and no one has given me a link yet...

communism left Russia, and so did its wealth. the country is struggling. a country thats so broke wouldnt waste their time making weapons (unless theyre realy stupid, and russians arent stupid). common sense.

and if any country has weapons, it is saving them to murder the U.S. one day, but thats just my theory......

quote:

---

You know little of warfare Celtic.

---

my dad was in the army once...

yes, i do know about warfare. i wouldnt attack anyone for no reason, but heck if someone does so to me, ill gladly shoot their *****.

quote:

---

And I'm glad for that. I don't want insane dictators vaporizing sections of my country. Please keep nukes in countries without wackos in charge. And a little pre-emption: Bush does not classify as a wacko in my book.

---

Bush may not be a wacko, but a brain is crucial. and there are no insane dictators right now, except for saddam (who seems to be done nothing to) and fidel castro (whos also too broke to do anything). See "wacko" or "dictator" in U.S. definitions, mean someone who has weapons, regardless what theyve done.

quote:

---

a country like russia, as in short of $$$$, doesnt have enough cash for nuclear bombs. they did have nuclear weapons ONCE, but if you go there now, youll see theyre not the world power.

---

Nuclear weapons, unlike national health insurance, do not just vaporize when the cash runs out. Russia still has thousands of warheads and many, many ICBMs. They're cutting them back, as are we. They're also still funding large sections of thier arsenal because they're one of the only claims to world power they have left.

quote:

---

and the U.S. doesnt let anyone but them have weapons (part of bullying duh),

---

And I'm glad for that. I don't want insane dictators vaporizing sections of my country. Please keep nukes in countries without wackos in charge. And a little pre-emption: Bush does not classify as a wacko in my book.

quote:

---

(trust me if another country had nuclear weapons they would have used them by now)

---

You know little of warfare Celtic.

celtic, celtic, celtic. please explain your accusations.

a country like russia, as in short of $$$$, doesnt have enough cash for nuclear bombs. they did have nuclear weapons ONCE, but if you go there now, youll see theyre not the world power.

and the U.S. doesnt let anyone but them have weapons (part of bullying duh), especially with Bush (trust me if another country had nuclear weapons they would have used them by now) in office, thus it would at least come up a lot in the media.

Well, if the United States wanted to do that, I really don't think there's anything to stop us, save for Russia, and only because it has a significant number of nuclear weapons. We still have a pretty significant industrial base, and it would be possible to restore some of the functionality we've lost over the years in a short time.

That said, we as a people wouldn't have the stomach for that kind of thing; we can't even handle far lesser situations that threaten our survival. So, it's not much of an issue besides an academic curiosity.

Have you ever thought about how dangerous the United States could be if we suddenly started getting all war-like and controlling, and a crazy president came to power?

And sudha thanks for replying, i really don't know much about the Pakistan/India conflict, maybe you could enlughten me some more.

colombia is pretty dangerous cause of its drug trade i guess..its amazing how tings go on under the wrap and at the same time so openly...

to think drugs are used as barter in villages is even more shocking..

...then the true locals can easily take advantage of you. Also, there are certain things you should know not to do or say, things that may offend the locals......sells you some meat? The meat is infected...you get sick, etc. Now, the other locals may have been able to tell you never to buy from that particular vender,

As a foreignerwhatever you say can not be offending to any local

That is not true,no one is going to sell infected meat to you since the citizens buy from the same market as well.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is so untrue about developing countries,Most foreigners need locals because of the language impediment.

*Actually, it's not just the language barrier. If you aren't a local, then the true locals can easily take advantage of you. Also, there are certain things you should know not to do or say, things that may offend the locals. You should have a local to tell you where to go, what to do, and how to act. For example, what if you're at an outdoor market, by yourself, and a local sells you some meat? The meat is infected...you get sick, etc. Now, the other locals may have been able to tell you never to buy from that particular vender, right? Not that you would buy meat in an open air market in an underdeveloped country anyways...

the dangerous countires in the third world (at least, the latin one): colombia, mexico, brazil (ok, that isnt hispanic but still), cuba, the dominican republic, basically all spanish speaking countries with a few exceptions.

i dont think canada is to dangerous.

i just want to study in russia, and my mom is like "NO WAY!" unless i come up with true evidence that im not going to die there.

-arianhorn

Russia and the Ukraine, I'm told, aren't too bad. No personal experience here, but I hope it helps.

did you just try to say that Canada might be a third world country?

quote:

---

That is so untrue about developing countries,Most foreigners need locals because of the language impediment.

---

No, it's also true, if not more so, because of the danger factor. Seeing as most of the international traveling I've done has been to third-world countries, with the debatable exception of Canada, I'm pretty familiar with being told "not to go here and there".

canada, seriously, you just never know!

quote:

---

Sudha, why do you say that. I don't know much about Pakistan; i'm sure you do seeing as your country has been in conflict with it fore

---

u knw wghy i said that iceland cause pakistan is known to sponsor terrorisyt camps and even the 9/11 report said that there was ample evidence that pakistan is still training terrorists and that it was well aware of theataack.infdact the pakistani army surgoens treated osama bin laden and stuff..and yeah i disloke pakistan cause it is responsible for the deaths of so many innocent ppl in kashmir valley india..from school children to women..the terrorists issued a fatwa saying that if all women were not to wear the ourda that is a veil over thier heads they will pour acid over their faces...nd they did that///

Back!!!!!!! i had problems with my internet çonnection...

anyways, i was just asking because i want to study in russia next summer and i wanted to know if it really was as dangerous

is the worst among the industrialized nations, but many so-called third-world nations have it worse.From what I'm told (by people who've lived there), just about anywhere in Africa is pretty dangerous, particularly if you go places without a local to lead you. Then again, from my own experience as well as that of others, this is true in most undeveloped nations


That is so untrue about developing countries,Most foreigners need locals because of the language impediment.

Well, if you're looking at crime, the U.S. is far from the most dangerous. Europe, on the whole, is the worst among the industrialized nations, but many so-called third-world nations have it worse.

From what I'm told (by people who've lived there), just about anywhere in Africa is pretty dangerous, particularly if you go places without a local to lead you. Then again, from my own experience as well as that of others, this is true in most undeveloped nations.

i mean the countries that arent safe to go too or to live there for a while... but ty anyways