the head of the Supreme Council for National Reconstruction until his election and inauguration as the President of the Korean Third Republic in 1963. In 1972, Park declared martial law, suspended the country's constitution and made himself President for Life while ushering in the Korean Fourth Republic. Despite surviving several assassination attempts, including two operations by agents of North Korea, Park was eventually assassinated on 26 October 1979 by Kim Jae-gyu, the chief of his own security services.[1] He had led South Korea for 18 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee

[davidpdx]

121. I know who both of them are

Park Chung-hee had nothing to do with the war, he was a despot leader and got what he deserved in the end (right to the head too). My wife was born when he was president. It's also notable that his daughter is now the president of Korea (I certainly wasn't happy about that).

Rhee was the few people that could be put forward as the leader of South Korea. He wasn't a good leader (again, a vacuum in leadership since Japan controlled Korea for over three decades). The problem was whether communists were infiltrating the South and trying to sabotage the government. There was no DMZ at that point in the way we know it today which is heavily fortified. It was later that the boarders were fortified and even then the North Koreans were digging tunnels into South Korea (I've actually been in one of them).

I don't agree with what either of the two of them did (especially Park).

Again if you look at history it was the North Koreans that invaded South Korea. No one forced them to do that comrade. The US had a pact with South Korea and stood by them. Had they not 50 million people would be living under a despot dictator who is barely old enough to shave. Go study about what REALLY goes on in North Korea, not just what you hear and then get back to me. I'd bet I have a much better grasp on reality then you do.

[ronnie624]

131. Biggest Threat to World Peace: The United States

That is the topic of this thread. The Korean War is only one example of the brutality of US intervention. There are many, many more.

Clearly, it is you, who needs to read some history; a fact that is amply demonstrated in your posts with statements like this:

"The only people I know that call the South Korea government a "puppet government" is North Koreans."

The standard neocon-cold war liberal line is that the North Koreans, in league with Moscow and Beijing, launched a war of aggression on June 25, 1950, when North Korean troops poured across the disputed border. What this truncated history leaves out is that, in doing so, they preempted Rhee’s own plans to launch an invasion northward. As historian Mark E. Caprio, professor of history at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, points out:

"On February 8, 1949, the South Korean president met with Ambassador John Muccio and Secretary of the Army Kenneth C. Royall in Seoul. Here the Korean president listed the following as justifications for initiating a war with the North: the South Korean military could easily be increased by 100,000 if it drew from the 150,000 to 200,000 Koreans who had recently fought with the Japanese or the Nationalist Chinese. Moreover, the morale of the South Korean military was greater than that of the North Koreans. If war broke out he expected mass defections from the enemy. Finally, the United Nations’ recognition of South Korea legitimized its rule over the entire peninsula (as stipulated in its constitution). Thus, he concluded, there was "nothing [to be] gained by waiting."

[center]*******[/center]
As to who did in reality fire that shot, Bruce Cumings, head of the history department at the University of Chicago, gave us the definitive answer in his two-volume The Origins of the Korean War, and The Korean War: A History: the Korean war started during the American occupation of the South, and it was Rhee, with help from his American sponsors, who initiated a series of attacks that well preceded the North Korean offensive of 1950. From 1945-1948, American forces aided Rhee in a killing spree that claimed tens of thousands of victims: the counterinsurgency campaign took a high toll in Kwangju, and on the island of Cheju-do – where as many as 60,000 people were murdered by Rhee’s US-backed forces.

Rhee’s army and national police were drawn from the ranks of those who had collaborated with the Japanese occupation during World War II, and this was the biggest factor that made civil war inevitable. That the US backed these quislings guaranteed widespread support for the Communist forces led by Kim IL Sung, and provoked the rebellion in the South that was the prelude to open North-South hostilities. Rhee, for his part, was eager to draw in the United States, and the North Koreans, for their part, were just as eager to invoke the principle of "proletarian internationalism" to draw in the Chinese and the Russians.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/28/who-really-started-the-korean-war/

[davidpdx]

136. South Korea has a free and fairly elected democratic system

apparently you don't agree with that since you are referring to them as a "puppet". That is exactly the language North Korea uses in their broadcasts to threaten the South.

