Which country is the biggest threat to "World peace"?

Marcus_Crassus · 03-03-2012 4:09pm

Biggins wrote: »

As of yesterday, Iran (with the elections there) even more so.

Iran has never attacked another country since its inception. Every intelligence agency available in America asserts that Iran is, in fact, not building a weapon.

What more evidence do you want that Iran isn't as dangerous as the American media portrays it?

Look at Israel's and the U.S.'s aggressive warfare record and compare it to Iran's record. Let's see who's more belligerent. Actually, don't bother comparing them because we all know Israel and America are permanently at war or talking about war.

You SERIOUSLY think Iran is more of a threat to peace than America?

Biggins · 03-03-2012 4:14pm

Marcus_Crassus wrote: »

Iran has never attacked another country since its inception. Every intelligence agency available in America asserts that Iran is, in fact, not building a weapon.

What more evidence do you want that Iran isn't as dangerous as the American media portrays it?

Look at Israel's and the U.S.'s aggressive warfare record and compare it to Iran's record. Let's see who's more belligerent. Actually, don't bother comparing them because we all know Israel and America are permanently at war or talking about war.

You SERIOUSLY think Iran is more of a threat to peace than America?

There seems to be this too easy concept that because a country has not personally attacked another (in theory), that they are no risk to anyone else.

Leaving aside the fact that Iran in fact has been supplying other armies/terrorists/agents elsewhere with weapons of all kinds (covert attacking rather than just openly attacking - in reality!), there is other factors which make a country a risk - not just because they decide to physically march troops across a border.

Tell me your educated enough to understand this!

mongdesade · 03-03-2012 4:15pm

NinjaK wrote: »

Look at any conflict and they are sticking their meddling Imperial oar in, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran.

Because the UK is Uncle Sam's obedient lap dog !

Toby Take a Bow · 03-03-2012 6:24pm

Biggins wrote: »

There seems to be this too easy concept that because a country has not personally attacked another (in theory), that they are no risk to anyone else.

I think what a lot of people are doing here, is basing their ideas on evidence of previous invasions/attacking of countries. Most of us can't say for certain exactly who Iran are arming covertly (and not-so-covertly) but if you were to take the most amount of countries that Iran would theoretically supply and compare to the amount of countries America has invaded (and groups they are covertly arming), I would think America has a far greater amount of countries. Then you add the fact that in America these actions are committed regardless of who is in power (republican/democrat) and you can make a fairly confident judgement that this will continue regardless in the future. The thread is asking what the *biggest* threat to world peace is, not an either/or between Iran and America.

Nodin · 03-03-2012 7:06pm

Biggins wrote: »

As of yesterday, Iran (with the elections there) even more so.

Iran is more likely to be bombed than bomb.

Biggins · 03-03-2012 7:18pm

Nodin wrote: »

Iran is more likely to be bombed than bomb.

Well if they keep up their current direction, that is so.

Nodin · 03-03-2012 7:23pm

Biggins wrote: »

Well if they keep up their current direction, that is so.

....their alleged current direction to try to be one of the nuclear club, like a certain other power not too far away, who faces not so much as an IAEA inspection for it's weapons...?

I mean, what country, who saw its neighbouring state invaded against international law by two of the same states that undermined its own independence and imposed a dictatorship on it for a quarter century would possibly want some sort of defence like a nuclear bomb? They must be all MAD!!!!MAD IN THE HEAD!!!!!!

Sisko · 03-03-2012 7:28pm

Dudess wrote: »

This is just going to turn into a list of countries people don't like, with a few obscure ones thrown in for attention and with no reason given as to why.

Difficult to say which country is the biggest thread to world peace IMO. I assume there would need to be more factors than just a country. There are some extremely volatile places on that list, no doubt, but not powerful enough to affect peace on a global scale. I'm not part of the "I hate America" brigade at all, but given how powerful it is on the world stage, and its interference in foreign policy (justified or not) I don't think it's unreasonable to include it.

