Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1234568

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    2ndcoming wrote: »
    If a country who the majority of the world seem to hold up as the guardians of freedom and the 'heroes of the universe' had funded various wars in all of your neighbouring countries, changing sides as it pleased them and often directly intervening to make sure the result suits them, all the while protecting your mortal enemy who they plonked into the middle of your neighbour's country about 60 years ago, would you consider yourself the aggressor? Do you think the average Iranian considers themselves the aggressor?

    No. I'd say the average Iranian considers the religious zealots who are trying to subjugate him or her as the ultimate aggressor. And the key words in your post above? The majority of the world. Yes the majority do hold them up as that. Thankfully. And not the Che wannabees who occupy fora such as these.


  • Options
    #213
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    RichieC wrote: »
    Though, I doubt freddie is part of it as his debating isn't up to their standards. They usually appear to be rather moderate posters unless you actually read into what they are saying. It's what we call false moderation. Very much like the style of writing you'll find from the Heritage foundation.

    Ah, Richie. I'd have expected better from you.:)


  • Options
    #214
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Again - according to YOU.



    it is indeed fairly simple - much as naive people attempt to complicate it. How do you know they didn't?;)



    No disagreement there. But that book shows the hypocrisy of the fundamentalist Islamic. Which mentality also controls iRAN.



    At last! Some sense. There's the key phrase: ill-prepared. There were probably people ike your good self around in the 30s who claim ed appeasement was the way forward. Just leave him alone, etc.



    Again, this is YOUR opinion and overview.



    Islamic fundamentalists. Yes, the perfect description. No-one's saying that ALL Islamics are fundamentalists. But they're getting there. much as some choose to ignore the fact.:rolleyes:;):)

    Well, you're deliberately (I hope it's deliberate anyway) misunderstanding basic English terms (specifically 'opinion' and 'misrepresentation') and completely missing the point of appeasement and the general ill-prepared nature of Europe in the run-up to WWII. You also equate Islam with fundamentalism when you seem aghast at the idea that 'Islam' can mean 'peace'. And then you deny that fact. Par the course, I suppose.


  • Options
    #215
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    ..........


    Reality my friend. If it were left to some then we'd all take it up the ass from the Irans of this world.
    .........

    Iran is the worlds only theocracy. Not only that, its Shia, who are one of the minority Islamic sects. This again raises the question how are 'we all' going to be taking it up anything from the Iranians?


  • Options
    #216
    charlemont
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭charlemont


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Incredibly you don't...............

    Well I'm educated*. ;) For all those warmongers here would ye sign up and fight ? I doubt it somehow sure let someone elses children die.


    *God bless those prison libraries...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    charlemont wrote: »
    Well I'm educated*. ;) For all those warmongers here would ye sign up and fight ? I doubt it somehow sure let someone elses children die.

    Look at these useless fucks.


  • Options
    #218
    charlemont
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭charlemont


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Look at these useless fucks.

    Nasty stuff, These people may have money, college degrees etc but they are still only brainwashed sheep... My two uncles done military service in the US and they would be disgusted at these phony wars today.


  • Options
    #219
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Look at these useless fucks.

    hahahaha... 2 min 6 seconds... jesus fking christ.


  • Options
    #220
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    And YOU do?:D

    Compared to you uninformed hysterical rants, that would be a yes.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Again according to you. But back at ya.;)

    Well, considering you talking about a secret Iranian plot to take over the world, without any proof, I think it more a statement of fact....
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Reality my friend. If it were left to some then we'd all take it up the ass from the Irans of this world.

    Iran isn't threatening the West. That is a delusion coming from blood thirsty nut jobs.

    As I pointed it, it has been the US who has been threatening Iran since the 50s. Now I know facts have no bearing in your alternate reality, but maybe some will eventually sink in.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    For a few crazies in a cave write a few crazies in a beer hall. And there were those who were stupid enough to ignore it. Just like now.

    Seriously, is World War 2 the only historical event you are aware of? You seem to also be completely unaware, of the circumstances to the Nazi's coming to power. **HINT** It has something to do with the war that came before it.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Nice twist. But pathetic pacifist nonsense behind the facade.

