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

NinjaK

Freddie59 wrote: »

Speak for yourself buddy.:rolleyes: Yeah we don't really need the Yanks. We can just replace all that US investment in Ireland with the Palestinian version...........

Since when was the US government and US multinational companies linked? They dont care about our politics!

carbsy

The Peoples Republic of Cork, obviously! :P

SeanW

NinjaK wrote: »

wow such dribble

NinjaK wrote: »

Compared to the US and UK, they are Saints.

Wow, that's me pwned with your overwhelming array of proven facts.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

LMAO
:D:D

DazMarz

Eh, when has there ever been World Peace? Don't think you can threaten something that has never existed anyway...

WoollyRedHat

Madagascar, you never hear anything from them, so they must be up to something.

Toby Take a Bow

Freddie59 wrote: »

Sigh. The same was said of Hitler. Will we ever learn............:rolleyes:

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.

SeanW

SeanW wrote: »

He has good reason to fear China as a leading threat to world peace.

The United States is, unfortunately, a waning superpower. I seriously hope this does not happen, but between their economic difficulties and their military engagements, they could go the way of the Soviet Union in '89.

China on the other hand is a rising superpower and they are exremely aggressive.

Since they became communist they annexed Tibet and continue to occupy East Turkistan. They also claim Taiwan (backed by occasional displays of military force) and virtually all of the South China Sea. Including to within a few kilometres of Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Sultanate of Brunei.

Hell, their claims stretch almost 2000 km away from their lands almost all the way to Singapore.

And that's just the start, their aggressive militarisation is causing an arms race among their neighbors.

Oh and let's not forget how China's support helps the worlds most horrifying despots like the "governments" (kleptocracies is more like it) of North Korea and Myanmar, both of which are virtual client states of China.

Plus there's that small issue of the PRC government being happy to stand by while Bashar Al-Assad slaughters the Syrian people by the thousands.

=================

But don't let that stop you from going on about a miniscule Middle Eastern democracy (Israel) and a waning superpower (U.S.). I mean, we can't lose focus on the REAL threats now, can we?

China appears to have a two pronged strategy,
1, use up all their (soon to be useless) US dollars to buy up as much as possible using an "East India company" type trading agreements.
2, when all else fails just overwhelm their neighbours militarily.

Part 1 is working well, will be quite some time before part 2 though.

HavingCrack

It depends how people define "world peace". If you mean a conflict on the scale of WW2 again only the US and China currently have the resources to wage a war of that scale and the Chinese are still significantly behind-they need more time before they would even consider the military option. Russia and India are catching up fast but are still some way behind. Europe is a potential tinder box, especially if the EU collapses in a cataclysmic fashion as I truly believe it is keeping the lid on nationalist, regionalist and political tensions in a way most people do not realise.

Israel is not a threat to "global" peace-certainly a Middle East war of sorts is possible. However I cannot see the US, the EU, Russia and China goign to war because Israel attacks Iran. I simply can't.

If there is a threat of another 'world war' it will come either in a post EU Europe or possibly in South East Asia if Chinese and US interests collide dramatically.

ToddyDoody wrote: »

How come russia didnt make the poll or get a mention? We never seem to get much reporting on russia, my most direct experience with russia was an mp3 site (Which i browsed only!) which had subtle anti-u.s. ads on it along the lines of 'let us take care of the mess.. We'll do it with a smile on our face.. God bless you' (what exactly this was referring to was not stated but world affairs was implied).. Not that i think they're the biggest threat, just deserve a mention in the hall of 'fame'

Russia isn't really a threat to world peace at the minute anyway. The break up of the Soviet Union severely weakened their power for some years. It's only lately that they're beginning to flex their muscles again in South Ossetia for example. I'd say in another 10 years or so Russia will probably start throwing its weight around again on a Soviet era scale. At present though China or the US present a greater threat to "world peace".

Biggins

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!

monty_python

sxt wrote: »

George bush labelled Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the axis of evil. The "rogue states" label was often used liberally in the western media to catergorize countries such as North Korea, Libya , Pakistan, Iraq , Iran , Cuba Syria, Sudan and Afghanistan

Iran poses zero threat to world peace, they would never in a million years attack Israel /America , because that would be a complete death warrant!

just because all these countries dislike everything America stands for, does not mean they are a threat to "world peace" !

your auwl one

Marcus_Crassus

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

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

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

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

Biggins wrote: »

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

Iran is more likely to be bombed than bomb.

Biggins

Nodin wrote: »

Iran is more likely to be bombed than bomb.

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

Nodin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biggins

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

kroftonova

they will attack unless their stockpile of UHT milk is bought

Chuck Stone

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

Antarctica....

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

Nodin

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

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