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

Chuck Stone

Biggins wrote: »

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

Context?

In 2003 the Iranian regime offered near unconditional peace/talks...

Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.

But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said.

bbc.co.uk

No, instead of grasping an opportunity for peace the regime was as much as told 'you're next' al la Iraq invasion.

Since then 'the west' has been engaged in a secret war against Iran through the use of terrorism - a quick google will turn up plenty of evidence of this.

Iran has also offered to help the US stabilise Afghanistan one more than one occasion - but again these overtures were rejected.

Context.

Tomk1

What country, isn't being peaceful right now to it's close neighbours. Most countries try to get on with their neighbours, but some allways have their fists out, treatening anyone passing, one day someone will have had enough and take them up on it, of course, then they will run looking for help from their big cousin.

Most if not all major wars has been little agressive countries with a chip on their shoulders, that pulls bigger countries in to do their battle.

Also Oil has constantly played a role in many conflicts.
- - -
At the moment I have to admit that Israel is adding nothing to world peace, which uses the name of American, to backup aggresive shouts/actions.

I'm not against Israel, as I assume most people in the country don't agree with the actions of their leaders, but with secret service/police and state/international propaganda, and WWII holocaust still embedded in the public psych (-spelling?) If Israel could move towards peace in the middle-east, all would benefit.
America should tell Israel to cop-on and stop trying to stir up trouble with Iran, else they can deal with it on their own.

(has anyone ever watched their news service?)

Biggins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Context?

In 2003 the Iranian regime offered near unconditional peace/talks...

Indeed it did - and then it was stated by Iran that they would allow inspection by teams - when those teams turned up, they were refused entry!
The talks turned out just to be a delaying stunt and PR joke!

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Iran has also offered to help the US stabilise Afghanistan one more than one occasion - but again these overtures were rejected.

Well seeing as Iran was at the same time as offering help to America, was also actually giving arms and weapons to the Taliban so that they could fight America - what could we expect!
Lets be real here!

Context?

Freddie59

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

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.

War, my friend, is very simplistic with the benefit of hindsight. To cow-towing by naieve people to dictators and their whims can ultimately trigger it. Then we ask why it could not have been foreseen.:rolleyes:

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Give me one specific example of Iran trying to 'usurp the west and dominate'.

I refer you to Biggins' answer.

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I can see only examples of a religious regime desperately trying to cement its tenuous position in a fragile country,

With nuclear technology.

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

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

According to you. It is, indeed, VERY black and white. Stop it before it starts - or suffer the consequences.

Freddie59

wes wrote: »

Simply put the US has a unique combination of military power

Which protects us from the loons and their supporters which are a direct threat to the freedoms we currently enjoy.

Nodin

Freddie59 wrote: »

Which protects us from the loons and their supporters which are a direct threat to the freedoms we currently enjoy.

Yep. I'm always on the alert for bearded Para-Mullahs doing a landing....

wes

Freddie59 wrote: »

Which protects us from the loons and their supporters which are a direct threat to the freedoms we currently enjoy.

Well it doesn't protects people from the loons running the US, who have ton of innocent blood on there hands. BTW, as I predicted American crimes are ignored.

To Alcohol

Any of the muslims countries.

Tourism

At a wild guess I'd say Donegal

John Doe1

Sealand

Chuck Stone

Biggins wrote: »

Indeed it did - and then it was stated by Iran that they would allow inspection by teams - when those teams turned up, they were refused entry!

This has no relevance to my point.

The comprehensive peace talks offered by Iran to the US were rejected so your point does not address or logically follow mine.

Well seeing as Iran was at the same time as offering help to America, was also actually giving arms and weapons to the Taliban so that they could fight America - what could we expect!

Source?

The Taliban and Iran were enemies. It was in Iran's interests for Afghanistan to be stabilised and that would have made up part of the reason for the offer of Iranian help to the US to stabilise Afghanistan.

Indeed, Iran and the Taliban were on the brink of war only a few years before the Iraq invasion.

Iran vowed revenge today against the militant Taliban movement that controls most of neighboring Afghanistan, with the Revolutionary Guards saying that the Taliban should be given ''what they so richly deserve'' for killing at least nine Iranian diplomats.