    Another excuse for the US murdering civilian. Truly repugnant.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Different year. Same threat. Same methodology. Same people ignoring it.

    Not even close. You seem unable to not invoke World War 2, which is rather amusing, and you happily ignore mass murder by the US, which is really rather repugnant.

    I honestly have to wonder if your posts are a parody of bloody thirsty right wing war monger.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Sigh - will some people ever learn.

    It seems the rest of us have some how managed to read history books, that cover other historical events that aren't World War 2. I know amazing, right?
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    What's even more telling is that you choose to ignore the most horrific conflict the world has seen - and to learn any lessons from it.

    Whats telling is that you don't have a clue about Iran, and to compare them to the rise of Nazi Germany is utterly laughable. You invoke World War 2 to justify your war mongering and nothing more. You care less when the US murder civilians and you have shown that multiples time already, by making repugnant excuses for it.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Maybe so. But I have the freedom to post what you perceive as craziness.

    No one said other wise......... I take it you have a bit of a victim complex....
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Tell me - is there a Boards.ir? Thought not.

    Seriously trying to play some kind if victim, solely on the basis that someone dared disagree with. You see I have every right with in the rules of this boards to reply you you say. Now, to turn around and claim that you are some kind of victim that people are trying to silence on that basis, is nothing short of ridiculous.


  • Options
    #221
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    wes wrote: »
    Compared to you uninformed hysterical rants, that would be a yes.

    My my. And you label ME hysterical? Ah you're hysterically funny though!;)
    wes wrote: »
    Well, considering you talking about a secret Iranian plot to take over the world, without any proof, I think it more a statement of fact....

    Yeah they probably mean well really.......
    wes wrote: »
    Iran isn't threatening the West. That is a delusion coming from blood thirsty nut jobs.

    Of course it isn't......:rolleyes:
    wes wrote: »
    As I pointed it, it has been the US who has been threatening Iran since the 50s. Now I know facts have no bearing in your alternate reality, but maybe some will eventually sink in.

    Coming from yourself, that's a bit rich!
    wes wrote: »
    Seriously, is World War 2 the only historical event you are aware of? You seem to also be completely unaware, of the circumstances to the Nazi's coming to power. **HINT** It has something to do with the war that came before it.

    Seriously, why do you wish to whitewash the single biggest event from which we can learn. Seriously?!
    wes wrote: »
    Another excuse for the US murdering civilian. Truly repugnant.
    Whatever.
    wes wrote: »
    Not even close. You seem unable to not invoke World War 2, which is rather amusing, and you happily ignore mass murder by the US, which is really rather repugnant.

    I honestly have to wonder if your posts are a parody of bloody thirsty right wing war monger.

    As I said already the US isn't perfect, but I'd have them as world leaders before any of the other cnuts in the queue. Or their brainwashed supporters and defenders.
    wes wrote: »
    It seems the rest of us have some how managed to read history books, that cover other historical events that aren't World War 2. I know amazing, right?

    Absolutely. A history book that ignores the biggest catastrophe to befall the planet in the last 100 years. Must be right up your alley!
    wes wrote: »
    Whats telling is that you don't have a clue about Iran, and to compare them to the rise of Nazi Germany is utterly laughable. You invoke World War 2 to justify your war mongering and nothing more. You care less when the US murder civilians and you have shown that multiples time already, by making repugnant excuses for it.

    Again with wanting to whitewash WW2.:rolleyes: Merely because it highlights the insane support you wish towards Iran and their ilk because of your blatant, incomprehensible hatred of the US and all that it stands for.
    wes wrote: »
    Seriously trying to play some kind if victim, solely on the basis that someone dared disagree with. You see I have every right with in the rules of this boards to reply you you say. Now, to turn around and claim that you are some kind of victim that people are trying to silence on that basis, is nothing short of ridiculous.

    I'm glad you posted that last paragraph Wes. Read it again. Slowly this time. And think of what you just posted. The bolded bit is a hint.:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Toby Take a Bow wrote: »
    Well, you're deliberately (I hope it's deliberate anyway) misunderstanding basic English terms (specifically 'opinion' and 'misrepresentation') and completely missing the point of appeasement and the general ill-prepared nature of Europe in the run-up to WWII. You also equate Islam with fundamentalism when you seem aghast at the idea that 'Islam' can mean 'peace'. And then you deny that fact. Par the course, I suppose.

