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

Clawdeeus

medicman2009 wrote: »

What a comprehensive poll - Where is Israel? How can they not be included on the list? A nation the defies international law, ignores UN resolutions. Murders where and when it wants, whether it be in international waters or the world largest prison camp - The Gaza Strip. Come on OP, ffs!

Or Pakistan, Kashmir (thats not really a country though). Taiwan with China. both those conflicts at numerous times have threatened at various times to spiral out of control. I guess in theory world peace isnt technically at risk if the west isnt involved somehow.

gizmo

nacho libre wrote: »

Well, that is a valid gripe. The US isn't alone in committing unsavoury crimes. I don't recall every seeing a thread here about Russia's two wars in Chechyna for instance. Regarding the Korean situation, it's fair to say that if America votes a certain way in the UN more countries will follow their lead than not. That's what happens when you are a superpower and other nations know they'll be rewarded for seeing things your way. Why else did we support the use of Shannon for the US military during the Iraq war?

Quite true unfortunately. In the context of the Security Council there is an almost built-in impasse whereby the US will often vote one way with, in most cases, many other Western states following and then the Russians and the Chinese voting in the other. Thankfully the latter nations don't always use their veto rights but an abstention, as seen during the situation in Darfur, can also speak volumes nonetheless.

nacho libre wrote: »

As for the rest of your post, i think our main difference is you are of the view that the end justifies the mean.

Admittedly sometimes but certainly not in this context. For example, in response to the number of civilian deaths due to US drone attacks in Pakistan, Hillary Clinton simply replied "There’s a war going on." That kind of flippant attitude is enraging as it undermines any support one could have for such action. The problem is I, and I'm sure many others, believe such action does need to be taken but again, the manner in which it is done is often reprehensible.

nacho libre wrote: »

I'm afraid, unlike his supporters and supporters of the Iraq war, i can't focus on the more noble aspects of expasionists wars, because to me there are none, any possible positive side effect far outweights the misery and devastation wrought by such wars.

Well in the context of my posts, look to this interview with Noam Chomsky for what I'm generally trying to get at. In it, he's asked if he concedes that the US invasion of Afghanistan had a net positive effect for the Afghan people due to the removal of the Taliban. He counters saying that while it may have had, it was not the primary aim of the US to do so and not only that, but they hindered the interior attempts to accomplish this by prolonging their bombing campaign. My position is somewhat in between those, I would have been in favor of the initial action to remove the Taliban but would have hoped for it to be done in a manner which differed from the action carried out.

nacho libre wrote: »

iran: do not have a history of invading other countries and know if they suddenly decide to change that they will be on a hiding to nothing. so if they are attacked by Israel or America, i think their actions will not match the rhetoric of their president.

My only point with respect to this, Iran and Israel is that there is one wildcard in this equation, one which can often lead to unpredictable results, religion.

Blatently America.. If they keep their noses out of everyone else's business, then the world can't go to war. The EU can only really be dragged in because of America.

Then again, I know fek all about this.

Kev_ps3

I think a combination of the US, UK and Israel. The real Axis of Evil.

speedboatchase

Hah, what a load of hippie nonsense

ChessHacker

Sanjuro wrote: »

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.

I presume you're referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is the current President of Iran. He isn't really the leader, merely the obnoxious figurehead. The leader of Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, known as the Supreme Leader.
The "wiped off the map" (mis)quote is often cited. Jonathan Steele explained this. Juan Cole has similarly explained this.

I agree that a solution to the Israel/Palestine situation would do more than anything else to stabilise the region. Unfortunately, so many have a vested interest in maintaining conflict for various geopolitical reasons.

super_furry

Well which nation is currently involved in two wars and has been involved in more wars than all the others in the last 100 years?

wes

Iraq is a threat to no one, seeing as there country is still in tatters.

North Korea is a definite threat to South Korea, but not the world.

Iran is a threat to the Sunni regimes in the Middle East, but again not the rest of the world.

The only one in the list that has any kind of world wide reach and ambition is the US. I don't think them evil or anything, but they have managed to cause a lot more harm than good in recent times, and as such there winner imho.

ch750536

Iran - ability 2/10, want 1/10
Iraq - ability 1/10, want 4/10
United States - ability 10/10, want 4/10
North Korea - ability 1/10, want 2/10

so overwhelmingly the US is the biggest threat.

FreudianSlippers

The problem with the US is that they think they're better than everyone (which they aren't). It's the "we're #1" mentality that causes the often genuinely sweet but always misguided notion to US Americans that they need to police the world or else it'll go to ****.

The other problem is that the people of the US are completely brainwashed by the media. If you think our media is biased, go watch Fox news and then MSNBC. One is spewing far right propaganda and opinion journalism and claiming it to be fact, and the latter is spewing far left propaganda and opinion journalism and claiming it to be fact.
The people then watch their news of choice and completely block out reality in favour of the news that matches their ideology.

I think it comes from an inherent laziness of people born in the US. Immigrants tend to work very hard and it flies in the face of the US mentality that one should "work smart, not hard".
I think that laziness (and I'm generalising, not all US born people are lazy of course) extends to watching the news - and the media outlets have honed in on this - it's much easier to turn on the TV and be told what you think about current events by those who are your ideological brethren than to watch the news and form your own opinion on how it makes you feel.