Well ironically , out of all the countries on that list I like America the most and would love to visit it. At the same time there is no denying it is the greatest threat to world peace considering its constantly waging war across the globe since the 50's. Its economical need to be in a constant state of war and so on.

enfant terrible · 03-03-2012 8:34pm

Nodin wrote: »

....their alleged current direction to try to be one of the nuclear club, like a certain other power not too far away, who faces not so much as an IAEA inspection for it's weapons...?

I mean, what country, who saw its neighbouring state invaded against international law by two of the same states that undermined its own independence and imposed a dictatorship on it for a quarter century would possibly want some sort of defence like a nuclear bomb? They must be all MAD!!!!MAD IN THE HEAD!!!!!!

You think Iran should get nuclear weapons because its only fair, that's not how it works.

Biggins · 03-03-2012 8:46pm

Nodin wrote: »

....their alleged current direction to try to be one of the nuclear club...

...And that makes it ok?
(A question - NOT stating that you have said that or intended to).

The reason why I consider Iran NOW to be the utmost danger presently is three-fold.
1. The re-election (in even more powerful ability than last time) of religious extremists.
2. The possible domino effect of they gaining such nuke power.
(On that I would politely and friendly suggest you look into the after-affects of such)

3. Their still covert willingness to still provide weaponry to factions across their own borders. Given their possible eventual ability to pass on dirty nuke material if allowed, things can additionally only get worse.

The USA (to repeat an earlier post) are NO saints by far - but presently, they (as bad as they are) are not what I would consider the PRESENT biggest threat.
(They wouldn't be far behind though!)

Nodin · 03-03-2012 8:56pm

enfant terrible wrote: »

You think Iran should get nuclear weapons because its only fair, that's not how it works.

....no, they think they should get them because they think its (a) only fair and (b) they feel under threat.

Nodin · 03-03-2012 9:02pm

Biggins wrote: »

...And that makes it ok?
(A question - NOT stating that you have said that or intended to).

The reason why I consider Iran NOW to be the utmost danger presently is three-fold.
1. The re-election (in even more powerful ability than last time) of religious extremists.

...it remains to be seen how "extreme" they are.

Biggins wrote: »

...
2. The possible domino effect of they gaining such nuke power.
(On that I would politely and friendly suggest you look into the after-affects of such)

I would politely suggest that I might already know something about it.

Biggins wrote: »

...
3. Their still covert willingness to still provide weaponry to factions across their own borders. Given their possible eventual ability to pass on dirty nuke material if allowed, things can additionally only get worse.

The USA (to repeat an earlier post) are NO saints by far - but presently, they (as bad as they are) are not what I would consider the PRESENT biggest threat.
(They wouldn't be far behind though!)

....Iran is unlikely to either use the bomb as a first strike, or proliferate it. The USA/Israel are, however, quite likely to bomb Iran.

Fratton Fred · 03-03-2012 9:05pm

Sisko wrote: »

Well ironically , out of all the countries on that list I like America the most and would love to visit it. At the same time there is no denying it is the greatest threat to world peace considering its constantly waging war across the globe since the 50's. Its economical need to be in a constant state of war and so on.

They are, but they are also the teeth behind the UN. As we can see in Syria at the moment, if the US doesn't intervene, no one will.

Dubit10 · 03-03-2012 9:52pm

America, Isreal, Germany and the UK in that order.

Biggins · 03-03-2012 10:43pm

Nodin wrote: »

...Iran is unlikely to either use the bomb as a first strike, or proliferate it. The USA/Israel are, however, quite likely to bomb Iran.

I honestly don't know which one is likely to 'go' first (overtly or covertly) - but at present, I do suspect which are more relatively more stable as a form of government with accountability to the rest of the world and would be more aware of what such an attack would have in economic terms as well as in political relationship terms.

Thus I conclude looking at the overall matter and internal complexities that Iran would indeed (again) AT PRESENT, be the greatest risk.

admiralofthefleet · 03-03-2012 10:48pm

kroftonova

they will attack unless their stockpile of UHT milk is bought

Chuck Stone · 03-03-2012 10:52pm

The reason that Israel does not want Iran to have nuclear capability is because it loses its theatre dominance, I.e., the ability to ignore the Palestinian question and knock the **** out of its neighbours at will and completely disregard any potential consequences.

