Travel to hostile countries.

[Muspelheim]

Sweden doesn't really have any enemies anymore. Well, maybe save Eritrea or Ghana, but I wouldn't dream of visiting either.

Of course, any place could become dangerous if you haven't done some research or act like a prat. It's a question of individual judgment, I feel.

 

[The Apple BOOM]

I'd be willing to vacation anyplace that has government-provided healthcare just to see what that's like. One thing I've heard from Canadians is that they dare not enter the U.S. with anything more than a cold, which I completely understand. I do live by a lake, and a huge forest, with a deer overpopulation problem, so vacationing in cities would not only end up with me getting utterly lost on the wrong side of town, but I'd miss seeing the stars and smelling the air. I'd really like to see New Zealand, for obvious reasons beyond what I just mentioned.

The thing is, though, I don't think anyone would leave their country with anything more than a cold. You're sick! Stay at home and rest!

I do find the 'afraid of America because of guns' thing paranoid to almost be insulting, though. I've been here my entire life, and the only non hunting weapons I've ever seen in person were being held by police. Even then, the only time I saw a hunting rifle in person was when my uncle pulled it out to shoot wolverines when I was visiting Montana. Just stay out of the city if you don't know how to avoid the slums easily.

I'd personally never travel to a country where armed conflict is going on, or where it's threatened to go on, but other than that, I don't see a huge problem with traveling anywhere. I've even gone to Mexico multiple times. You just need to know what areas to avoid.

 

[Thaluikhain]

We love to explore, humans have curiosity. But, some people think they are invincible. Some (not all) americans think that they are safe regardless of where they travel. Truth is, Americans are screwed outside of America. The FBI and CIA can not do much for you if you travel to Iraq or where ever. I think that the USA are conned to believe that their country have an international umbrella of protection, and that isnt the case.If you go to dangerous countries then you are screwed, you have to take responsibility for yourself.......otherwise you end up in a video about to be beheaded.

Er...there are a few places between "outside America" and "Iraq".

The US government does help its citizens a lot, if you leave the US, commit a crime in, say, the UK and get back again, extradition is much harder than it is the other way around.

 

[MetalMagpie]

Is travel to the DPRK all that dangerous? The (UK) Foreign Office current states, even with the mounting political tension, "The FCO assess that there is currently no immediate increased risk or danger to those living in or travelling to the DPRK." and "Very few British nationals visit North Korea and those that do are usually part of an organised tour. Most visits are trouble-free."
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/north-korea
Given that they have a specific system to advice "Avoid all/unnecessary travel to the/parts of the country," it suggests they don't consider the place terribly dangerous for tourists. I mean, if you travel to some semi-corrupt European country you could easily find yourself arrested and charged on absurd grounds.

I think it makes a lot of a difference that the UK and North Korea still have diplomatic relations with each other, meaning that we have an embassy in Pyongyang and they have one in London. So if a British citizen gets in trouble in North Korea, there's already a diplomatic system in place to help them out.

North Korea and the USA currently have no such arrangement. There is no American embassy in Pyongyang, and recent interactions between the two countries have been, er... a bit fiery.

 

[Remus]

I'd be willing to vacation anyplace that has government-provided healthcare just to see what that's like. One thing I've heard from Canadians is that they dare not enter the U.S. with anything more than a cold, which I completely understand. I do live by a lake, and a huge forest, with a deer overpopulation problem, so vacationing in cities would not only end up with me getting utterly lost on the wrong side of town, but I'd miss seeing the stars and smelling the air. I'd really like to see New Zealand, for obvious reasons beyond what I just mentioned.

The thing is, though, I don't think anyone would leave their country with anything more than a cold. You're sick! Stay at home and rest!

I do find the 'afraid of America because of guns' thing paranoid to almost be insulting, though. I've been here my entire life, and the only non hunting weapons I've ever seen in person were being held by police. Even then, the only time I saw a hunting rifle in person was when my uncle pulled it out to shoot wolverines when I was visiting Montana. Just stay out of the city if you don't know how to avoid the slums easily.

I'd personally never travel to a country where armed conflict is going on, or where it's threatened to go on, but other than that, I don't see a huge problem with traveling anywhere. I've even gone to Mexico multiple times. You just need to know what areas to avoid.

