Who is greater threat to the world peace: Iran, Iraq, United States or North Korea?

24-10-2010 09:28AM

Where's the China button?

I don't trust them rich expansionist commie bastards.

Marcus.Aurelius · 24-10-2010 11:52AM

The Americans are so quickly curtailing their own freedoms of expression and ownership of public places that they are the biggest threat to the ideal of democracy.

Already they lag behind other countries with their electoral colleges and lack of proportional representation in elections.

galwayrush · 24-10-2010 12:30PM

Iran, followed by N. Korea. In a few years time, perhaps China if they start running out of food.

The Waltzing Consumer · 24-10-2010 12:54PM

Ah, its gotta be the US. Not for any obvious anti-American feeling, but just stating the obvious. I would think the US, Israel, Russia and China are the real threats.

North Korea? Bit mad some people have voted for them. Have they occupied any countries recently?

liah · 24-10-2010 01:57PM

The US tbh. The other countries keep to themselves or are only concerned with gaining back territory they'd lost. The US on the other hand seems to consider themselves world police and have done little but prolong or instigate war.

Think about how many people were killed on 9/11 (civilians) compared to the 60,000+ (civilian) deaths in Iraq since that day. Also keep in mind that the attacks on the States or other parts of the West were centralized and not prolonged and, outside of the tragic loss of many lives, were relatively quickly recovered from. Compare that to what the US is doing in the Middle East.

The US is a big country with a massive military, comparing it to the likes of Iran or Iraq or North Korea is a bit stupid, they just can't compare. They may be horrible to their own people and the countries in their immediate surroundings, but they are not world threats.

And if they do turn into "world" threats.. the anger seems to be directed mostly at the States.

You'd be better off comparing it to China, but in fairness, China seems to be keeping to itself on the war front at the moment.

gizmo · 24-10-2010 02:16PM

liah wrote: »

The US tbh. The other countries keep to themselves or are only concerned with gaining back territory they'd lost. The US on the other hand seems to consider themselves world police and have done little but prolong or instigate war.

And what if, in simply attempting to gain back the territories they've lost in the past, they spark off a wider conflict in the region?

Corsendonk · 24-10-2010 02:22PM

Austria!

WW1- started WW1 in retribution to the death of Grand Duke Ferdinand
WW2- Hitler

liah · 24-10-2010 02:31PM

gizmo wrote: »

And what if, in simply attempting to gain back the territories they've lost in the past, they spark off a wider conflict in the region?

It's still not a world threat until countries like the US try to stick their nose where it doesn't belong and escalate things as they've done in the last few years.

Also, keep in mind who arms these countries.

HavingCrack · 24-10-2010 02:35PM

Serious Answer: The United States by miles. Iraq is effectively part of the US, what would Iran gain from attacking Israel apart from a nucelar response and North Korea knows any attack on the South would lead to a resumption of a full scale war on the Korean penninsula.

Real Answer: Atari Jaguar is the greatest threat to world peace at the current moment.

Sanjuro · 24-10-2010 02:36PM

Not Iran. Sure, their leader is a complete lunatic. And their bravado isn't exactly helping things in terms of the Middle East. But they're not the biggest threat to world peace.

The biggest threat to world peace is US Foreign Policy. I'm sure they think they're doing the right thing. But what they're really doing is creating incredible animosity towards the west in the Middle East and that, more than anything else, is the real threat to world peace.

sxt · 24-10-2010 02:53PM

liah wrote: »

Think about how many people were killed on 9/11 (civilians) compared to the 60,000+ (civilian) deaths in Iraq since that day.

.

You could add another zero at the end of the Iraqi civilian deaths estimate ,which is even more harrowing

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/11/iraq.iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

Sharkey 10 · 24-10-2010 03:05PM

Usually if world peace is broken it is broken by the US

gizmo · 24-10-2010 03:21PM

liah wrote: »

It's still not a world threat until countries like the US try to stick their nose where it doesn't belong and escalate things as they've done in the last few years.

And if Iran attacked Israel tomorrow, would you prefer the US to do nothing?

If they do get involved, how do you think Russia and China will react when they new trade partner is involved in a conflict with the US?

And if they don't get involved, how long do you think Israel will last?

Sanjuro · 24-10-2010 03:24PM

Iran will not attack Israel tomorrow. Or the next day for that matter. Iran may be many things, but they're not suicidal. An attack on Israel would be suicide for Iran. What they will do is whip up hatred for Israel in the Middle East. They'll get other countries to do their scrapping for them.

liah · 24-10-2010 03:28PM

gizmo wrote: »

And if Iran attacked Israel tomorrow, would you prefer the US to do nothing?

