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

gizmo

McDougal wrote: »

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

Actually given that North Korea started the Korean War in the 50s which lead to over 2m civilians deaths, I don't think the US are ahead by that much.

HavingCrack wrote: »

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.

That is simply a plan they have in place, if was to be enacted upon Israel would lose all foreign support and regardless of the outcome of the strikes, they would not survive for much longer in the region. As such, I don't think it's likely they would attempt it and the Iranians know it. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think either of them are going to strike any time soon, my point in all of this is that the US isn't the most obvious answer to the question put in the OP given the current climate.

McDougal

gizmo wrote: »

Actually given that North Korea started the Korean War in the 50s which lead to over 2m civilians deaths, I don't think the US are ahead by that much.

That would have been a short civil war for koreans to decide if the US hadn't poked their noses in

And the US killed over 3.6 million civillians in Vietnam and Cambodia alone.

nacho libre

McDougal wrote: »

That would have been a short civil war for koreans to decide if the US hadn't poked their noses in

And the US killed over 3.6 million civillians in Vietnam and Cambodia alone.

you're wasting your time. for the US foreign policy apologists there is always a mitigating circumstance. their position is morally brankrupt; it is akin to a man charged with rape, trying to minimize his actions by pointing out that someone else raped and murdered someone.

gizmo

McDougal wrote: »

That would have been a short civil war for koreans to decide if the US hadn't poked their noses in

And the US killed over 3.6 million civillians in Vietnam and Cambodia alone.

When you say the US poked their noses I assume you mean UN? Need I remind you that the Security Council unanimously agreed to intervene when the North invaded the South.

nacho libre wrote: »

you're wasting your time. for the US foreign policy apologists there is always a mitigating circumstance. their position is morally brankrupt; it is akin to a man charged with rape, trying to minimize his actions by pointing out that someone else raped and murdered someone.

Sorry if I prefer dealing in facts rather than anti-American diatribe.

coolhandspan

iceland, definitely iceland, oh sorry not an option, but they have caused a lot of hassle recently.... little devils

McDougal

gizmo wrote: »

When you say the US poked their noses I assume you mean UN? Need I remind you that the Security Council unanimously agreed to intervene when the North invaded the South.

United Nations my arse. The vote was deliberately taken while the Soviets were absent and the Chinese hhad no vote either. Over 90% of the "United Nations" army were american and was entirely funded by the US. After the US invaded North Korea then the Chinese and Soviet Union began supplying the north koreans

gizmo

McDougal wrote: »

United Nations my arse. The vote was deliberately taken while the Soviets were absent and the Chinese hhad no vote either. Over 90% of the "United Nations" army were american and was entirely funded by the US. After the US invaded North Korea then the Chinese and Soviet Union began supplying the north koreans

It wasn't deliberately taken at that point, the USSR purposely abstained so as to undermine the legitimacy of the resolution. The make-up of the force is also irrelevant, 7 member states voted in favor of the resolution, 3 abstained and none rejected it. In this context also, if you are to criticize the anti-communist motives of the US then you should equally should criticize the USSR and the Chinese for theirs bias.

As a matter of interest, have you considered what would have happened had the UN not gotten involved? Especially in light of the current situation on both North and South Korea?

McDougal

gizmo wrote: »

It wasn't deliberately taken at that point, the USSR purposely abstained so as to undermine the legitimacy of the resolution. The make-up of the force is also irrelevant, 7 member states voted in favor of the resolution, 3 abstained and none rejected it. In this context also, if you are to criticize the anti-communist motives of the US then you should equally should criticize the USSR and the Chinese for theirs bias.

As a matter of interest, have you considered what would have happened had the UN not gotten involved? Especially in light of the current situation on both North and South Korea?

The USSR was temprarily boycotting the UN over the UN's decision to recognise Taiwan as the legimate Chinese state. It was forced through hastily in their absence. And is one of the nations that voted for it the US puppet government of Baptista's Cuba? What a joke! And of course the composition is relevent. It was an american war not a UN war.

gizmo

McDougal wrote: »

The USSR was temprarily boycotting the UN over the UN's decision to recognise Taiwan as the legimate Chinese state. It was forced through hastily in their absence. And is one of the nations that voted for it the US puppet government of Baptista's Cuba? What a joke! And of course the composition is relevent. It was an american war not a UN war.

If it had been the People's Republic of China and not the ROK sitting on the Security Council, how do you think the vote would have gone?

