Conflict is what happens when each one does what is right in his own eyes. It was product of the fall. Its not really just the modern world although due to increases in communication and archiving we know alot more of the conflicts in more reccent times.
or does it really seem like all the leaders of the modern world have an affinity for conflict. https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6057718.stm
The difference is that major advancements in weapon technology have allowed small, utterly insignificant countries to have the influence they don't deserve.
The influence they don't deserve? So all countries but the bigguns must tremble in fear all the time without having the right to defend themselves, or be a threat themselves? That's kinda... country-ist...
What is North Korea defending themself against?
McDonalds
Are you certain of that? I mean, can you be absolutely sure that there is no branch of McDonalds in Pyongyang? (for Kim Jong Il is, after all, quite obese in his appearance)...Best,Alistair
No proof, but there is not even one in Thurso, so i doubt if there is one on Pyongyang.I think McDonalds is more dangerous than Bush. They are opening outlets all over the world, turning kids into fatties.They are the real terrorists.Thal
or does it really seem like all the leaders of the modern world have an affinity for conflict.
It's the nature of international relations.According to the Marxist dialectic, conflict is what drives change. Without conflict you can't have progress, for better or worse.This theory underlies the notion of violent revolution as an instrument of change and explains the motivation of revolutionaries. If you examine history you'll observe that times of social, political and economic upheaval have been followed by significant change.This isn't just a political concept. If you consider the big changes in your life they have probably been triggered by some sort of convulsion or trauma as well.IMOD I am not advocating marxist revolution as an instrument of progress so no need to jump on me for being a pinko commie rat Just presenting a possible answer to your post.
I shouldn't imagine there is a MacDonalds in Pyongyang..Im reliably informed there are non in Iran '.' I daresay several other countries too. I think the issue is that they are often considered insignificant countries by the super powers and thats why they want to be armed - so they are not taken advantage of. The North Korea situation is a very complexed one..I shall only say that the super powers may indeed have very good cause to want to look behind North Koreas iron shower curtain..by all accounts there's some none to pretty stuff goes on there..which i believe most people would consider infringements of civil liberties..Im sure it could be hotly debated. There are no insignificant countries in the world though. Some are stronger some weaker, some wise some more impulsive but they all have a place. Its greed and self seeking that tends to upset the balance of power. As i said a product of the fall.
Glad to hear that you're not a "pinko commie rat" (not that I had for one moment assumed to to be anywhing of the sort");
I disagree completely. Look back in history and there were many leaders that had an affinity for conflict. Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great and Napoleon I Bonaparte to name a few. The difference is that major advancements in weapon technology have allowed small, utterly insignificant countries to have the influence they don't deserve. If Noth Korea was a person they would be imprisoned for extortion.
You could be right. It explains why they are developing weapons of Mac destruction.
I thought my jokes were bad ...
Topic: Is it me...... 