Poll: Which country has had the most negative effect on the world?

[Thanatos34]

Either America of China. America and china both have the largest impact on the world at present so any negative effects will be magnified. China for there large amounts of polloution and America for there desire to police the world

Without our desire to "police the world" as you put it, World War II would have ended far, far differently.

Yeah that was the only reason you entered the war, pearl harbour was jsut a foot note. I will agree with you that America was incredibly useful then against a threat such as the Nazis. I just find them a little hypocritical to say everyone should remove there nuclear arms and keep there own. Although with Obama that may change

Pearl Harbor was the excuse, yes. Japan made a devastating mistake by attacking us, because we would have sat there for however long it took for FDR to convince the American people that we needed to go to war, perhaps changing the outcome. My point, however, was that this was a very positive impact America has had on the world, and for people to choose them over two countries that started wars which cost millions of lives, is simply mind-numbing.

However, the fact remains that without the US, things would have turned out very differently.

Ask the South Koreans whether they prefer we had not "policed" their country.
Ask the Afghanese (Afghanis, perhaps?) whether they prefer we had not interfered.
Ask the Iraqis whether they wish we had never "invaded."
For that matter, ask the Vietnamese, those who are not under the control of their government, whether they wish we had won that conflict.

Ask the world whether they prefer that we sit back and do nothing while North Korea and Iran develop nuclear weapons. It is not merely the US that wishes for certain countries to not possess nuclear weapons. It is the whole UN, the US merely has the spine to back up their words with deeds.

What would you prefer we do? Destroy our nuclear missiles and say, "Look we got rid of ours, now get rid of yours?" Do you honestly believe that would work? They must be there as a deterrent, that if a nuke is fired at us, we will annihilate whoever fired it. If they are not there, anyone could attack America with impunity. Until we go futuristic and develop a missile shield, which apparently no one wants us to develop, (and we are, of course, continuing to do so anyway, because, frankly, we don't care if you don't like us developing a defense against a WMD), the nukes must remain active.

Do you want a nuke to be in the hands of an extremist like Kim Jong Il, or Ahmadinejad and his leader Ali Khamenei? The US does not fear nuclear weapons in the hands of democracies, such as France or England. China, even though they are not a democracy, at least are not fanatics. If, however, you have someone who has publicly declared that he wishes that the Zionist state of Israel would be wiped off the face of the earth, and this man is in charge of nukes, well. He could start a nuclear war. Iran possessing nuclear weapons is a scenario to be avoided at all costs. Even if it means starting another war. Or, at the least, allowing Israel leeway to do what they need to do.

 

[Thanatos34]

*Sigh* So many anti-american idiots. Russia started communism which has been responsible for killing and repressing 100s of millions across the globe through totalitarianism and economic ruin. Germany started the worst war in human history and carried out the worst genocide in human history, also killing millions.

But go ahead and vote for the free, democratic country that opposed both of those evils. Fricken retards.

Hold your horses buddy, the Russians entered the war as soon as Germany invaded while the US entered in 1944. The Russians had their factories moved away from the cities that were being taken so that they wouldn't fall in the hands of the Nazi's. Also the countries being occupied by Russians were willingly giving heirlooms to the Russians to stop the Nazi's. Yes the Russians killed millions/ left them to die but they did more than the Americans during World War 2. And by the way Karl Marx technically started and found the communist revolution which isn't really a bad idea on paper but only on paper. And for your information Hitler got many of his harsh policies from America so Nazi Germany is like a little brother to America only much more of a dick.

You got your facts messed up a bit there. The US entered on December 7, 1941, (December 8 was the official declaration), not 1944.

Russia was actually allies with Germany until Hitler decided to invade them in June, 1941, and so they fought back. (D'oh?) This doesn't make them heroes, nor does it excuse the mass atrocities they committed during the war.

Russia fought an "end justify the means" type of war. Perhaps it was necessary, but you can't say they were "better" than the US for doing so.

Hitler got his eugenics policies from America, but the US wasn't executing people for their religion or sexuality. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

I find your statement that "Russia killed millions/left them to die, yet they did more than America in World War II," to be extremely ridiculous. The US, Canada, and Britain liberated France and Europe, not Russia. The only reason Russia went into Europe was to annihilate the Nazis, and to grab more land for themselves, (which later led to the Soviet Union and yet another war). They could care less who they killed along the way. It was merely revenge that motivated Stalin. Russia did practically nothing on the Asian front, though it was the threat of an assault by them, coupled with America's dropping of the atomic bombs, that finally led Japan to surrender. So yes, I suppose they can be credited with that. But to say that they did more than the US? Read some history books on the War, or better yet, ask a few people who were in it.