    What, Toby, was the 'point of appeasement' as you put it? Amazing how people get so het up when someone comes on to argue against the blatant and hypocritical anti-American bias by the usual suspects on these fora though.:)


  • Options
    #223
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    I think the question should be not "who is the biggest threat to world peace". It should be which country/countries is the likeliest to plunge us into a nuclear Winter - and it isn't Iran.

    In my opinion, Israel is the most likely country to do this and the biggest threat to our very being not just the world.

    Yesterday was an important day a turning point even with regard to the push for war with Iran. Netanyahus speech to the AIPAC conference was his casus belli and in my opinion he has virtually backed himself into a corner and set Israel on a course of military action against Iran which will be illegal, destructive and devastating probably for all of us if not militarily most certainly economically. In my opinion it will also result in the destruction of the nation of Israel as we know it.

    In yesterdays speech he compared Iran to Nazi Germany - he compared their nuclear facilities to death camps and equated his current trip to the states to that of the pleas of the Jewish community to former President Roosevelt to bomb Auschwitz in 44' which was turned down.

    "never will he let Israel live under the shadow of annihilation again". The exact same "justification" was presented by Menachem Bengin in 81 and on that occasion Israel followed through and bombed the Iraqi nuclear program. By playing the Holocaust card so strongly Natanyanhu for me has crossed a line and is beyond the point of no return heading full steam toward an attack on Iran and all the consequence that is to follow. After saying such thing it will be hard for him not to follow through with his threats especially after giving the Iranians a list of ultimatums he knows full well they wont agree too.

    Then you factor in the Russians, the Chinese, the US - all countries making moves making noise with regard to Iran and I think its obvious that its a serious situation and its being "driven" by the Israelis. Then factor in the Israeli "Samson" option - if faced with total defeat on the battlefield they are prepared to take the rest of the world with them through massive nuclear retaliation. Then take into account that Israel is a "one" bomb country. Israel has two major cities Jersualem and Tel Aviv with Tel Aviv being the heartbeat of that nation. I often wonder do people calling for a strike against Iran truly understand what exactly is at stake. People claim Iran wants the bomb to destroy Israel. The fact of the matter is they dont need a nuclear capacity to that if indeed thats what they wanted to do. They could reduce Tel Aviv or big chunks of it and in essence Israel to rubble through their proxies and ballistic missiles if they wanted to yet they haven't. They have enough nuclear material to radiate large portions of Israel making it uninhabitable to live in yet they have chosen not to this either.

    I feel sorry for the average Iranian and Israeli because when this kicks off the death toll is going to be massive. When Israel attacks Iran it will be Tel Aviv that is bombarded Im wondering do some people honestly believe that city can stand up to and Israel, the tiny nation that it is, recover from the thousands and thousands and thousands of missiles that will fall on that city. In my opinion Iran wont target Jersualem in the same way as its sacred to both Jewish and Muslim people they wont risk alienating the Muslim world - Tel Aviv on the other hand will be pounded and I dont believe Israel will ever recover from it. With Tel Aviv in ruins the country in chaos Israel will be facing total defeat on the battleground for the first time in history regardless of US intervention even their sophisticated radar and interceptors wont be able to stop the majority of missiles that will be launched against Israel.

    Taking all things into consideration, as things stand March 2012, Israel is the biggest threat to humanity let us hope an attack never takes place as once it starts there is no telling what will happen. Iraq will be a walk in the park compared to whats on the way.


  • Options
    #224
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    And still no answer. What a suprise.


  • Options
    #225
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    Bhutan, obviously.


  • Options
    #226
    Naomi00
    Registered Users Posts: 670 ✭✭✭Naomi00


    Why is China not on the list?


  • Options
    #227
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    Naomi00 wrote: »
    Why is China not on the list?

    China is not a threat to world peace at the minute. Ever since tensions with India subsided in the 1980's and 1990's they have no real land border disputes anymore. Sino-Japanese relations, while relatively poor are extremely unlikely to escalate to armed hostilites.