As for the latter point, shall simply have to agree to disagree.

The question remains though, would you have been happy to see the North Korea incursion succeed?

Celly Smunt

Conor108 wrote: »

I know its "hip and cool" to hate the US nowadays, but theres no comparison with the other 3.

how could you possibly say Iraq is a great threat to world peace?

Axe Rake

We have never achieved world peace so the poll and question is invalid.

There is currently approx 36 unresolved and enduring world conflicts still at play.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/index.html

ddef

F*cking hell, another American bashing thread I see.
would like to see yous live without them and watch the world economy crumble overnight.

pagancornflake

Axe Rake wrote: »

We have never achieved world peace so the poll and question is invalid.

There is currently approx 36 unresolved and enduring world conflicts still at play. (approximately, exactly?)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/index.html

No they aren't invalid. Nowhere does it say "current state of world peace" or the like. The threads title presumably refers to the pursuit of such.

Anyways, "World peace" is an impossible, Utopian idea. It is defined as a state of non-conflict between and within all nations (which of course includes inhabitants). The above reference to extant armed conflicts is immaterial, since in order for world peace to be achieved, all conflicts (including those between individuals and groups in society) would need to be resolved as well.

After looking at that list of yours I must add that the prevalence of bloody wars is far rarer in the civilized world (like Europe and America) than it is in places like Africa. This would lead me to conclude that the United States would be in a far better position to advise other countries in how to achieve peace than Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

Donkey Oaty

Interesting to see that nobody here gives a **** about wars around the world unless they affect the West.

Good luck in your discussion about "world peace" everyone!

johnmcdnl

well seeing as Iraq hardly has a military presence I can't see them doing too much damage in the next few years anyways...

bit of a silly option in the poll tbh - Ireland is a bigger threat to world peace than Iraq

Millicent

ddef wrote: »

F*cking hell, another American bashing thread I see.
would like to see yous live without them and watch the world economy crumble overnight.

World economy my rear end. The dollar is fluctuating at 70 to 75 (€) cent for quite some time now. If we're talking economies, China is the force to be reckoned with. If the American economy was gone, there would be a major depression and I'm not suggesting they aren't large contributors to the world economy but "crumble" is a wee bit dramatic.

Millicent

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Interesting to see that nobody here gives a **** about wars around the world unless they affect the West.

Good luck in your discussion about "world peace" everyone!

Eh?

FreudianSlippers

lol @ zero votes for Iraq. That country has been totally ballsed up by the US

nacho libre

gizmo wrote: »

When you say the US poked their noses I assume you mean UN? Need I remind you that the Security Council unanimously agreed to intervene when the North invaded the South.


Sorry if I prefer dealing in facts rather than anti-American diatribe.

I have no problem dealing in facts, it's you that would seems to have the problem in doing so by equating warranted criticism of numerous US government actions as anti-american diatribe. With this in mind legitimate criticism of american foriegn policy is not tantamount to being anti-american. Much as might suit you to frame things this way.

recylingbin

old_aussie wrote: »

Iran, with it's current mentally challenged leader maddinnerjacket

He seems quite clever to me.

gizmo

nacho libre wrote: »

I have no problem dealing in facts, it's you that would seems to have the problem in doing so by equating warranted criticism of numerous US government actions as anti-american diatribe. With this in mind legitimate criticism of american foriegn policy is not tantamount to being anti-american. Much as might suit you to frame things this way.

You didn't give any warranted criticism though, you made a veiled insult based on the fact that I disagreed with what the poster said. The diatribe comment is based on your disgusting analogy as well as using the the frequently abused term "morally bankrupt" to describe their position. For the record, the US and its foreign policy are guilty of a hell of a lot of abuses but neither quoting incidents incorrectly nor resorting to such hyperbolic terms helps the debate in the slightest.

FreudianSlippers

recylingbin wrote: »

He seems quite clever to me.

Yeah, he's the only one calling out the rest of the sane world on that whole Holocaust hoax.

recylingbin

OisinT wrote: »

Yeah, he's the only one calling out the rest of the sane world on that whole Holocaust hoax.

Seems to have gone down very well with his own people.
It's Paisley type politics. Very clever in many ways.

McDougal

ddef wrote: »

F*cking hell, another American bashing thread I see.
would like to see yous live without them and watch the world economy crumble overnight.

err what?!

FreudianSlippers

McDougal wrote: »

err what?!

'merica.. Fúck yeah!