If/when Iran reaches nuclear capability it would be able to, theoretically, destroy Israel with a couple of warheads - not that it would ever commit national suicide (an absurd proposition) by carrying out such an attack but mutually assured destruction would be the end-game of a military confrontation.

Israel dreads the idea of ever reaching a military stalemate which would be de-escalated by coming to a Middle East peace agreement because it would probably involve the halting of the colonizing of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

full_irish · 03-03-2012 10:54pm

Antarctica....

...have always thought those penguins have been looking shifty. Must be hiding weapons of mass destruction

Nodin · 03-03-2012 10:54pm

Biggins wrote: »

I honestly don't know which one is likely to 'go' first (overtly or covertly) - but at present, I do suspect which are more relatively more stable as a form of government with accountability to the rest of the world ............

Ahahaha....yeah. "accountability to the rest of the world".

How does that work, exactly and precisely? How, for instance, were they held accountable for Iraq? How were they held accountable for the covert war against Nicaragua? When has any of the superpowers ever been held accountable for anything?

GombeanMan · 03-03-2012 11:06pm

Germany. WW2 and killing Jewish minorities for no reason and all that. They say a leopard never changes it's spots.

Biggins · 03-03-2012 11:11pm

Nodin wrote: »

Ahahaha....yeah. "accountability to the rest of the world".

How does that work, exactly and precisely? How, for instance, were they held accountable for Iraq? How were they held accountable for the covert war against Nicaragua? When has any of the superpowers ever been held accountable for anything?

The FULL post was:

I honestly don't know which one is likely to 'go' first (overtly or covertly) - but at present, I do suspect which are more relatively more stable as a form of government with accountability to the rest of the world and would be more aware of what such an attack would have in economic terms as well as in political relationship terms.

Thus I conclude looking at the overall matter and internal complexities that Iran would indeed (again) AT PRESENT, be the greatest risk.

...and I have bolded the FULL expression that is important - not the narrowed down version which only you can see.

One country while escaping a good deal of actions which are questionable to say the least, has ALSO been held to account by its very own people and by many world leaders and equally by ordinary people of the world including you and I.
...And remember as bad as the above might be - at least for the present I think the USA will not act on its own, without some sort of sound backing from other governments, which frankly across Europe, they are not getting and maybe rightly so.

So with that in mind as well as many other complexities, I would suggest that Iran (who lets be honest, frankly doesn't give a damn and has a lot less to lose and is far even less accountable to the rest of the world) gives a regular two-fingered salute in words and in covert arming of terrorists directly across its very borders, who feels its sure as hell is non-accountable or has no fellow responsibilities to other states beyond its borders, that AT PRESENT they are the greater risk.

I'm sure you might still disagree (fair enough) but as bad as the USA is with their antics (and by god they go back some amount of decades to be sure, open and covertly too), the greater risk assessment I've made is that Iran is doing all the pushing of making its own state and surrounding states towards a further nuclear risk, with equally further governments that could be seriously equally considered to be unstable so say the least, if not based on their extremism alone then based on their even further lack of accountability to their very own people.
This is why taking many, many aspects, internal and external to any of the top listed countries as seen as a risk, Iran I conclude presently is the one that is the greatest danger.

How, for instance, were they held accountable for Iraq? How were they held accountable for the covert war against Nicaragua? When has any of the superpowers ever been held accountable for anything?

You posed a question.
I won't duck it.

The USA has got away with some VERY terrible things - and thats disgrace.
No "ifs" or "buts".
Shame on them for such actions and shame on those that have let them away with such actions - and that includes many European states who have turned a blind eye for political and economic reasons.
The USA should be held accountable - its a disgrace that they are not though.
(I consider Bush and Cheney to be nothing less than war criminals themselves, to begin with.)
(And I might add, profiteers to boot, seeing as they have interests in Haliburton that fed their wars in a number of ways!)