I think it's egotism and ignorance that makes the US the second most dangerous country on Earth. But it's Israel that is the most dangerous country on Earth IMO.

Sanjuro

OisinT wrote: »

I think it's egotism and ignorance that makes the US the second most dangerous country on Earth. But it's Israel that is the most dangerous country on Earth IMO.

Well Israel is only dangerous because it's backed to the hilt by the US. If the US were to call Israel up on it's multitude of human rights violations, murders and basically the whole occupation of Palestine, Israel would cease to be such a threat to the stability of the Middle East. Or at least, the power it weilds in the Middle East would diminish. The US funds and arms Israel to a great extent. So by that rationale, the US remains the greatest threat to the stability of the Middle East, and by extention, peace in the world.

nacho libre

[QUOTE=gizmo;68686840

Admittedly sometimes but certainly not in this context. For example, in response to the number of civilian deaths due to US drone attacks in Pakistan, Hillary Clinton simply replied "There’s a war going on." That kind of flippant attitude is enraging as it undermines any support one could have for such action. The problem is I, and I'm sure many others, believe such action does need to be taken but again, the manner in which it is done is often reprehensible.


My only point with respect to this, Iran and Israel is that there is one wildcard in this equation, one which can often lead to unpredictable results, religion. [/QUOTE]

that's an interesting observation about the drone attacks. human right groups who were up in arms over Israel's targeted assassinations and the torture of suspects by the US, seem to be largely silent about the indiscriminate nature of the drone attacks which have lead to the deaths of countless women and children.
also it is curious how the man who was given the nobel peace prize upon attaining office, and was seen as antidote to the Bush years, is the one responsible for stepping up these attacks.

perhaps Chomsky's overall point in these interviews is that it's an ill wind that doesn't blow someone good. someone will always benefit from war, whether it be oil companies, the munitions industries, mercenaries, politicians, but it's civilians who suffer the most, and, despite the pr, the violence is rarely, if ever, primarily prosecuted for noble reasons. so playing down the human cost, for an aim that was never the sole motivating factor in the first place is perhaps disagreeable to him.

I can't see religion leading to a war in the middle east. Despite the propaganda in some quarters of the mad mullahs, the Iranian regime has acted rationally over the last 30 years and made calculated decisions in order to preserve their political infrastructure as it is.
Also it's worth nothing the ayatollah has consistently stated Iran cannot possess a nuclear weapon. It is he and the guardian council who wield the power not the president.
Unfortunatley, i fear as we saw with Iraq, it's much more likely we'll see another middle-east war for reasons other than religion.

gizmo

nacho libre wrote: »

that's an interesting observation about the drone attacks. human right groups who were up in arms over Israel's targeted assassinations and the torture of suspects by the US, seem to be largely silent about the indiscriminate nature of the drone attacks which have lead to the deaths of countless women and children.
also it is curious how the man who was given the nobel peace prize upon attaining office, and was seen as antidote to the Bush years, is the one responsible for stepping up these attacks.

I'd imagine it's because the drone attacks are seen as more "successful" rather than military intervention which includes personnel. If one is to look at the number of militants killed in these strikes then it's easy to see how one could come to this conclusion however that again discounts the innocents killed in such strikes.

nacho libre wrote: »

perhaps Chomsky's overall point in these interviews is that it's an ill wind that doesn't blow someone good. someone will always benefit from war, whether it be oil companies, the munitions industries, mercenaries, politicians, but it's civilians who suffer the most, and, despite the pr, the violence is rarely, if ever, primarily prosecuted for noble reasons. so playing down the human cost, for an aim that was never the sole motivating factor in the first place is perhaps disagreeable to him.

Quite true, the point the interviewer was getting at was that it was the general population who have ultimately benefited from the removal of the Taliban. In terms of Iraq however, while the populace may indeed be better of without Saddam, the cost has clearly been too high for the country.

nacho libre wrote: »

I can't see religion leading to a war in the middle east. Despite the propaganda in some quarters of the mad mullahs, the Iranian regime has acted rationally over the last 30 years and made calculated decisions in order to preserve their political infrastructure as it is.
Also it's worth nothing the ayatollah has consistently stated Iran cannot possess a nuclear weapon. It is he and the guardian council who wield the power not the president.
Unfortunatley, i fear as we saw with Iraq, it's much more likely we'll see another middle-east war for reasons other than religion.

While it may not be the direct cause of war in the region, I do feel it will continue be the primary cause of tension. As for the direct cause, well if this is the case then at least it'll be a lot easier to see coming than an act of violence perpetrated by fundamentalists on either side.

marcsignal

sxt wrote: »

You are right in my opinion. "Iraq""Iran""North Korea" were the "Axis of evil" according to "the United States of America"

Not widely known, but the GW Bush 'Axis of Evil' thing was actually aimed at deamonising Iraq, Venezuela, and N Korea.

The reason being, was that Saadam Hussain began trading all of his oil commodities in Euro instead of Dollars (even though he was making a loss). N Korea and Venezuela watched this with interest and were preparing to do the same (which would have been the American Federal Reserves worst nightmare).

Consequently Bush lumped them all into the same boat, and then gave Iraq a very public 'punishment beating' for threatening to do something that would, essentially, collapse the American economy.

Des Carter

How come the North Pole is off the list with all their melting, raising sea lels and changing the climate.

I say bomb the North Pole, that will sort the problem.