 

[Thanatos34]

I'm going to be realistic & blame my own country. BBC World News & ABC News keep telling me that the world economic crisis started with our housing bubble burst that got foreign investors in trouble when we couldn;t pay our mortgages & a heavy demand for oil that surpasses supply when other countries need some too.

Even assuming those two stations are correct, (which is debatable, and the fact that you get economic advice from the media is troubling), you are saying that the economic "crisis" is worse than World War II, I, and the Cold War? People have short memories, indeed.

 

[Thanatos34]

I Voted America: Not because of the wars of lack therof, not because I dislike Americans, not because of all this money crap, but because of the culture. It seems to sicken just as many Americans as it does foreigners. Cult of celebrity, laissez-faire, gangs, fast food, and all that crap.
There are many good, hard working, worldly-wise, honest Americans, and there are a great many on these forums, there are just a few retards who steal the limelight and make their country look bad. Like British chavs or tyrants, the Russian mobsters, French layabouts, Italian chauvinists, or just about everyone not working-class in the East.
Regular people are the same everywhere.

While I more or less disagree with the rest, I will agree 100% with this bit. American popular culture makes me a very sad panda. I really wish they'd let me just start posting signs randomly around country saying "FREE MONEY, THIS WAY!" with a big arrow pointing into a spike pit. That would hopefully help things out quite a lot.

Ahha! That would clear out a few of the idiots.

 

[Thanatos34]

Then we have Britain giving the Jews Israel, knowing full well the kind of conflicts they'd face.

I believe that it was both America and Britain who gave Israel to the Jews because of guilt about the Holocaust. Hmm I wonder which major countries rich Jews are funding the Israelites against Palestine?

I believe it was the UN actually. So that fucks up at least one "america is evil" and "britain is evil" argument.

They both voted for the creation of Israel. They also were, and still are, prominent supporters of Israel. There were other countries too, so blame has to be evenly spread out.

...But y'know continuously supporting Israel?

Any country that is surrounded by countries that want to annihilate them simply because they are Jewish is going to have problems.

Hell, the refugees in the Gaza strip are remnants of a group that left Israel because they were told Israel would be wiped out. They fire goddamned rockets into the place pretty much every freaking day, or at least they were doing so. All they want is to wipe out the entire country, it's on the platform of a leading political party, for god's sake and yet it seems like it is politically popular to be anti-Israel. I am in awe of how the little place has survived for so long. Good for them. Israel is pretty much the only good country in the entire Middle Eastern sector.

 

[messy]

Either America of China. America and china both have the largest impact on the world at present so any negative effects will be magnified. China for there large amounts of polloution and America for there desire to police the world

Without our desire to "police the world" as you put it, World War II would have ended far, far differently.

Yeah that was the only reason you entered the war, pearl harbour was jsut a foot note. I will agree with you that America was incredibly useful then against a threat such as the Nazis. I just find them a little hypocritical to say everyone should remove there nuclear arms and keep there own. Although with Obama that may change

Pearl Harbor was the excuse, yes. Japan made a devastating mistake by attacking us, because we would have sat there for however long it took for FDR to convince the American people that we needed to go to war, perhaps changing the outcome. My point, however, was that this was a very positive impact America has had on the world, and for people to choose them over two countries that started wars which cost millions of lives, is simply mind-numbing.

However, the fact remains that without the US, things would have turned out very differently.

Ask the South Koreans whether they prefer we had not "policed" their country.
Ask the Afghanese (Afghanis, perhaps?) whether they prefer we had not interfered.
Ask the Iraqis whether they wish we had never "invaded."
For that matter, ask the Vietnamese, those who are not under the control of their government, whether they wish we had won that conflict.

Ask the world whether they prefer that we sit back and do nothing while North Korea and Iran develop nuclear weapons. It is not merely the US that wishes for certain countries to not possess nuclear weapons. It is the whole UN, the US merely has the spine to back up their words with deeds.

