Failed Nations Vs. Stable Nations

[Pokemoners]

Do you think failed nations or stable nations pose more of threat to the U.S?

I'll post my arguement later

Definition of a failed state from Wiki:

For Noam Chomsky's 2006 book, see Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy.

The term failed state is often used by political commentators and journalists to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. In order to make this definition more precise, the following attributes, proposed by the Fund for Peace, are often used to characterize a failed state:

* loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,
* erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,
* an inability to provide reasonable public services, and
* an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.

Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and sharp economic decline [1].

The level of government control required to avoid being considered a failed state varies considerably amongst authorities.[2] Furthermore, the declaration that a state has "failed" is generally controversial and, when made authoritatively, may carry significant geopolitical consequences.[2]

Stable nations are about the opposite of failed nations (not exactly but just with it).

 

[Greg]

I think a failed nation poses as more of a threat to the usa. look at the middle east, Failed nations usually have corrupt governments were a single person takes over. Stable nations are more likely to stick to them selves and have government that wouldnt just attack us.

 

[Pokemoners]

I think a failed nation poses as more of a threat to the usa. look at the middle east, Failed nations usually have corrupt governments were a single person takes over. Stable nations are more likely to stick to them selves and have government that wouldnt just attack us.

Not all countries in the Middle East qualify to be a failed nation. Example: Saudi Arabia, Iran.

As for the government, that doesn't apply to all of them.

And clarify as to what you mean by

Stable nations are more likely to stick to them selves and have government that wouldnt just attack us.

Are you saying they have no incentives?

 

[Sythe]

Why would anyone attack the US? What could they possibly gain from attacking a deadbeat assbroke failed communist super-state, up to its eyeballs in its own paper debt, and without even a competent educated base-population to start over? It would make more sense to attack Antarctica.

 

[Greg]

Why would anyone attack the US? What could they possibly gain from attacking a deadbeat assbroke failed communist super-state, up to its eyeballs in its own paper debt, and without even a competent educated base-population to start over? It would make more sense to attack Antarctica.

9/11 Terrorist Attacks. And Roy I was just using the middle east as a brief example because corrupt nations are more likely to cause mayem in this world.

 

[Pokemoners]

Why would anyone attack the US? What could they possibly gain from attacking a deadbeat assbroke failed communist super-state, up to its eyeballs in its own paper debt, and without even a competent educated base-population to start over? It would make more sense to attack Antarctica.

Exactly what I try and argue... The U.S is arguebly the world's super power.

The thing is: Failed countries have nothing to lose. Yes they lose people and morale, but they're more likely to attack the U.S because they don't have the economic pressures and etc. The government has little to no say in anything and people just do as they please. Those nations are the site for more corruption and violence, which ultimately could lead to more attacks.

9/11 Terrorist Attacks. And Roy I was just using the middle east as a brief example because corrupt nations are more likely to cause mayem in this world.

You do know that the Saudi Arabian prince funded it? What's a scheme without the brains and the batteries?

 

[Sythe]

Exactly what I try and argue... The U.S is arguebly the world's super power.

The thing is: Failed countries have nothing to lose. Yes they lose people and morale, but they're more likely to attack the U.S because they don't have the economic pressures and etc. The government has little to no say in anything and people just do as they please. Those nations are the site for more corruption and violence, which ultimately could lead to more attacks.

No, you don't get it. The US is, itself, a failed state.

Go back and read again.

 

[Pokemoners]

No, you don't get it. The US is, itself, a failed state.

Go back and read again.

The U.S is in debt but which countries are not? Yes the national deficeit is large.

As for education, yes we are slipping but education only contributes a small portion in determining a failed state.

And the arguement is not deciding whether the U.S is a failed state, I never stated that it wasn't, the question is whether failed or stable states are more of a threat.

 

[shawnvd]

The U.S is in debt but which countries are not? Yes the national deficeit is large.

As for education, yes we are slipping but education only contributes a small portion in determining a failed state.

And the arguement is not deciding whether the U.S is a failed state, I never stated that it wasn't, the question is whether failed or stable states are more of a threat.

Can you name any other country that has over 12 Trillion dollars in debt, growing over 3 billion per day?

 

[pie_row]

I like how you make out like usa is the centre of the universe

 

[Pokemoners]

Can you name any other country that has over 12 Trillion dollars in debt, growing over 3 billion per day?

Can you name another country that has the world's best militia in terms of firepower, delivery/execution, intelligence?

Could you care to name a nation that has such a prosperous and large trading economy as the U.S?

LET'S NOT FORGET: U.S has argubly, one of the world's greatest influences in regards to politics and culturally.

You're only taking account for one factor when there are, clearly, more factors that defeats it.

I like how you make out like usa is the centre of the universe

I like how you never took the time and think about as to why I chose this country. Who is the world superpower?

 

[Sexy Mario]

I believe all countries become a failed nation at one point. What gos up must come down. Such as the United States then again every one hits a wall at some point.

I like how you make out like usa is the centre of the universe

Its because the world is waiting for The United States to fail.

 

[The Riddler_]

I believe all countries become a failed nation at one point. What gos up must come down. Such as the United States then again every one hits a wall at some point.



Its because the world is waiting for The United States to fail.

Since the US is understood to be "The land of the Free" not too many people would disagree with people having their own human rights.

 

[Sythe]

The U.S is in debt but which countries are not? Yes the national deficeit is large.

The US is not 'in-debt'. The US is undergoing 20% unemployment and total collapse of its financial sector AND CURRENCY.

And the arguement is not deciding whether the U.S is a failed state, I never stated that it wasn't, the question is whether failed or stable states are more of a threat.

Simply put: statism is always a threat to statism (both itself and other countries) and individuals. The state manufactures only one thing: violence; and it is also the sole determiner of the application of that violence and the ends which it serves.

You pose the wrong question. The correct question is: would we be safer without a state. To which my answer would be: yes.

 

[Schnell]

We all know you're against the gov'ment, Sythe. No need to go off topic to underline it.

On topic: I don't see any nations being a threat to the US currently. Individual organizations tend to blow up your buildings and illegal immigrants keep flowing, but there's no nations you need to worry about. You still do, but that's another matter.

 

[Sythe]

Individual organizations tend to blow up your buildings

CIA tends to blow up buildings.

 

[Sythe]

I still don't understand why you're so adamant about 9/11 being instigated by the CIA. Why couldn't it have been a conspiracy with charges planted by terrorists beforehand?

Same reason the sun isn't made of cherry cola; none of the evidence points that way.

 

[Pokemoners]

Same reason the sun isn't made of cherry cola; none of the evidence points that way.

Then why did the terrorists run with it?

If it was all plotted and facilitated by the CIA, wouldn't the terrorists deny the actions because they would know that it would give them a disadvantage at hand (inflation in morale and anitsemitism which ultimately can be used to fuel American will-power)?

Isn't it in human nature to deny false claims that would definitely hurt your reputation or name? Where is evidence of this?

 

[FreedomFight]

The US is not 'in-debt'. The US is undergoing 20% unemployment and total collapse of its financial sector AND CURRENCY.

10% as for now...Currency is relatively stable, economy is highly volatile, but there's no indicator that we'll see any sort of hyperinflation or total collapse yet...

As for the 9/11 debate, someone could bump another thread... Nothing productive will come out of this one.

 

[Guineapigcal]

I think that the USA poses a great threat to everybody, not the other way round. Answering the question, I'd say that what you ignorantly refer to as "failed nations", pose more of a threat to the good ol' USA, one of the worlds greatest superpowers and possibly the biggest influence of Western society!