In a statement on Iranian television, the elite force added: ''The Taliban and the main agents responsible for this horrific crime must know that they shall never be immune to the tumultuous anger of the Islamic corps.'

nytimes.com

Biggins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The comprehensive peace talks offered by Iran to the US were rejected so your point does not address or logically follow mine.

Thats your opinion.
Maybe they were rejected because previous one's had turned out to be a farce?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Source?

* http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/9/nato-forces-nab-iran-arms-for-taliban/

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13545621

* http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-2921708.html

* http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/03/nato-seizes-iranian-arms-bound-for.html

* http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/06/document_iran_c/

* http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=211420

* Russian TV? (Normally even not a friend of the USA!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM22Lv14fIk

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-12694266

* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364649/British-special-forces-seize-shipment-arms-Iran-sending-Taliban.html

* http://rupeenews.com/2010/07/wikileaks-iran-arms-finances-trains-equips-taliban-insurgents/

* http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22956:iran-cited-for-arms-embargo-violations-rockets-for-taliban&catid=9:terrorism&Itemid=31

* http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/2384-Iran-Caught-Red-Handed-Shipping-Arms-to-Taliban.html

* http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/uk-evidence-continues-to-mount-that-iran-is-arming-the-taliban.html

* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5477283/Iranian-weapons-getting-through-to-Taliban.html

Iran has also extended its ideological influence in Afghanistan through channels like the Imam Khomeini Relief Committee. According to the State Department’s 2009 Country Reports on Terrorism, Iran’s Qods Force “has arranged arms shipments to select Taliban members, including small arms and associated ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107mm rockets, and plastic explosives” since at least 2006, and “provided training to the Taliban in Afghanistan on small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons.”[5] The Islamic Republic’s strategy thus far has been to disrupt attempts at creating a stable security environment while exerting its influence in the Afghan political sphere.[6]

Source: http://www.irantracker.org/foreign-relations/afghanistan-iran-foreign-relations

Of course ALL could be lying and its all just a conspiracy against Iran of course!

---

As the world has greatly learned - what Iran says and what it ACTUALLY does - is two far different things than they would have you believe!

Chuck Stone

To Alcohol wrote: »

Any of the muslims countries.

All 50 of the countries with Muslim majorities?

Interesting.

RichieC

The US has a long and storied history of supplying weapons and training to terrorists. particularly right wing ones. I really can't understand how an American, with a straight face talks of Iran doing the same thing being a good reason to bomb them back to the stoneage.

uberalles

Kerry.

The Healy R gang will use all their I'll gotten machinery against us all. Them caps are lethal weapons as well if thrown, does no one remember that bond film !

Chuck Stone

Biggins wrote: »

Thats your opinion.

Nope. It's credible commentary backed up with evidence. 'I prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate ice cream' would be my opinion.

Maybe they were rejected because previous one's had turned out to be a farce?

What previous talks? How far back would you like to go? As far back as the democratically elected Iranian government that was overthrown by the US/UK for having the temerity to attempt to nationalise Iranian oil?

long list of sources.

I looked at the first three sources and they were all after peace talks were offered by Iran and rejected . Again, your point does not follow mine.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect the Iranian regime* to resist US intentions to overthrow it in light of the Axis of Evil spiel and US/Western/Israeli aggression against Iraq.

Biggins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Nope. It's credible commentary backed up with evidence. 'I prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate ice cream' would be my opinion.

What previous talks? How far back would you like to go? As far back as the democratically elected Iranian government that was overthrown by the US/UK for having the temerity to attempt to nationalise Iranian oil?

I looked at the first three sources and they were all after peace talks were offered by Iran and rejected . Again, your point does not follow mine.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect the Iranian regime* to resist US intentions to overthrow it in light of the Axis of Evil spiel and US/Western/Israeli aggression against Iraq.

...So to sum up, you think Iran is pure as the driven snow?
...That their offers of peace talks - gestures given, only to be reversed on the ground and inspectors blocked - are genuine?
Have you lived and experience a very similar process done by Gadaffi for over 20 years?
An exactly same process and regurgitated PR stunt process by the way!

So you read the first three links - what about the rest?
Is every country lying about Iran shipping weapons to the Taliban?
Is Russia, Japan, the USA, Britain, NATO, even Iraq sources and others all lying?
Do you seriously contend that Iran IS NOT or HAS NOT shipped arms/weapons to the Taliban?
Seriously?