Fluorescence · 03-03-2012 11:15pm

China's one to watch. As is Andorra (sneaky buggers, the Andorrans). The US and Russia aren't the superpowers they used to be anymore.

admiralofthefleet · 03-03-2012 11:20pm

fluorescence wrote: »

China's one to watch. As is Andorra (sneaky buggers, the Andorrans). The US and Russia aren't the superpowers they used to be anymore.

and thats why they are so dangerous. they want to be

DEFTLEFTHAND · 03-03-2012 11:21pm

What about the Canucks? They're far too quiet on the world stage for my liking, With their massive landmass there is plenty of room to hid WMDs.:eek:

Fluorescence · 03-03-2012 11:24pm

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

and thats why they are so dangerous. they want to be

Of course. America knows best, afterall :rolleyes:. I'd still be more wary of China though.

Nodin · 03-03-2012 11:28pm

Biggins wrote: »

The FULL post was:
...and I have bolded the FULL expression that is important - not the narrowed down version which only you can see.

One country while escaping a good deal of actions which are questionable to say the least, has ALSO been held to account by its very own people and by many world leaders and equally by ordinary people of the world including you and I..)

Yep, which was why all those people were locked up for the illegal (by US law, I might add) bombing of Cambodia, etc and so on. I repeat - no superpower has every been held accountable for its actions. The reason why may be hidden there in that statement.

It's not a question of whose is "nicer" to the Western palate. Its a question of who is most likely to bomb/invade a country. Currently, its not Iran.

..

Biggins wrote: »

So with that in mind as well as many other complexities, I would suggest that Iran (who lets be honest, frankly doesn't give a damn and has a lot less to lose and is far even less accountable to the rest of the world) gives a regular two-fingered salute in words and in covert arming of terrorists directly across its very borders, who feels its sure as hell is non-accountable or has no fellow responsibilities to other states beyond its borders, that AT PRESENT they are the greater risk...)

The US has nothing to risk, because it's a superpower, as pointed out earlie. Witness Iraq - get a few cronies, pay off a few others, beat the war drum at home and away we go. Iran now faces the distinct possibility of a serious conventional attack from the US and/or one other at some stage over the next ten years, with no capability for an equivalent retaliation. In a first strike nuclear scenario, it would be blasted off the face of the earth.

Biggins wrote: »

You posed a question.
I won't duck it.

The USA has got away with some VERY terrible things - and thats disgrace.
.....

No, its gotten away with whatever it wants. Like China, Russia.

Nodin · 03-03-2012 11:29pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

What about the Canucks? They're far too quiet on the world stage for my liking, With their massive landmass there is plenty of room to hid WMDs.:eek:

They're like pale Iranians....and them trees aren't there for feckin decoration....

Biggins · 03-03-2012 11:45pm

Nodin wrote: »

Yep, which was why all those people were locked up for the illegal (by US law, I might add) bombing of Cambodia, etc and so on. I repeat - no superpower has every been held accountable for its actions. The reason why may be hidden there in that statement.

It's not a question of whose is "nicer" to the Western palate. Its a question of who is most likely to bomb/invade a country. Currently, its not Iran.

There is very merit in what you say. Thats undeniable.
I would add though that present 'risk' not just comes in ability to invade countries but also from ones that can incite others and fellow countries (without even treaties) to join them in a war that would spread like wildfire using their extremists within their religions, while further backed up by their new ability to get their hands on new created nuclear material.

Nodin wrote: »

The US has nothing to risk, because it's a superpower, as pointed out earlier. Witness Iraq - get a few cronies, pay off a few others, beat the war drum at home and away we go. Iran now faces the distinct possibility of a serious conventional attack from the US and/or one other at some stage over the next ten years, with no capability for an equivalent retaliation. In a first strike nuclear scenario, it would be blasted off the face of the earth.

Indeed it would be blasted as you say - but if they (USA) did go first, then in the long run, they too in a number of ways, would equally be losers too.
Iran presently for a number of reasons, is not so worried nor concerned about its own people.