I know more then you ever will about South Korean history. There are 28,500 troops stationed here, but South Korea controls their own military and in the event of war would control any operations to defend the peninsula. South Korea is not Iraq or Afghanistan. As for our intervention, again when the NORTH KOREANS INVADED THE SOUTH (read very carefully twice) we were asked to intervene on behalf of the Republic of Korea. We did not (nor have we ever) invaded North or South Korea, we were asked and fought to save the country from Kim Il Sung. Your revisionist history is just that.

[ronnie624]

137. I agree that S. Korea is a democratic system.

I did not say that it isn't.

But during the Korean War, and for for many years after, it was not. Your claim that it was, flies in the face of recorded history.

The US government intervened in Korea for strictly self-serving geopolitical reasons, not to "save" the country. How does one save a country by destroying it? Such a claim is illogical in the extreme.

[center]******[/center]
"Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — twenty percent of the population of Korea as direct casualties of war, or from starvation and exposure?" -- General Curtis LeMay

[davidpdx]

138. I never claimed it was a democratically elected system

I said numerous times that there was a leadership void after WWII and Rhee was one of the few people who could lead the country. I also stated I don't agree with what either Rhee or Park did (if you actually bothered to read what I wrote).

You are dishonestly using LeMay's quote out of context here is what he actually said

We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, someway or another, and some in South Korea too.… Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — twenty percent of the population of Korea as direct casualties of war, or from starvation and exposure?"

When he said twenty percent, he is specifically talking about North Korea. The same North Korea that attack South Korea. That is a convenient fact you seem to be overlooking. Yes, the people of North and South Korea are one people but they were divided by ideology with in the people themselves.

I still believe (and will always believe) the US prevented South Korea from being slaughtered by the north. Again, feel free to believe whatever you want, but your revisionist history is getting old.

[ronnie624]

140. "twenty percent of the population of Korea"

Not North Korea.

It isn't 'my' history. What I know about the Korean War comes from numerous sources. I can tell by your posts, that you know little more than the official narrative.

But this thread isn't about Korea, specifically. It's about how people throughout the world, regard the US as the biggest threat to peace and security. What about the slaughter in Haiti and the Philippines? Or the invasion of Indochina, and the subsequent bombings of Laos and Cambodia, some of the most heinous violence ever perpetrated against other countries, resulting in the almost complete destruction of Vietnam as a cultural entity? Or the blatant aggression against Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and which was clearly predicated on lies and conspiracy?

There is good reason for why the US is regarded as the biggest threat to peace and security: because it has a well established history of violence against other countries.

Bye now.

[Comrade Grumpy]

92. Tell it to the rest of the world. That's who calls us a threat.

[treestar]

96. The rest of the world, like Canada

Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Australia, Africa, for that matter Japan and Germany at this point, geez louise, what is it with exaggeration lately?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. "Do nothing and everything is done." Lao Tse

[DonCoquixote]

83. can you flesh this out

I understand that US miltarism has done a lot of harm, but are you saying that we should have let Germany win, or let the Kim family rule Korea?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

89. We have "done" a lot in Korea, and the Kim family is still there.

We did a lot in WWII and before and after WWII. And, the war still happened.

Lao Tse is referring to the individual. What are YOU or I going to "do"? And, will it accomplish what we seek to do?

So, if voting for a Democrat rather than a Republican doesn't achieve your ends...i.e. more and better gun control...what's the point?

BTW, Germany declared war on us. We didn't "go to war" with Germany.