And here is the crux of the problem with this thread. Invariably, no matter what reply somebody gives or what manner it's given, another comes along stating "I live there and it's not so bad". Vacationing is about relaxing. If there's a perceived risk, it ceases being a vacation, and no matter whether it's correct or not, the perception is still there. No amount of argument will change that. BTW, I do live in the U.S. and in conservative gun country. So I'm not the one that needs to hear "the gun problem isn't as bad as they say". My brother's a gun collector, many neighbors are. I probably wake up to the sound of automatic gun fire more often than most.

Personally, I think anyone who goes into a volatile area to either "spread the word" or for humanitarian aid is either extremely brave or extremely stupid. Going into China, NK, or an unstable Arabic nation bibles in hand is a great way to get locked up, tortured, or beheaded, and regardless of intent, going into such nations without armed support is simply unsafe. If a person needs to go thrillseeking there are hundreds of better ways to do it that do not involve the possibility of imprisonment or death.

 

[Irridium]

I would like to go to USA, I have never been to "the greatest country in the world" and I think I should! I can certainly see why people would be a bit paranoid about going considering all you hear about murders and drama in the US, but I imagine it is nowhere near as bad as they make it sound.

The people who whine about how paranoid they are about gun owners aren't really using their brains. The chance that they are going to be shot while visiting is less than 1% of 1%

Yeah like I said, it's just hype that makes people think it's truly dangerous. I am personally not concerned that I'll get shot, I imagine I was at a considerably greater risk in Kenya than I would be anywhere in the US.

Still, my main issue with going to the US is that I have no idea where I would go! I'm not a big-city girl, I don't much enjoy that experience but it seems like nearly all vacation destinations in the US are cities. Every travel agency in Norway are presenting New York and San Fransico as the ultimate choice. I'd like to go and experience New York for a day or two, just to take in the sheer scale of it all (I'm from a small town sparesly populated Norway), but after a few days in a big city all I want to do is get out and find some nice quiet towns with lots of nature to see and walk about in.

I also like a good historical site, and I love museums (but not so much the art ones X3).

If that's the case I'd suggest visiting Vermont. All it really is is small towns! But seriously you'll probably really enjoy it. Small, full of nature, and I'm there's some historical sites, though nothing as famous as stuff you'll find in New York or New Hampshire or any other state on the upper-east coast.

 

[Da Orky Man]

Well, at some point I hope to visit both North Korea and Iran. Presuming the situation is similar to today's, North Korea shouldn't be too hard since they only REALLY hate South Koreans, Americans and Japanese. Most other nationalities, they may not actively like, but with a British passport, I shouldn't' have any trouble.
On the other hand, Iran may pose a problem. Though there aren't any official blockages, and the Persian people are supposed to be some of the nicest and westernized in the Middle East, the fact that we still don't have an embassy due to it being attacked is a cause for concern. But, I have devised a plan to make this easier. Since my late grandfather was Irish, my mum is able to easily register for an Irish passport, which will enable me to do so as well. Since the only area of the world that has anything against the Irish is Northern Ireland, I'm pretty much safe no matter where they go.

A while back, my dad said something. If I get kidnapped in a Middle Eastern country, first they execute the Israelis, then the Americans, then the British/French/whoever the big bad of Europe is at that time. Ireland i a long way down on that list.

Also, it'll make journeying to both Israel and the Lebanon a lot easier with two passports of different nationalities.

 

[Dead Seerius]

Because they're actually covert agents sent to recon hostile countries so that the government can eventually swoop in and assassinate them give them what-for!

I mean, isn't that what that guy in North Korea was essentially arrested for? You're not actually suggesting North Korea would, you know, make up bullshit and arrest the guy unjustly. Come on, who does that?

OT: Some people chose to see things for themselves despite what they hear in the media.

 

[DjinnFor]

But there's a huge difference in people being able to attack you because they went through years of disiplined training to learn an art that requires a calm mind and self control, and people people being to attack you because they've got a tool that any drunken/deranged/psychotic/etc etc etc fool could use.

People are able to attack you at any time for any reason with anything.

One can actual pose a danger to you without being provoked, and the other is much more likely to leave you alone.

The point is, both are equally likely to happen in their respective countries. Compare statistics of Triad violence on tourists in China to instances of Bloods/Crips violence on tourists in America.

I'd be willing to vacation anyplace that has government-provided healthcare just to see what that's like. One thing I've heard from Canadians is that they dare not enter the U.S. with anything more than a cold, which I completely understand.