    Taiwan is unlikely to be the flare that sparks a Chinese war either, they have US backing and the Chinese do not want a war with the US at any cost, it would be unbelieveably destructive to China even if they won.

    The South China Sea is another focus point but there is no state there capable of standing up to Chinese bullying through physical force-Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillippines, Vietnam etc. simply do not have the military capacity. Even if there was a localised war here it would not be important enough to cause a global outbreak.

    Chinese support for Iran is strong but not strong enough to result it in fighting US and/or Israeli forces in the case of war.

    Simply put, China does not want a war with anyone, as any sane thinking state would wish. There may be some sabre rattling, particularly in the Straits of Malacca but nothing that could be considered war.


  • Options
    #228
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    What, Toby, was the 'point of appeasement' as you put it? Amazing how people get so het up when someone comes on to argue against the blatant and hypocritical anti-American bias by the usual suspects on these fora though.:)

    Appeasement was an attempt to avoid a war which the west viewed it was unprepared and unwilling for. And given that the Soviet Union was also unprepared, it would have been a war that could have been a disaster (you know, more of a disaster than it was). If you view the USSR as taking until (say) 1942 to get its sh*t together, then that viewpoint holds true. I'm not sure why arguing against a simplistic understanding of WWII means getting 'het' up against a so-called anti-American bias.


  • Options
    #229
    el diablo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,745 ✭✭✭el diablo


    Israel for me. No time to give an explanation though. :)

    We're all in this psy-op together.🤨



  • Options
    #230
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Toby Take a Bow wrote: »
    Appeasement was an attempt to avoid a war which the west viewed it was unprepared and unwilling for. And given that the Soviet Union was also unprepared, it would have been a war that could have been a disaster (you know, more of a disaster than it was). If you view the USSR as taking until (say) 1942 to get its sh*t together, then that viewpoint holds true. I'm not sure why arguing against a simplistic understanding of WWII means getting 'het' up against a so-called anti-American bias.

    We'll have to agree to disagree on appeasement Toby. That is one view. But the anti-American hatred on these fora is truly astonishing. But only by a select number of posters.


  • Options
    #231
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    My my. And you label ME hysterical? Ah you're hysterically funny though!;)

    Considering your laboured World War 2 comparisons, hysterics is perfectly accurate.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Yeah they probably mean well really.......

    So, no proof of your secret Iranian plot to take over the world. Its amazing that can make such claims with a straight face....
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Of course it isn't......:rolleyes:

    Iran isn't threatening the West. Iran has at times engaged in retaliation, against the West, but there hardly looking for a fight.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Coming from yourself, that's a bit rich!

    Your inabilty to address a single point, is rather astonishing. Insisting that you are right on the sole basis of nothing.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Seriously, why do you wish to whitewash the single biggest event from which we can learn. Seriously?!

    Why are you trying to white wash, the rest of history? Its not my problem that you seem to only be capable of comparing everything to World War 2. Personally, I tend to think it better to learn form as much history as possible, and not just one single historical event.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Whatever.

    I am not the one making repugnant excuses for mass murder, and your flippant attitude shows you up.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    As I said already the US isn't perfect, but I'd have them as world leaders before any of the other cnuts in the queue. Or their brainwashed supporters and defenders.

    Coming from someone who refuse to call US crimes exactly what they are, I think it rather rich for you accuse anyone else of brain washing.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Absolutely. A history book that ignores the biggest catastrophe to befall the planet in the last 100 years. Must be right up your alley!

    Again, there is more to history than World War 2. You seem unable to acknowledge that in your hysterics.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Again with wanting to whitewash WW2.:rolleyes: Merely because it highlights the insane support you wish towards Iran and their ilk because of your blatant, incomprehensible hatred of the US and all that it stands for.

    Again, the current situation is nothing like World War 2. Comparing stuff to World War 2, is a common war monger tactic. Iran are not the first to be compared, at one point it was Nasser, another it was Saddam etc, and now Iran. Your silly comparison is not new, and its a cheap ploy for those who want war, but can't actually provide any evidence to back up there claims, so they engage in hyperbolic comparisons to World War 2, as they have nothing else.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    I'm glad you posted that last paragraph Wes. Read it again. Slowly this time. And think of what you just posted. The bolded bit is a hint.:)

    Sorry, I made a few typo's, as I was in a rush. If thats all you got, then your in a lot of trouble. Still doesn't change your victim complex.