What would you prefer we do? Destroy our nuclear missiles and say, "Look we got rid of ours, now get rid of yours?" Do you honestly believe that would work? They must be there as a deterrent, that if a nuke is fired at us, we will annihilate whoever fired it. If they are not there, anyone could attack America with impunity. Until we go futuristic and develop a missile shield, which apparently no one wants us to develop, (and we are, of course, continuing to do so anyway, because, frankly, we don't care if you don't like us developing a defense against a WMD), the nukes must remain active.

Do you want a nuke to be in the hands of an extremist like Kim Jong Il, or Ahmadinejad and his leader Ali Khamenei? The US does not fear nuclear weapons in the hands of democracies, such as France or England. China, even though they are not a democracy, at least are not fanatics. If, however, you have someone who has publicly declared that he wishes that the Zionist state of Israel would be wiped off the face of the earth, and this man is in charge of nukes, well. He could start a nuclear war. Iran possessing nuclear weapons is a scenario to be avoided at all costs. Even if it means starting another war. Or, at the least, allowing Israel leeway to do what they need to do.

Oh i have no qualms about nuclear weapons i'm fully supportive of mutually assured desruction. Now i dont know enought about the conflict in Korea so i wont go into it. Wether sucess has been reached in Iraq or Afganistan is a matter of opinon, now i agree you had to go there but under false pretence of nuclear weapons was a pretty poor way of doing it. And i cant believe for a second that vietnam would prefer to be in the dept of a country that napalmed huge areas of it and massacred the occasional village. I dont actually have a problem with America "policing the world" because it makes sense for them to do it being the most powerful nation on the planet, the way they go about it is all wrong. I get the impression that Americans (and by that i mean George Bush when he was incharge) felt he was on some mission from God and it was his countires Right to police everything. The original question was which country had the most negative effect on the world, and i think you'd agree with the level of hatred to America (which i personally dony have) they have had quite a negative effect, if its only started to appear now.

 

[PersianLlama]

Then we have Britain giving the Jews Israel, knowing full well the kind of conflicts they'd face.

I believe that it was both America and Britain who gave Israel to the Jews because of guilt about the Holocaust. Hmm I wonder which major countries rich Jews are funding the Israelites against Palestine?

I believe it was the UN actually. So that fucks up at least one "america is evil" and "britain is evil" argument.

They both voted for the creation of Israel. They also were, and still are, prominent supporters of Israel. There were other countries too, so blame has to be evenly spread out.

...But y'know continuously supporting Israel?

Any country that is surrounded by countries that want to annihilate them simply because they are Jewish is going to have problems.

Hell, the refugees in the Gaza strip are remnants of a group that left Israel because they were told Israel would be wiped out. They fire goddamned rockets into the place pretty much every freaking day, or at least they were doing so. All they want is to wipe out the entire country, it's on the platform of a leading political party, for god's sake and yet it seems like it is politically popular to be anti-Israel. I am in awe of how the little place has survived for so long. Good for them. Israel is pretty much the only good country in the entire Middle Eastern sector.

...What? So I guess displacing a country and killing their civilians continuously is good? Israel bombs their civilians pretty often. I don't support the Palestinian violence either (But they do want their country back), but they certainly don't kill as many as the Israeli's do.

And most of the countries don't want to annihilate them because they displaced Palestinians and bomb them (Though, I wouldn't be surprised if some leaders of some countries want to because they're Jewish, but not all).

And if it was politically popular to be anti-Israel, why do most of the powerful countries (U.S., U.K.) support them and why is Israel still there?

 

[Thanatos34]

Either America of China. America and china both have the largest impact on the world at present so any negative effects will be magnified. China for there large amounts of polloution and America for there desire to police the world

Without our desire to "police the world" as you put it, World War II would have ended far, far differently.

Yeah that was the only reason you entered the war, pearl harbour was jsut a foot note. I will agree with you that America was incredibly useful then against a threat such as the Nazis. I just find them a little hypocritical to say everyone should remove there nuclear arms and keep there own. Although with Obama that may change

Pearl Harbor was the excuse, yes. Japan made a devastating mistake by attacking us, because we would have sat there for however long it took for FDR to convince the American people that we needed to go to war, perhaps changing the outcome. My point, however, was that this was a very positive impact America has had on the world, and for people to choose them over two countries that started wars which cost millions of lives, is simply mind-numbing.

However, the fact remains that without the US, things would have turned out very differently.