[DonCoquixote]

91. The kims are in Pyonhyang

but NOT in Seoul. I say this because, out of all the palces we did stick out our nose in, South Korea seems, for all it's flaws, to be better off than their Northern cousins. Seoul is a place biggerb than New York that rivals Europe and the Americas..Pyongyang is NOT, despite the fact that before the Chinese tried to help the Kims, the Northern part of the country was the wealthier,mroe developed side.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. So, what do you suggest we "do"?

[DonCoquixote]

95. for one

organize independently of the itnernet, and indeed, of poltical parties. If the tea Party did it, we could to, form our own Pacs so that we can exert pressure to counter the pressure the right wing does.

About korea, we do not support the far right, but we do not join in the chorus of people who think we should abaodndon the place, because we do not need soeloul to become the way the Kim drynatsy proves their manhood.

[treestar]

97. So we quit trying?

And then just let them take over SK? Perfection isn't possible in this world, and certainly giving up easily won't improve things. Well, unless you really want the Kims to rule SK too.

[Egalitarian Thug]

101. "A strange game. The only way to win is not to play." - W.O.P.E.R.

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." - T.J.

[morningfog]

128. It's 2014, not 1944.

[gulliver]

46. It's partly a bad thing.

George W. Bush and the Republicans rushed us into an unnecessary war and hurt our reputation.

The other side of it is that of course we are a "threat." We are the only remaining superpower, the biggest kid on the block. Anyone taking the poll who has a nationalistic reaction to their country's relative strength compared to the United States is going to pick us as the threat on the list. We stand out.

So I am not bothered too much by this. Republicanism is still a threat, but fortunately, it is a dying one. Even if the Republicans manage to seat a president again at some point in the future, people will be on guard against another war stampede. Obama has done much to recover our reputation in the meantime and has shown how terrorism is really fought.

[MrMickeysMom]

50. K&R!

[democratisphere]

55. The Military Industrial Complex is/has been in control.

Ike was RIGHT! Got to go, I see an unmarked, non-amazon delivery drone approaching!!!

[2naSalit]

59. No surprise there! n/t

[L0oniX]

63. We are the terrorist of the world. (Sung to the tune "We are the Champions" - Queen)

...and we'll be the terrorists to the end... (chorus) we are the terrorist ...we are the terrorist

[ronnie624]

65. To many (most?) US citizens,

including some 'liberals' and 'progressives' on this thread, the only peace and security that really matters, is that which is enjoyed by Americans. It doesn't matter so much in places like Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Philippines, Greece, Iran, Guatemala, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq and Afghanistan (to name but a few examples of US interventionism).

[NuclearDem]

72. And even at that, how many of those actions have backfired on us?

Anti-Americanism is rampant in Central/South America, the world nearly came close to a nuclear war over Cuba, AQ formed out of the mess that was Afghanistan and the mujahideen, the 1979 revolution in Iran, and I don't even need to touch Southeast Asia.

[ronnie624]

78. Absolutely.

Sound reasoning by those who consider the US the biggest threat.

[progressoid]

69. We're Number One! We're Number One! We're Number One!

[Savannahmann]

73. LOL

I think this is a list, like smelliest kid in school, that you don't want to be on.

[seveneyes]

74. The USA feeds and assists more countries than any other nation

Too bad all the good we do is disregarded when it comes to negative opinions of America.

[Scootaloo]

80. And yet with some changes in the way we do things, maybe they wouldn't need the assistance

It's awful hard to look saintly about shipping rice somewhere, when you're supporting the dictator who confiscates the nation's wealth, and demand IMF policies that prevent non-export agriculture from that nation.

[treestar]

98. If we are so responsible for every damn thing,

maybe we should just really take over the world - why have the absolute responsibility without the absolute ability to handle it? Geez, it's like being determined to blame us and only us. Everything that goes wrong is due to US actions. How did the dictator get there, are we putting them all in? And have the Soviets never done a damn thing wrong. I guess they were no threat to us.