If they do get involved, how do you think Russia and China will react when they new trade partner is involved in a conflict with the US?

And if they don't get involved, how long do you think Israel will last?

Yes. I can honestly say I would like the US to do nothing.

It is their problem. It's their country. It's their choice. It has nothing at all to do with the US. Let them sort it out between themselves.

There is no reason to have a World Police. The US do not decide the moral assignment of other countries nor who they choose to attack and therefore have no right to interfere.

It's none of their business.

DeVore · 24-10-2010 03:29PM

North Korea.

Nuclear and bonkers. Bad combo.

DeV.

ricero · 24-10-2010 03:30PM

my penis

gizmo · 24-10-2010 03:32PM

Sanjuro wrote: »

Iran will not attack Israel tomorrow. Or the next day for that matter. Iran may be many things, but they're not suicidal. An attack on Israel would be suicide for Iran. What they will do is whip up hatred for Israel in the Middle East. They'll get other countries to do their scrapping for them.

Conversely, now swap "America" for "Iran", "Iran" for "Israel" and "Middle East" with "media". Also hope the last sentence doesn't apply.

liah wrote: »

Yes. I can honestly say I would like the US to do nothing.

So you'd be happy to see Israel wiped out?

liah wrote: »

It is their problem. It's their country. It's their choice. It has nothing at all to do with the US. Let them sort it out between themselves.

There is no reason to have a World Police. The US do not decide the moral assignment of other countries nor who they choose to attack and therefore have no right to interfere.

It's none of their business.

I doubt any country chooses to be invaded to be honest. Also, if Ireland was to be hypothetically invaded, who would you prefer to come to our aid?

That being said, ideally no, we don't need a world police in the manner in which people label it here but in a situation where China and Russia would veto any meaningful response from the UN in the event of Iran attacking Israel, would you actually be comfortable sitting back and saying "let them sort their own mess out" as Israel gets hammered into the ground?

HavingCrack · 24-10-2010 04:09PM

gizmo wrote: »

Conversely, now swap "America" for "Iran", "Iran" for "Israel" and "Middle East" with "media". Also hope the last sentence doesn't apply.

So you'd be happy to see Israel wiped out?

I doubt any country chooses to be invaded to be honest. Also, if Ireland was to be hypothetically invaded, who would you prefer to come to our aid?

That being said, ideally no, we don't need a world police in the manner in which people label it here but in a situation where China and Russia would veto any meaningful response from the UN in the event of Iran attacking Israel, would you actually be comfortable sitting back and saying "let them sort their own mess out" as Israel gets hammered into the ground?

The Israeli's have an estimated 100 nuclear warheads, the Iranians, despite a widespread mistruth being fed to the West by the likes of Fox News do not have any.

The Israeli army is the 4th largest in the world I think. I can safely say there is not a hope that Iran will ever attack Israel directly, it would only lead to an Israeli nuclear response which would kill millions of Iranians. The Iranian government may talk a lot but they're not suicidal.

gizmo · 24-10-2010 04:17PM

HavingCrack wrote: »

The Israeli's have an estimated 100 nuclear warheads, the Iranians, despite a widespread mistruth being fed to the West by the likes of Fox News do not have any.

The Israeli army is the 4th largest in the world I think. I can safely say there is not a hope that Iran will ever attack Israel directly, it would only lead to an Israeli nuclear response which would kill millions of Iranians. The Iranian government may talk a lot but they're not suicidal.

While the nuclear option is, of course, there for Israel, not even the US would condone them using it as it would devastate not only the region but also the West due to the effect it would have on oil prices worldwide.

As for the size of the military, I'm not sure where you heard the 4th largest quote but according to this they have the 17th largest.

Sanjuro · 24-10-2010 04:23PM

gizmo wrote: »

So you'd be happy to see Israel wiped out?

That's an unfair conclusion to make from Liah's previous comment. The fact that the US interferes in the Middle Eastern politics is what contributes in a big way to the problems that exist there. To want the US to butt out does not mean a wish for the destruction of Israel. You cant just draw a line between the two. And besides, Israel's army is well able to take care of itself. That the US backs them no matter what just gives them carte blanche to do what they want without reproach. Which in turn contributes to anti-US sentiments in the Middle East.