Ask the South Koreans whether they prefer we had not "policed" their country.
Ask the Afghanese (Afghanis, perhaps?) whether they prefer we had not interfered.
Ask the Iraqis whether they wish we had never "invaded."
For that matter, ask the Vietnamese, those who are not under the control of their government, whether they wish we had won that conflict.

Ask the world whether they prefer that we sit back and do nothing while North Korea and Iran develop nuclear weapons. It is not merely the US that wishes for certain countries to not possess nuclear weapons. It is the whole UN, the US merely has the spine to back up their words with deeds.

What would you prefer we do? Destroy our nuclear missiles and say, "Look we got rid of ours, now get rid of yours?" Do you honestly believe that would work? They must be there as a deterrent, that if a nuke is fired at us, we will annihilate whoever fired it. If they are not there, anyone could attack America with impunity. Until we go futuristic and develop a missile shield, which apparently no one wants us to develop, (and we are, of course, continuing to do so anyway, because, frankly, we don't care if you don't like us developing a defense against a WMD), the nukes must remain active.

Do you want a nuke to be in the hands of an extremist like Kim Jong Il, or Ahmadinejad and his leader Ali Khamenei? The US does not fear nuclear weapons in the hands of democracies, such as France or England. China, even though they are not a democracy, at least are not fanatics. If, however, you have someone who has publicly declared that he wishes that the Zionist state of Israel would be wiped off the face of the earth, and this man is in charge of nukes, well. He could start a nuclear war. Iran possessing nuclear weapons is a scenario to be avoided at all costs. Even if it means starting another war. Or, at the least, allowing Israel leeway to do what they need to do.

Oh i have no qualms about nuclear weapons i'm fully supportive of mutually assured desruction. Now i dont know enought about the conflict in Korea so i wont go into it. Wether sucess has been reached in Iraq or Afganistan is a matter of opinon, now i agree you had to go there but under false pretence of nuclear weapons was a pretty poor way of doing it. And i cant believe for a second that vietnam would prefer to be in the dept of a country that napalmed huge areas of it and massacred the occasional village. I dont actually have a problem with America "policing the world" because it makes sense for them to do it being the most powerful nation on the planet, the way they go about it is all wrong. I get the impression that Americans (and by that i mean George Bush when he was incharge) felt he was on some mission from God and it was his countires Right to police everything. The original question was which country had the most negative effect on the world, and i think you'd agree with the level of hatred to America (which i personally dony have) they have had quite a negative effect, if its only started to appear now.

I'm not entirely sure, besides unsubstantiated claims by the Vietcong, and John Kerry, where you get the evidence that the US was involved in "massacring villages." The napalm was on military targets in North Vietnam, there was certainly no intentional bombing of civilian villages- except when our HQ made a tactical decision that it was worth killing some civilians to wipe out the Vietcong which were hiding there. Those guys were scumbags, just as much a group of terrorists as the ones in Iraq now, using civilians as shields.

Our problem there was we weren't willing to commit the troops necessary to win. Make no mistake, I think it was not a good idea to go in, but once in, you do all in your power to win. If the US had chosen to do so, we could have won that war. I'm just not certain what the goal was in doing so.

I didn't say success had been achieved in Iraq or Afghanistan, it has not, I asked whether the people in Iraq and Afghanistan would have preferred that the US had never come in, (this question boils down to whether they would prefer to once again be lead by Saddam or the Taliban).

Ah, I see where you are coming from. You interpreted the question entirely different than I did. You are coming from the standpoint of which country has the most negative view by the world, (the negative effect on the world), whereas I was thinking more along the lines of, which one actually had a negative effect- i.e. slaughtering millions of people.

Perhaps the OP can clarify how he meant for his statement to be taken?

 

[Thanatos34]

Then we have Britain giving the Jews Israel, knowing full well the kind of conflicts they'd face.

I believe that it was both America and Britain who gave Israel to the Jews because of guilt about the Holocaust. Hmm I wonder which major countries rich Jews are funding the Israelites against Palestine?

I believe it was the UN actually. So that fucks up at least one "america is evil" and "britain is evil" argument.

They both voted for the creation of Israel. They also were, and still are, prominent supporters of Israel. There were other countries too, so blame has to be evenly spread out.

...But y'know continuously supporting Israel?

Any country that is surrounded by countries that want to annihilate them simply because they are Jewish is going to have problems.