[Scootaloo]

100. Comes with being a world superpower dedicated to militarism and hypercapitalism, Treestar

We're actually doing the opposite of what you describe - all of the action, none of the responsibility.

I will leave you to your drone porn now.

[moondust]

84. Link for that claim?

U.S. foreign aid ranks fairly low on a per capita basis and as a percent of GDP.

http://www.princeton.edu/~soapbox/vol2no4/24noveck.html

[seveneyes]

87. In terms of the absolute value of aid given, the United States is the world's top donor by far.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/us-foreign-aid-by-country_n_1837824.html

[Egalitarian Thug]

103. I'm not sure forcing nations into insurmountable debt so the money can go to American corporations

to build the means to extract that nation's natural resources, while paying a tiny fraction of its worth further enhancing the debt cycle, qualifies as assistance so much as sabotage.

Add that to the fact that most of the places that need help need it because of our actions, and your premise becomes iffy at best.

[hrmjustin]

81. This is no surprise at all.

Shame on us that people feel this way about us.

[MisterP]

90. heh, look how low Saudi Arabia ended up!

[Hosnon]

99. It's relative.

I'll take a world with a strong U.S. military over one without it any day. Sure we do some stupid shit but even our presence in certain areas prevents conflicts from erupting.

[penultimate]

102. Bias poll... They're asking the people we're bombing. That's just dumb.

[bvar22]

107. I hope you're kidding.... because thats pretty funny.

If so, Kudos for a rather dark sense of humor.
I have one too, and appreciate good Gallows Humor & Gallows Satire.

If you're NOT joking:
"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."
That is a very large and diverse sampling.

Personally, I have had the opportunity and privilege of traveling outside the US,
and I'm not shocked to see it honestly reported how most foreigners see the US.
I am more surprised the ANYONE would be surprised.... or try to contradict the results of this poll.

We DO have a small group here that is committed to Defending the Indefensible,
but they just look silly, and have zero credibility outside their little clique.

[OnyxCollie]

105. This poll oversampled racist hater libertarians.

[Jamastiene]

108. K&R

[DeSwiss]

109. As for me.....

...it is not the fact that the US is the biggest threat to world peace.

- It's the acquiescence to the idea which bothers me more.

K&R

“We can, if we so desire, refuse to cooperate with the blind forces that are propelling us.” -Aldous Huxley

[Enthusiast]

111. Well, it's true.............nt

[4bucksagallon]

116. Our old enemy Vietnam thinks it's China as do most of the WestPac rim nations.

Personally I think they have it right it's China.


End of year 2013
Page 7
Vietnam
Table 6
Q8. Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?
China
54%

[Locut0s]

122. In the world today I agree. Moving forward though...

I think moving forward the China / US dynamic will be the most dangerous. They should be rated equally looking at the future.

China wants to be #1 in everything. They are more than willing to strong arm their way there, as the US has done so in many areas in the past and continues to do so. Oil, minerals, water, wood, all the dwindling natural resources are going to become potential flash points between the two powers.

[The Wizard]

124. Our biggest exports are

War and the weapons to effect it.

[BeyondGeography]

126. Biggest hope, too

I would wager, should that poll be taken. We're the biggest at many things, good and bad.

[Captain Stern]

129. We spend almost as much on our military as the rest of the world.

How could we NOT be the biggest threat to world peace?

[liberal N proud]

130. When we stop focusing on the military industrial complex

And stop trying to bully the world:


Other nations will stop seeing us as a threat.

The right is so wrapped up in supporting the war machine that they need to start wars!

[panader0]

132. Biggest threat to world peace?

The Republican party of the United States.

[woo me with science]

134. BLOOD FOR PROFIT.

[NealK]

135. You know, I like Srar Wars...

And the good guys are NOT the Empire. Lucas wanted to picture the rebels as the U.S vs the evil British empire. Well, times, they are a changin.

[JoePhilly]

139. Now ask which country they'd want to come help them after a natural disaster.

Bet we top that one too.