McDougal

OisinT wrote: »

Yeah, he's the only one calling out the rest of the sane world on that whole Holocaust hoax.

I never believe "quotes" attributed to these leaders of the "axis of evil" countries unless I hear them personally. I'm not saying that Adjmadinedad(sp?) never said that but the right wing media always make up false quotes. They make Chavez out to be insane. The media claim he stated the earthquake in Haiti was caused by special US weapons. He said nothing of the sort. No recordings are available of him saying it.

nacho libre

Clawdeeus wrote: »

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? .

With regard to the Iranian leadership for all their fiery rhetoric over the last 30 years they have shown a remarkable knack for self -preservation. It's also worth bearing in mind it's not in their nature to invade other countries.

nacho libre

gizmo wrote: »

You didn't give any warranted criticism though, you made a veiled insult based on the fact that I disagreed with what the poster said. The diatribe comment is based on your disgusting analogy as well as using the the frequently abused term "morally bankrupt" to describe their position. For the record, the US and its foreign policy are guilty of a hell of a lot of abuses but neither quoting incidents incorrectly nor resorting to such hyperbolic terms helps the debate in the slightest.

I've no problem with people disputing erroneous information, it's engaging in semantics to justify various US actions, that they would have no difficulty in condemning another nation for that I have a problem with.
This is why I didn't offer any specific criticism because it's generally a pointless exercise.
For some there is a extenuating reason for every US action, they are incapable of acknowledging them as the henoius crimes they are. So while you might find my analogy digusting and hyperbolic, i feel it's entirely appropriate, and not at all a gross exaggeration, if you are aware of US foreign policy history over the last 50 years. The reality is both the CIA and US military have been guilty of various despicable crimes.

With this in mind you don't absolve/excuse someone of their crime because someone else commits a greater crime. Yet this is what some people attempt to do when they try to minimize certain acts by pointing out that some other government is commiting graver crimes. You say you acknowledge US crimes and abuses, yet in this thread and others you come up with excuses to explain away relationships with dictators and the mass killing of people for strategic interests.
I'm not at all sorry if you don't like me viewing such a position as morally bankrupt. I would say the same to someone who was making excuses for Russian war crimes in various regions.

gizmo

nacho libre wrote: »

I've no problem with people disputing erroneous information, it's engaging in semantics to justify various US actions, that they would have no difficulty in condemning another nation for that I have a problem with.

The problem is, the Resolution 84 wasn't semantics, there were 6 other nations on the Council that voted in favor of intervention in Korea. Intervention which has ensured that it is 24m people whom are living in desperate conditions under a despotic leader in North Korea, rather than 72m which could have been if the intervention was allowed to continue unabated.

With regard the makeup of the/any intervention forces, do you think it would be accurate to say that any resolution passed by the UN which involved military intervention would nearly always result in the US making up the bulk of the force?

nacho libre wrote: »

With this in mind you don't absolve/excuse someone of their crime because someone else commits a greater crime. Yet this is what some people attempt to do when they try to minimize certain acts by pointing out that some other government is commiting graver crimes. You say you acknowledge US crimes and abuses, yet in this thread and others you come up with excuses to explain away relationships with dictators and the mass killing of people for strategic interests.

The problem is, what I usually support is the more noble aspects of such incursions and attempt to focus on them rather than the constant oil/power criticisms. I don't doubt they were very strong motives however I also do not think they were the primary ones. For instance, I did support regime change in Iraq however the manner in which it was done was completely unacceptable, indeed it should be to any rational person. Those that disagree with the former aspect, in my mind however, imply that they are happy to sit back and condemn the populations of these countries to life under a dictator whom they have no real chance of removing. That to me is unacceptable. Does it, however, excuse the manner in which the US engaged in the conflict? Of course not. Would I have preferred any action to come from a UN level? Indeed I would have. Do I think that would ever have happened with the Chinese and Russians holding veto rights on the Security Council? Not at all.

On a side note, my current opinion of this thread in the context of "world peace" is which nation could spark off a more international conflict. In my mind this is simply not the US, certainly not Iraq, but more likely as a consequence of Iran/Israel and, to a lesser extent, perhaps due to the unstable leader in North Korea.

nacho libre wrote: »

I'm not at all sorry if you don't like me viewing such a position as morally bankrupt. I would say the same to someone who was making excuses for Russian war crimes in various regions.

I completely agree. It is a pity, however, that we rarely see conversations about Russian aggression.

Keptic

USA