Crikey!

blaze1

Sean Sherlock, with his blocking of the internet. This time next year Ireland will be run the same as North Korea.

Chuck Stone

Biggins wrote: »

...So to sum up, you think Iran is pure as the driven snow?

Lol, no. I'd hate to live there. Pretty nasty regime for which the west has to take some responsibility for energizing after overthrowing Iranian democracy.

...That their offers of peace talks - gestures given, only to be reversed on the ground and inspectors blocked - are genuine?

Iranian offers have been slapped down time and again by the US and have been replaced with the threats of war and sanctions.

Have you lived and experience a very similar process done by Gadaffi for over 20 years?

Libya is completely different to Iran. Iran is a nation of 70m+ people with a pivotal position in the great game. Libya 'heeled' anyway after 9/11 and opened itself up to western oil companies nations who even began to develop a friendly relationship with Gadaffi.

So you read the first three links - what about the rest?
Is every country lying about Iran shipping weapons to the Taliban?
Is Russia, Japan, the USA, Britain, NATO, even Iraq sources and others all lying?

Do you seriously contend that Iran IS NOT or HAS NOT shipped arms/weapons to the Taliban?

I do not dispute that elements within Iran are supplying weapons to the Taliban. There seems to be plenty of evidence for that.

I'm just saying that there is a context - rejected peace talks/offers, threats of war, sanctions, history of overthrowing democratically elected Iranian governments to retain control of their natural resources, Israel's threater dominance, Iranian ambitions to become a regional power, control of hydrocarbons in the great game etc.

Sheesh!

Biggins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Lol, no. I'd hate to live there. Pretty nasty regime for which the west has to take some responsibility for energizing after overthrowing Iranian democracy...

We will agree to disagree (if thats ok?) on a number of matters.

My short version is still that I still see PRESENTLY Iran as the top most biggest threat to world peace for reasons already stated.
The USA is certainly not helping nor is it with 'clean hands' - far from it - but presently in answer to the OP's question, I would select Iran to be top of the list right now.

badabing106

Biggins wrote: »

...So to sum up, you think Iran is pure as the driven snow?
...That their offers of peace talks - gestures given, only to be reversed on the ground and inspectors blocked - are genuine?
Have you lived and experience a very similar process done by Gadaffi for over 20 years?
An exactly same process and regurgitated PR stunt process by the way!

So you read the first three links - what about the rest?
Is every country lying about Iran shipping weapons to the Taliban?
Is Russia, Japan, the USA, Britain, NATO, even Iraq sources and others all lying?
Do you seriously contend that Iran IS NOT or HAS NOT shipped arms/weapons to the Taliban?
Seriously?

Crikey!

I think you are a little bit "blinded" and bedazzled" by the "western" media .

The reality is that America are the biggest sponsors of terrorism and non democractic corrupt Dictators in the the History of the Middle East. You won't read that in many media outlets in this part of the world. Read any History book of "The Middle East", instead of selective British newspapers with sensational headlines, for a clearer understanding .

Biggins

badabing106 wrote: »

I think you are a little bit "blinded" and bedazzled" by the "western" media .

Western?
What I gave in links!

Russia
Japan
India
NATO

Western?

...And there is a lot more international ones on the net!
Do you think they are all lying? Unreal!

badabing106 wrote: »

The reality is that America are the biggest sponsors of terrorism and non democractic corrupt Dictators in the the History of the Middle East. You won't read that in many media outlets in this part of the world. Read any History book of "The Middle East", instead of selective British newspapers with sensational headlines, for a clearer understanding .

Where have I said they are saints?
Far from it. You will get no argument from me that the USA is not far behind Iran in threatening world peace!
Sometimes swapping places at the top of the list with others?
However, as I said, presently I see Iran as taking the top spot!

Chuck Stone

Biggins wrote: »

We will agree to disagree (if thats ok?) on a number of matters.

Lol, yeah, of course.

My short version is still that I still see PRESENTLY Iran as the top most biggest threat to world peace for reasons already stated.

The USA is certainly not helping nor is it with 'clean hands' - far from it - but presently in answer to the OP's question, I would select Iran to be top of the list right now.

Fair enough.

Here's my position.

I think that Iran has neither the will nor ability to cause any significant threat to world peace purely for practical reasons.