Canadians go to the United States all the time for procedures that aren't available in Canada or aren't covered by the provincial health plans. And our doctors do the same for different reasons: better education and better pay.

But yeah, Canadians don't go to the United States when they're sick. They also rarely visit the doctors when they're sick either, assuming they're of a healthy age, because that would require taking a day off of work to book an appointment at 10pm or whatever, because the walk-in clinics are always full. Meanwhile, Americans get that kind of privilege because they pay through the roof for basic insurance.

 

[krugerrand123]

I think it is because some people want to travel to every country, and those include the dangerous ones. Plus, they may believe that every country has its own benefits to visit, despite the danger. Finally, I believe some people get a rush out of going to these dangerous places.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I am genuinely too afraid for my safety to travel to the US. The idea that random [footnote]see: untrained, who don't require it to protect me ie. military/law-enforcement/security personel.[/footnote] people can have guns terrifies me.

Are you also afraid of going to China because you might get "Kung Fu'ed" on the street?

You know my most fond memory of US? a nice guy coming up to me and explaining why if i cross street X i will get shot. He may just very well saved my life. Now, would i get such fond memories in China?

Where in the country were you when that happened? You must have been in some pretty seriously shitty corner of a major city for that to be an issue, one crawling with gangs. I'm not usually one to use this argument, but in that case you really are looking at criminals who don't get their guns legally. Frankly, if you needed someone to tell you that you were in a bad part of town, you probably shouldn't be travelling to strange cities alone in the first place.

That said, most of the country isn't like that, just the really high crime areas. Heck, someone suggested Vermont as a safe place, because it's mostly small towns. But what he didn't mention is small towns are where most of the legal gun owners live, or at least the ones with big collections. You just don't hear about it as a problem out there because it's not -- people in small towns generally have guns for legitimate uses, mostly hunting and target shooting. I'm not saying there aren't issues with gun ownership in this country, but by and large it's a pretty safe place to visit. Just stay out of the areas crawling with hobos, hookers, and drug dealers.

 

[Veylon]

So, why do people, or why would you, want to travel to a country where there is a risk of getting arrested on false charges?

No, the real question is here: why would you to travel countries that are known enemies?

A guy walking around NK with a U.S passport isn't going to live long.

A guy walking around NK with a U.S passport will half a dozen security guys following him around. He'll be fine. In fact, if he tries to go anywhere the least bit dangerous, they'll take him to a "secure location". No muggings, shootings, or getting lost for foreigners in the land of Kim!

It's the countries where you don't have secret police monitoring your every move that you have to worry in.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

snip

Dont like big cities you say? Then you should try Kansas (Shameless self advertising XD). The biggest city here (Wichita) is only about 300,000 people, which while MASSIVE for the state, is rather small when compared globally. Plus all the major cities around here have something to off and there are many smalll towns around that range in size from 10,000 to 500 people each, and they are the greatest way to get the true Americana. And if your REALLY interested in nature, you would be a fool to not see the Konza Prairie [http://www.naturalkansas.org/konza.htm] in my home town of Manhattan, Ks (population 50,000, mostly university students). It is one of, if not THE only Tallgrass Prairie left in the entire world and is kept intact for research and public viewing.

 

[Ioanin]

I live in Vietnam, but it's not a hostile country. It's communist, but not hostile. I will admit that part of me wanting to work there was to experience some form of communism (out of curiosity, not some masochistic intent) but Ho Chi Minh and Hanoi are just like any other capitalist country, no statues or brainwashing and Ho Chi Minh looks pretty awesome too.

 

[Strazdas]

Where in the country were you when that happened? You must have been in some pretty seriously shitty corner of a major city for that to be an issue, one crawling with gangs. I'm not usually one to use this argument, but in that case you really are looking at criminals who don't get their guns legally.

If i rememver correctly (it was some time ago) i was in New York. The way this guy argued was the reason was a gang war and they were shooting everyone they didnt knew. i didnt test this theory for a positive result would have meant me being dead.
Mexican drug cartels get guns that were bought legally in US, and US gangs wont? intresting idea.

Frankly, if you needed someone to tell you that you were in a bad part of town, you probably shouldn't be travelling to strange cities alone in the first place.