    So, in conclusion, you have nothing but hyperbole and an obessesion with World War 2, probably due to a lack of knowing any other historical event, and are using a well worn tactic of screaming Hitler, when you can't back up any of your farcical fictional claims. You see screaming Hitler at every oppurtunity kind of destroys its effect after a while, and seeing as people like yourself have done so repeatedly since the end of World War 2, its really shouldn't be hard to understand why people take such claims with a rather large pinch of salt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    We'll have to agree to disagree on appeasement Toby.

    Fair enough.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    That is one view. But the anti-American hatred on these fora is truly astonishing. But only by a select number of posters.

    Were you not saying in response to some of my previous points about differences of opinion? If changing a person's original idea in order to further your argument can be considered a 'difference of opinion', surely an actual difference of opinion (on America) would be considered a, you know, difference of opinion?


  • Options
    #233
    xflyer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    It's a ridiculous poll designed to ensure that America and Israel 'win'.

    Leaving out China and Russia deliberately skews it.

    Apart from anything else there is no threat to 'world peace' from any country.

    There is a threat to certain regions, Iran being one, North Korea being another.

    Israel is no threat to anyone if they're left alone to get on with their lives. Something the Iranians are refusing to do.


  • Options
    #234
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    xflyer wrote: »
    Israel is no threat to anyone if they're left alone to get on with their lives. Something the Iranians are refusing to do.

    Unless you are Palestinian or Lebanese of course. Oh and unless you are subject to the brutal regimes that the US props up and sells weapons to and Israel finds allies in and works through its lobby to keep it that way.

    Well then I guess you're correct in your assertion.


  • Options
    #235
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    xflyer wrote: »
    Israel is no threat to anyone if they're left alone to get on with their lives. Something the Iranians are refusing to do.

    I must have missed all those Iranian attacks on Israel......

    Also, as pointed out above, Israel is hardly leaving the Palestinians alone, in fact they are at present stealing more and more of there land on a daily basis. So looks like Israel are the ones who can't leave others alone.


  • Options
    #236
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    xflyer wrote: »
    ...........

    Israel is no threat to anyone if they're left alone to get on with their lives. ..................

    ...other than Lebanon, people they don't like and the people they're colonising.


  • Options
    #237
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Toby Take a Bow wrote: »
    Were you not saying in response to some of my previous points about differences of opinion? If changing a person's original idea in order to further your argument can be considered a 'difference of opinion', surely an actual difference of opinion (on America) would be considered a, you know, difference of opinion?

    Yeah, true enough. But the anti-US hatred is palpable (and unjustified) at times.


  • Options
    #238
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    wes wrote: »
    So, in conclusion, you have nothing but hyperbole and an obessesion with World War 2, probably due to a lack of knowing any other historical event, and are using a well worn tactic of screaming Hitler, when you can't back up any of your farcical fictional claims. You see screaming Hitler at every oppurtunity kind of destroys its effect after a while, and seeing as people like yourself have done so repeatedly since the end of World War 2, its really shouldn't be hard to understand why people take such claims with a rather large pinch of salt.

    People like you Wes. People like you. In fairness, after that diatribe you're in no position to lecture ANYONE! As I've pointed out before those links in your sig say it all about you.:)


  • Options
    #239
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    People like you Wes. People like you. In fairness, after that diatribe you're in no position to lecture ANYONE! As I've pointed out before those links in your sig say it all about you.:)


    You've yet to give of your wisdom as to how Iran is a threat to Ireland.


  • Options
    #240
    micropig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭micropig


    Nodin wrote: »
    You've yet to give of your wisdom as to how Iran is a threat to Ireland.

    They were after me at one stage but I ran:p


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Just a point to consider - and I'm NOT debating for either side.
    Just throwing this out there!

    IF something like a nuke went off anywhere, depending on how big and what way the wind was blowing, radiation (and fallout dust, etc) travels!
    Be that nuke dust coming from England or a nuke going off in an Arab state!

    Short version - even more innocent lives will be lost either way (along with economies effected)!


Advertisement