It could probably disrupt the supply of oil for a short time if it wanted but it would only be a retaliatory move against an act of war by the US.

I'd agree that the situation out there is the biggest threat to world peace but for more reasons than just Iran = bad guy.

RichieC

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm just saying that there is a context - rejected peace talks/offers, threats of war, sanctions, history of overthrowing democratically elected Iranian governments to retain control of their natural resources, Israel's threater dominance, Iranian ambitions to become a regional power, control of hydrocarbons in the great game etc.

Sheesh!

Don't forget they are also the worlds 17th largest economy, with a non usury banking system. a major threat to the western banking interests. Or as I like to call it, the PTB.

Chuck Stone

RichieC wrote: »

Don't forget they are also the worlds 17th largest economy, with a non usury banking system. a major threat to the western banking interests. Or as I like to call it, the PTB.

It's all about controlling the region. There is of course the small matter of billions of dollars worth of Iranian hydrocarbons too.

The quote 'he who controls the spice controls the universe' comes to mind.

Nothingbetter2d

its gotta be andorra....... its sheer size makes it a big threat.... they be needing more land soon

Toby Take a Bow

Freddie59 wrote: »

War, my friend, is very simplistic with the benefit of hindsight. To cow-towing by naieve people to dictators and their whims can ultimately trigger it. Then we ask why it could not have been foreseen.:rolleyes:

Good point. Completely ignore (once again) the different scenarios, and continue to play Godwin's Law. And then end your point with rolleyes, which is fast becoming your trademark to your 'points'.

Freddie59 wrote: »

I refer you to Biggins' answer.

Biggins didn't answer my question, which was directed at yourself, anyway, so I'll ask again. Give me an example of Iran trying to 'usurp the west'. Supplying arms to terrorist factions in the middle east is not an attempt to 'usurp the west'. To 'usurp the west' you would need to engage in some kind of operation to destroy western power or influence, on an international scale.

Freddie59 wrote: »

With nuclear technology.

They sure are. If you believe they're developing nuclear weapons, then nuclear technology will help to act as a mutual destruction deterrent (similar to the cold war and pakistan v india). If you believe it's simply for nuclear power stations, then nuclear technology is being used to prevent an over-reliance on fossil fuels. Either way, I'd say nuclear technology is a very, very attractive prospect to the iranian regime.

Freddie59 wrote: »

According to you. It is, indeed, VERY black and white. Stop it before it starts - or suffer the consequences.

Nah, according to me and the vast majority of historians and economists. A black-and-white worldview is a very dangerous thing to hold.

Biggins wrote: »

...So to sum up, you think Iran is pure as the driven snow?
...That their offers of peace talks - gestures given, only to be reversed on the ground and inspectors blocked - are genuine?
Have you lived and experience a very similar process done by Gadaffi for over 20 years?
An exactly same process and regurgitated PR stunt process by the way!

Hmm, I seem to have come across this kind of 'arguing' on the internet before. Paraphrase somebody's argument and turn it into something the person hasn't said at all. Nobody here is arguing that Iran is as 'pure as the driven snow'. I think it's interesting that you're arguing that Iran is the biggest threat to world peace, because they sold arms to terrorists operating in a country that America has been invading for nearly 10 years now. That's the same America that's invaded her neighbour twice, btw.

wes

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I think it's interesting that you're arguing that Iran is the biggest threat to world peace, because they sold arms to terrorists operating in a country that America has been invading for nearly 10 years now.

To add to your point, the US also funded a lot the same people who eventually became the Taliban btw.

Biggins

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

...I think it's interesting that you're arguing that Iran is the biggest threat to world peace, because they sold arms to terrorists operating in a country that America has been invading for nearly 10 years now. That's the same America that's invaded her neighbour twice, btw.

Aaa... no, that was just one additional aspect of further debate that came up while I was wrecking Chuckies head in retort!

...As for America, interesting graph I came across on the net a few weeks ago: http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7064/irana.jpg

Chuck Stone wrote: »

...I'd agree that the situation out there is the biggest threat to world peace but for more reasons than just Iran = bad guy.

No argument there.

Toby Take a Bow

Biggins wrote: »

...As for America, interesting graph I came across on the net a few weeks ago: http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7064/irana.jpg

I do like a good graph.