This reminds me of a spoof i saw where a Russian tourist was walking down the street and some gang looking guys came up to him and asked: "Do you know you are in a bad neighboarhood", he repleid with a thick russian accent "what bad neighboarhood" and the gang members started running.
There should be no bad neighboarhoods, if there are that means either a) the inhabitants are given too much priviledges they abuse (like gun ownership), ir b) police does not work.

I live in Vietnam, but it's not a hostile country. It's communist, but not hostile. I will admit that part of me wanting to work there was to experience some form of communism (out of curiosity, not some masochistic intent) but Ho Chi Minh and Hanoi are just like any other capitalist country, no statues or brainwashing and Ho Chi Minh looks pretty awesome too.

Thats because Vietnam is not a communist country. Never in history of humanity we had a communist country.

 

[Ioanin]

yes it is. It's ruled by a party.

 

[Angie7F]

I think it is like going out side in a storm.
You know you are not ment to go out, but people still go out and get swept out by huge waves and stuff.

 

[rutger5000]

But there's a huge difference in people being able to attack you because they went through years of disiplined training to learn an art that requires a calm mind and self control, and people people being to attack you because they've got a tool that any drunken/deranged/psychotic/etc etc etc fool could use.

People are able to attack you at any time for any reason with anything.

One can actual pose a danger to you without being provoked, and the other is much more likely to leave you alone.

The point is, both are equally likely to happen in their respective countries. Compare statistics of Triad violence on tourists in China to instances of Bloods/Crips violence on tourists in America.

But that's not really the topic I was discussing. Someone else claimed America was a dangerous nation due to its gun laws. Someone replied to that saying that that was flawed logic as that would make China a dangerous nation as most people study Kung fu there. I replied to that statement by trying to explain why people trained in martial arts shouldn't be considered to be as dangerous as people armed with fire-arms.
I know little of crime statistics, so I wouldn't be able to tell you where you're more likely to get mugged or killed. But do you really think that the Triad uses Kung Fu when they're mugging and killing people?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

It is nice to not have people trying to convert you all the time though. No flyers, people on street corners or knocking at your door to spread the word.

When I was in Israel I saw a fair few Hasidic jews trying to convert non-Hasidic looking jews, they completely avoided my family and I lol.

I don't know if you're jewish or not, but proselytizing to gentiles is usually discouraged in judaism.

As an atheist of jewish background who loves freedom of speech and thought (and has a couple non-quite-yet-mainstream beliefs himself), I'm not against proselytizers so long as they get off my property when I ask politely. I don't think we're 'done' as a society--there's plenty more conversation to have, going forward.

 

[DjinnFor]

But that's not really the topic I was discussing. Someone else claimed America was a dangerous nation due to its gun laws. Someone replied to that saying that that was flawed logic as that would make China a dangerous nation as most people study Kung fu there.

Claimed it "was a dangerous nation"? That's so broad you could attach any meaning to that sentence, which is why you can bring completely irrelevant things in like the dispositions of random subgroups (in your case, lunatics in America compared to fine, upstanding Chinese citizens) and how that might factor in to how "dangerous" a nation is.

What they actually said was, they were worried that coming to America would increase their likelihood of being killed because of gun laws. Which is an invalid argument if (say for example), statistically, they aren't any more likely to be killed. Or, it could be an unsound argument, like if the gun laws don't actually make the country more dangerous to live in than it would be otherwise.

The argument was basically "I'm scared of guns, they could hurt people" => "I should actually be worried about my chances of surviving a trip to America". Which is equivalent to "I'm scared of fighting, it hurts people" => "I should actually be worried about my chances of surviving a trip to China". Using vague terms like "dangerous" in place of factual claims like "more likely to get hurt or die" is disingenuous and adds nothing to the discussion.

I replied to that statement by trying to explain why people trained in martial arts shouldn't be considered to be as dangerous as people armed with fire-arms.

Which is irrelevant, and the argument was absurd anyhow. You can say that they shouldn't be considered as dangerous as people armed with firearms all you want; the only relevant concern is whether they are actually as dangerous as people armed with firearms.

I know little of crime statistics, so I wouldn't be able to tell you where you're more likely to get mugged or killed. But do you really think that the Triad uses Kung Fu when they're mugging and killing people?

What I do know is that comparing apples to oranges is meaningless. At least compare criminals to criminals, or death rates to death rates. Assuming that Chinese martial artists are less dangerous than American gun owners, especially when you imply that American gun owners are all dangerous lunatics or criminals, just assumes is true what you are supposed to prove.