Hell, the refugees in the Gaza strip are remnants of a group that left Israel because they were told Israel would be wiped out. They fire goddamned rockets into the place pretty much every freaking day, or at least they were doing so. All they want is to wipe out the entire country, it's on the platform of a leading political party, for god's sake and yet it seems like it is politically popular to be anti-Israel. I am in awe of how the little place has survived for so long. Good for them. Israel is pretty much the only good country in the entire Middle Eastern sector.

...What? So I guess displacing a country and killing their civilians continuously is good? Israel bombs their civilians pretty often. I don't support the Palestinian violence either (But they do want their country back), but they certainly don't kill as many as the Israeli's do.

And most of the countries don't want to annihilate them because they displaced Palestinians and bomb them (Though, I wouldn't be surprised if some leaders of some countries want to because they're Jewish, but not all).

And if it was politically popular to be anti-Israel, why do most of the powerful countries (U.S., U.K.) support them and why is Israel still there?

Because Israel is practically a fortress of military hardware.

The Palestinians in the refugee camps are descendants of those Palestinians that voluntarily left Israel because they were told Israel was about to be purged, then they could return and take over the country. The UN was willing to give the Arabs a state and the Jews a state, but the Arab nations refused this agreement and attacked Israel in 1948. The Arabs failed dramatically in one of the most decisive military defeats in history. Then the Palestinians, the ones who had left because Israel was going to get wiped out, wanted back in. Israel refused. The Arabs tried again to take over Israel in 1967, during the Six Days War, and again were soundly defeated.

Note that the aggressor in both conflicts was the Arab Coalition, NOT Israel. Also note that Israel defended themselves alone. I believe we sent some supplies in, but little to no troops. They fought for their country, and they won it.

Now, modern-day. If Mexican rebels were sitting at the border between Texas and Mexico, and firing rockets into Texas nearly every day, while the Mexican government adopts a platform that calls for the annihilation of the American state of Texas, you think we would stand for it? Would it matter if the rockets "only killed" a few people a week? We would just sit back and say, "oh well, it's just a nuisance?"

Hell no. We'd go into Mexico and take out the people firing the rockets. Every time they gathered again, we'd take them out again. It is the low-down, no-good, terrorist scum firing the rockets into Israel that cause civilian casualties to their own people by hiding in the homes of civilians. What is this, "tag"? If they go into a home of a civilian, they are safe because they are at "base?"

As long as Hamas, a terrorist group that wants to annihilate Israel, is in charge of the Palestinian state, so long would Israel be foolish to deal with Palestine.

 

[Dynex811]

Hold your horses buddy, the Russians entered the war as soon as Germany invaded while the US entered in 1944. The Russians had their factories moved away from the cities that were being taken so that they wouldn't fall in the hands of the Nazi's. Also the countries being occupied by Russians were willingly giving heirlooms to the Russians to stop the Nazi's. Yes the Russians killed millions/ left them to die but they did more than the Americans during World War 2. And by the way Karl Marx technically started and found the communist revolution which isn't really a bad idea on paper but only on paper. And for your information Hitler got many of his harsh policies from America so Nazi Germany is like a little brother to America only much more of a dick.

Actually you're right about one thing, the Soviet Union did enter the war when Germany invaded; on the side of Nazi Germany. The Soviets invaded (and conquered) Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Finland. They only fought the Nazis when they themselves were invaded.

Now for the rest:
*The U.S. entered in 1941, not 1944.
*The Soviets didn't move their factories, they destroyed them, along with farms, livestock and anything useful causing starvation in some areas.
*People in Soviet occupied countries did not willing give heirlooms to the Soviets to stop the Germans. In fact, there were areas (Mostly in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) who at first greeted the Germans as liberators. They hated Soviet rule.
*I don't see how the Soviets did more positive things in WWII if they caused millions to die. They didn't even liberate the countries they took from the Germans, they kept them as satellite countries for 35 years.
*Eugenics was founded by a British man by the name of Francis Galton. The policies of Eugenics was implemented in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Sweden, Australia, Norway, France, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, and Switzerland (This doesn't mean that in all countries people were killed or sterilized) , hell the Spartans practiced it too. Eugenics can not be solely attributed to the United States and I don't think you can attribute any harsh policy of Hitler to the U.S.

Now before you try to accuse the U.S. of not having a good affect in WWII, please try to at least know the year the U.S. entered the war before you make yourself look like an asshole.