Nodin wrote: »

...its gotten away with whatever it wants. Like China, Russia.

I agree for the most part.

enfant terrible · 03-03-2012 11:47pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If/when Iran reaches nuclear capability it would be able to, theoretically, destroy Israel with a couple of warheads - not that it would ever commit national suicide (an absurd proposition) by carrying out such an attack but mutually assured destruction would be the end-game of a military confrontation.

You'll look silly if they do destroy Israel, although I don't think you'll be shedding to many tears for them.

Cardinal Richelieu · 03-03-2012 11:53pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

What about the Canucks? They're far too quiet on the world stage for my liking, With their massive landmass there is plenty of room to hid WMDs.:eek:

They do sell quite a bit of nuclear material to the world

galwayrush · 04-03-2012 12:07am

fluorescence wrote: »

China's one to watch. As is Andorra (sneaky buggers, the Andorrans). The US and Russia aren't the superpowers they used to be anymore.

Bloody chinese with their MSG...:pac:

EGAR · 04-03-2012 12:10am

As the ad says: *Scotland might surprise you!*

HavingCrack · 04-03-2012 12:55am

I think people are getting slightly sidetracked here. Even if the US and/or Israel attacked Iran would that precipitate a global conflict similar to WW2? That would neccessitate China or Russia fighting the US on behalf of Iran in a conventional or nuclear war. I cannot see China or Russia risking destruction for the sake of Iran to be honest.

Dubit10 wrote: »

America, Isreal, Germany and the UK in that order.

GombeanMan wrote: »

Germany. WW2 and killing Jewish minorities for no reason and all that. They say a leopard never changes it's spots.

Germany is not a threat to world peace at the minute in any shape or form. Germany is firmly under the yoke of the US sphere of influence and will not act independently even if it wanted to. Who would they even attack?

Militarism is still very much frowned upon in Germany following WW2 and the Cold War and that will not be going away any time soon.

The only possible scenario that would see Germany threatening world peace would be the complete break up of the European Union and some form of European wide war breaking out as a result.

Chuck Stone · 04-03-2012 12:56am

enfant terrible wrote: »

You'll look silly if they do destroy Israel

Me looking silly would be the most insignificant of problems if that were ever to happen.

although I don't think you'll be shedding to many tears for them.

What a unbelievably stupid and ignorant thing to say.

If something I've said got your back up refute it rather than try to make out that I'd take pleasure in the wiping out of millions of people be they Israeli or Iranian.

What a pathetic contribution to the discussion.

Freddie59 · 05-03-2012 9:00am

NinjaK wrote: »

We? This is an Irish forum, not some UK Imperialist one.

Wonderful comment......:rolleyes:

Freddie59 · 05-03-2012 9:03am

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

That's an interesting reading of the situation. Hitler clearly showed aggressive annexing of foreign powers, and the 'peace' conference was initiated not because they thought Hitler was no threat to world peace, but because they thought by giving him what he wanted, they would placate him. They were wrong. That's all beside the point, seeing as you committed Godwin's Law.

Rolleyes, indeed.

Ah good ole Godwin.:D Hitler/Iran/no threat to world peace/peace in our time (look it up). The people who held the peace conference were incredibly naive....as are the defenders of modern-day Iran.

Freddie59 · 05-03-2012 9:05am

Biggins wrote: »

As bad as the USA is (as some might make out - and I agree their governments are far from saints), ye do all know that since yesterday, a religious bunch of even more extremists, has gained power in Iran since yesterday?

According to a number of TV reports alone, the newer more elected (in over all numbers) bunch, make "Amadinnerjacket" look like a pussy!
If ye weren't afraid before, you have right to be now!

Well said Biggins. And the very same ones berating the Yanks will be calling for them to be wheeled into action if the fruitcakes hiding behind a religion do something stupid.

Freddie59 · 05-03-2012 9:07am

Nodin wrote: »

Ahahaha....yeah. "accountability to the rest of the world".

How does that work, exactly and precisely? How, for instance, were they held accountable for Iraq? How were they held accountable for the covert war against Nicaragua? When has any of the superpowers ever been held accountable for anything?