HavingCrack · 24-10-2010 04:28PM

gizmo wrote: »

While the nuclear option is, of course, there for Israel, not even the US would condone them using it as it would devastate not only the region but also the West due to the effect it would have on oil prices worldwide.

As for the size of the military, I'm not sure where you heard the 4th largest quote but according to this they have the 17th largest.

Apparently (I can't remember what my source was, I'll have a look and get back to you), the Israeli's have a policy that if an invading army advances more than 10 kilometres into Israel they'll launch a nuclear respone. If the territorial future of the Israeli state was under threat I think they would launch a nuclear strike regardless of international opinion.

I can't remember where I heard the Israeli's had the 4th largest army, perhaps I'm wrong

24-10-2010 04:31PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpjgl2baLs

Clawdeeus · 24-10-2010 04:33PM

An awful lot of this is a question of capability. Do I think the US is more dangerous? Yes. Do I think it is more rational than N.Korea/ Iran? Yes. Equally, both those countries, no matter how caraaaazy they get are regional powers, and will remain as such for the forseeable future, the US as the only world superpower (ish) has the potential to be involved in more conflicts all around the globe, purely by virtue of its power.

Clawdeeus · 24-10-2010 04:37PM

HavingCrack wrote: »

The Israeli's have an estimated 100 nuclear warheads, the Iranians, despite a widespread mistruth being fed to the West by the likes of Fox News do not have any.

The Israeli army is the 4th largest in the world I think. I can safely say there is not a hope that Iran will ever attack Israel directly, it would only lead to an Israeli nuclear response which would kill millions of Iranians. The Iranian government may talk a lot but they're not suicidal.

Just to clarify, no one says they have one, they say they want to build one (or are building one). And I agree, there is no way Israel will be defeated by any power in the middle east (even a united middle east) whislt the US is an ally. However, the fear of Irans nuclear program comes as much from ARab states as Israel; albiet they are more quiet about it.

MickShamrock · 24-10-2010 05:32PM

North Korea.

gizmo · 24-10-2010 05:37PM

Sanjuro wrote: »

That's an unfair conclusion to make from Liah's previous comment. The fact that the US interferes in the Middle Eastern politics is what contributes in a big way to the problems that exist there. To want the US to butt out does not mean a wish for the destruction of Israel. You cant just draw a line between the two. And besides, Israel's army is well able to take care of itself. That the US backs them no matter what just gives them carte blanche to do what they want without reproach. Which in turn contributes to anti-US sentiments in the Middle East.

It's not so much that I'm implying supporting the idea that the US should butt out means that one supports the destruction of Israel but it could be a very real consequence and it's one that should be considered when making such a point. This interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski has been posted before but I think he deals with the issue extremely well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xat-C4SpBl4

HavingCrack wrote: »

Apparently (I can't remember what my source was, I'll have a look and get back to you), the Israeli's have a policy that if an invading army advances more than 10 kilometres into Israel they'll launch a nuclear respone. If the territorial future of the Israeli state was under threat I think they would launch a nuclear strike regardless of international opinion.

That'd be Samson Option and to be honest I find it the prospect pretty terrifying for not only the lives that would be lost but to the knock-on effect it would cause elsewhere in the world.

HavingCrack · 24-10-2010 09:36PM

gizmo wrote: »

That'd be Samson Option and to be honest I find it the prospect pretty terrifying for not only the lives that would be lost but to the knock-on effect it would cause elsewhere in the world.

Which is exactly why I cannot see Iran ever launching an attack on Israel, the stakes are far too high. They're not going to risk their own destruction in order to satisfy some need to drive the Israeli's into the sea.

McDougal · 24-10-2010 10:35PM

If you go by countries invaded and civillians killed then the US by a long way

Seaneh · 24-10-2010 10:49PM

gizmo wrote: »

And if Iran attacked Israel tomorrow, would you prefer the US to do nothing?

If they do get involved, how do you think Russia and China will react when they new trade partner is involved in a conflict with the US?

And if they don't get involved, how long do you think Israel will last?

The IDF and IAF would wipe the floor with Iran. They are constantly watching Iran's troop movements and airforce for possible action. They already have a strike plan. Within hours of Iran even looing like they were going to attack Israel, Tehran would be worse than london in the middle of the blitzkrieg.

The IDF and IAF are some of the best train military personal in the world.

Who is greater threat to the world peace: Iran, Iraq, United States or North Korea?

Comments