Those damn superpowers.:rolleyes: which would you take tomorrow, given a choice. a) The lifestyle of people in Iran. Or b) the lifestyle that we enjoy in the West? Just a or b will do than you.:)

Freddie59 · 05-03-2012 9:12am

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

The thread is asking what the *biggest* threat to world peace is, not an either/or between Iran and America.

Both are inseparable. Iran are seeking, ultimately, to usurp the West and dominate, using their brand of "religion" as a vehicle to drive it.

So we are confronted, as a civilisation, with two ideologies (one under which we we enjoy democracy and freedom) and another, which seeks to drag the world to the brink, throw us back several hundred years, and subjugate its subjects. And incredibly, people try to rationalise and defend this.:eek:

KeithAFC · 05-03-2012 9:30am

Iran. By some distance.

Toby Take a Bow · 05-03-2012 11:19am

Freddie59 wrote: »

Ah good ole Godwin. Hitler/Iran/no threat to world peace/peace in our time (look it up). The people who held the peace conference were incredibly naive....as are the defenders of modern-day Iran.

Again, you're comparing two different situations. As I've said, Hitler showed clear aggresive tendencies by invading/annexing foreign territories, so any attempt at the peace conference to suggest that there would be 'peace in our time' was indeed misleading. Iran has not invaded any foreign country, and historically has had experience of outside 'intervention' and sits in a region where regime change by foreign powers is common. Whilst I don't agree with the regime, I can understand the desire to obtain the one peace of technology that might prevent countries attacking them. Not that that's what they're necessarily doing (they may be playing that highly risky strategy of giving the impression they're close to a nuclear bomb without in any way having the technology to develop it.

Again, a very simplistic reading. The people holding the peace conference, while naive,

Freddie59 wrote: »

Both are inseparable. Iran are seeking, ultimately, to usurp the West and dominate, using their brand of "religion" as a vehicle to drive it.

Give me one specific example of Iran trying to 'usurp the west and dominate'. I can see only examples of a religious regime desperately trying to cement its tenuous position in a fragile country, while giving support to a terrorist organisation which is at war with a country that is threatening to attack Iran.

Freddie59 wrote: »

So we are confronted, as a civilisation, with two ideologies (one under which we we enjoy democracy and freedom) and another, which seeks to drag the world to the brink, throw us back several hundred years, and subjugate its subjects. And incredibly, people try to rationalise and defend this.

We are not confronted with such a dilemma. Things are a little more complex than black-and-white.

Biggins · 05-03-2012 11:43am

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

...Give me one specific example of Iran trying to 'usurp the west and dominate'. I can see only examples of a religious regime desperately trying to cement its tenuous position in a fragile country, while giving support to a terrorist organisation which is at war with a country that is threatening to attack Iran.

One quick example of Iran up to no good and to use your very words "...giving support to a terrorist organisation..." - to a country that which by the way was NOT attacking Iran or threatening!

http://www.channel4.com/news/iran-supplies-weapons-to-taliban

But don't take Channel 4 word for it!

How about the Council on Foreign Relations? - http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362
(No - that can't be true, thats all USA conspiracy spin!)

Well then, what has anyone in Europe got to say?
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12694266

...And what about now Syria?
- http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=iran+suppying+syria+weapons&pbx=1&oq=iran+suppying+syria+weapons&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=47390l49167l1l50488l6l6l0l0l0l1l377l1324l0.3.2.1l6l0&gs_l=serp.12...47390l49167l1l50488l6l6l0l0l0l1l377l1324l0j3j2j1l6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=8f8c63b2dd468f64&biw=1440&bih=785

tdv123 · 05-03-2012 12:07pm

Scots are natural enemies with every other country.

Like Englishmen and Scots! Or Welshmen and Scots! Or Japanese and Scots! Or Scots and other Scots! Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland.

PhlegmyMoses · 05-03-2012 12:10pm

Has to be USA. There has been a lot of bad feeling towards them since they created Jersey Shore.

GombeanMan · 05-03-2012 12:14pm

Germany. I can't think of any other country in Europe which seeks to meddle in other countries affairs and cause widespread death and chaos at various points throughout history. How many groups of people were murdered by Nazi Germans? Too many people. That is how much. The German people voted these Fascists into Power at the end of the day.

Bad Panda · 05-03-2012 12:17pm

GombeanMan wrote: »

Germany. I can't think of any other country in Europe which seeks to meddle in other countries affairs and cause widespread death and chaos at various points throughout history. How many groups of people were murdered by Nazi Germans? Too many people. That is how much. The German people voted these Fascists into Power at the end of the day.

Well done. That's the dumbest thing I've read in AH in a while.

GombeanMan · 05-03-2012 12:20pm

Bad Panda wrote: »

Well done. That's the dumbest thing I've read in AH in a while.

History happened. Can't change that. You can't just "ignore the past". Relatively speaking, the crimes weren't commited all that long ago. Not even 100 years since all this human misery. I remember watching a documentary about the death camps. Shocking stuff. Stuff of nightmares. People like to cite the USA as the largest threat. Last time I checked, America wasn't at any point throughout history steralising the disabled among other "undesirables". Germany claims that card with WW2. Nazism was in any sense, the most racist of racist ideologies to have ever been put into practice. Biological Racism was at it's very core.

wes · 05-03-2012 12:27pm

The US seems to have a habit of invading countries and making a mess of the place. See Iraq for example, or the mess in Afghanistan (due in no small part to ignoring it and invading Iraq for no reason). While there are regimes who are certainly far more odious, they however do no have the same capability as the US.

Simply put the US has a unique combination of military power and arrogance, which is what makes them dangerous. They are completely unaccountable, and have no issue with killing civilians, targetting rescue workers and even funerals for some recent examples of some of there atrocities. These atrocities are often excused, as "mistakes" or even if defenders of these polocies are made to admit what was actually done, the next defense is so and so group is way worse or would do way worse, or that for daring to expose US atrocities, that the party doing it, is in league with terrorists.

GombeanMan · 05-03-2012 12:28pm

Saul-Goode9 wrote: »

Switzerland, war mongering prícks

Switzerland, a country which hasn't had conflict since the mid 1500's

The Swiss tend to do their own thing, tossing aside the EU thumping thugs in favour of their own independance. Switzerland is the last country I would consider a threat. Switzerland does not "do" War.

Toby Take a Bow · 05-03-2012 12:50pm

Biggins wrote: »

One quick example of Iran up to no good and to use your very words "...giving support to a terrorist organisation..." - to a country that which by the way was NOT attacking Iran or threatening!

http://www.channel4.com/news/iran-supplies-weapons-to-taliban

But don't take Channel 4 word for it!

How about the Council on Foreign Relations? - http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362
(No - that can't be true, thats all USA conspiracy spin!)

Well then, what has anyone in Europe got to say?
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12694266

...And what about now Syria?
- http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=iran+suppying+syria+weapons&pbx=1&oq=iran+suppying+syria+weapons&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=47390l49167l1l50488l6l6l0l0l0l1l377l1324l0.3.2.1l6l0&gs_l=serp.12...47390l49167l1l50488l6l6l0l0l0l1l377l1324l0j3j2j1l6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=8f8c63b2dd468f64&biw=1440&bih=785

I was asking the previous poster to give examples of how Iran was trying to usurp the west, not how it's trying to protect itself against being surrounded by hostile states (or: how it's attempting to becoming a regional stronghouse). Afghanistan could be conisdered to be 'allied' (or: a puppet state) of the 'west', which has definitely threatened Iran in the past couple of years (and beyond).

GombeanMan wrote: »

Switzerland, a country which hasn't had conflict since the mid 1500's The Swiss tend to do their own thing, tossing aside the EU thumping thugs in favour of their own independance. Switzerland is the last country I would consider a threat. Switzerland does not "do" War.

It can often be difficult to detect sarcasm when there's no context.

Which country is the biggest threat to "World peace"?

Comments