Who is the bigger threat to the world, the US or Iran?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Iran: Wants nuclear weapons. Sometimes threatens to destroy a certain, tiny country that is admittedly a little annoying.

US: Has nuclear weapons and the world's strongest military. Makes a LAW to destroy everyone elses' economies if they don't agree US policy on Iran. Any exceptions are at the grace of US.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...n-banking.html
(one of many, many on this topic)

A choice passage:

Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, said in an interview that the Obama administration’s action yesterday “begins to reduce some of the uncertainty in oil markets over how the administration will apply oil market sanctions.”

“It gives Japan, in particular, which needs to keep buying Iranian oil, a clear pathway to continue those purchases without putting their financial institutions at risk,” said Dubowitz, who has advised the administration and Congress on sanctions. “It also establishes an early precedent that puts pressure on South Korea, India, China, Turkey, South Africa and other major buyers of Iranian oil to also comply with U.S. law.”

Note the last part. Note that it is not with a UN resolution or anything of the sort. But "US law".

Used to be, the US at least tries to hide its claws.

How did the world come to such a state?

[HunterICX]

Biggest threat to the world

Human beeings

How did the world come to such a state?

when was it any different? from the dawn of mankind we've been in conflict over power the only thing that has changed are the means we are able to do so.

HunterICX

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Human beeings



when was it any different? from the dawn of mankind have we've been in conflict over power the only thing that has changed are the means we are able to do so.

HunterICX

^+1

[gimpy117]

well personally i'd like to see us staying out of other people's business it's the reason half the world hates us and the other half is to afraid to do anything

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

well personally i'd like to see us staying out of other people's business it's the reason half the world hates us and the other half is to afraid to do anything

What makes you think that would change if we did?

[Krauter]

Originally Posted by August

What makes you think that would change if we did?

Everyone needs a boogey man, be it the Russians, the Iranians or the Americans...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

well personally i'd like to see us staying out of other people's business it's the reason half the world hates us and the other half is to afraid to do anything

It is our all business. Iran withz nuclear weapons does not pose a threat to just Israel. It poses a threat to just everybody - neighbours, Russia, Europe, America.

Like it or not, the US military by far is more potent for an operation like that, than the Eurpoean forces alltogether. Europoe does not have the logistics, and numbers to go it all alone. It also does not have the will and backbone. Its not about quality only - it is about numbers.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Skybird

It is our all business. Iran withz nuclear weapons does not pose a threat to just Israel. It poses a threat to just everybody - neighbours, Russia, Europe, America.

Like it or not, the US military by far is more potent for an operation like that, than the Eurpoean forces alltogether. Europoe does not have the logistics, and numbers to go it all alone. It also does not have the will and backbone. Its not about quality only - it is about numbers.

oh, we are right to be involved in this one, but I would really like to see the other nations more vocal however.

but in many many other cases, it's been just us thinking it's our job to get nosy in other countries' affairs. mostly because we need to buy something from them because it's cheap (because we shot ourselves in the foot and got rid of our manufacturing).

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Iran: Wants nuclear weapons. Sometimes threatens to destroy the only stabile, free and democratic nation that is based on the ideal of humanistic values in the region, which is admittedly a major threat to that country. Will cause a nuclear arms race in a highly instabile, irrationally driven and relgiously upheated region with generations of open bills. Will gain the potential for nuclear blackmailing of European politics to chnage them in favour of Shia ideology. High risk of nuclear proliferation and support of terrorist strikes with nuclear weapons by proxie factions.

Fixed that for you.

[Sammi79]

I think Iran has a reasonable case for developing a nuclear deterrent in order to protect itself from Israeli/US terrorism be it covert assassinations of civilian scientists, or measured tactical airstrikes on its facilities. The Israeli government talks a lot about the threats from Iran, but when the threats and indeed actions move in the other direction, they claim to be justified. This crime of nuclear proliferation that Iran is being accused of is a crime that Israel herself is already evidently guilty of. This bully is simply scared (like all bullies) that the bullied might be taking steps to even the odds.

The Israeli governments position seems to me to be mainly a diversionary tactic with the goal being to take the pressure off their continued expansion and new settlements in territories outside of the state of Israel. What it actually achieves is promoting anti-Israeli and anti-US sentiment, as well as likely reinforcing any ideas the Iranians may have that they surely need the nuclear deterrent tool for themselves. For Skybird to insinuate that no one apart from the US or Israel has any backbone is clearly nonsense (maybe he is just speaking for himself), without the US security council veto, direct military intervention against Israel in Palestine would have taken place a long time ago, with widespread public support from the countries involved.

Regards, Sam.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

I think Iran has a reasonable case for developing a nuclear deterrent in order to protect itself from Israeli/US terrorism be it covert assassinations of civilian scientists, or measured tactical airstrikes on its facilities.

Maybe you feel differently but I don't think the assassination of a scientist, especially by persons unknown, is a justification for a nuclear war, which is what a nuclear deterrent is all about.

without the US security council veto, direct military intervention against Israel in Palestine would have taken place a long time ago, with widespread public support from the countries involved.

The same countries that invaded Israel in the first place? Those are the ones you support?

[Oberon]

The Soviet Union is the bigger threat.

We cannot allow the spread of communism! There must not be a mine shaft gap!!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe you feel differently but I don't think the assassination of a scientist, especially by persons unknown, is a justification for a nuclear war, which is what a nuclear deterrent is all about.

Worse, it'S circular logic what Sammi said. The attempt to prevent/defend against the Iranian nuclear weapopn program becomes his argument what Iran wants to get them? If Iran would not grab for nukes, there would be (and have not been!) no targetted assassinations, cyberattacks, mysterious explosions of missiles ranges and the like.

On past wars. Israel now exists since more than two generations. More than two generations mived and sometimes died in and for Israel now. One could consider to discuss the legitimacy of the method in which it was installed after 2 or 3 or 5 years, but the Muslim Palestinians - which as an ethnic group or race or cultiural group anr non-existent, because in reality they are simply Arabs - have almost nobody anymore who can make any claims of circumnstances over how it once was and how he witnessed it. To question Israel'S right to exist today would mean to commit another , a new great injuzstice - to those many people who in the past 70 years turned Israel into what it is now. One is crying wolf over the "Palestinians" - but to repoeat the "cxrimne" agains them now again, this time against Israelis most of which had not say or hand in the evnts after WWII - this is pretty much okay for Westerners these days?

Guys, get real. Time has moved on. The houses and homes to which some people still claim to have the keys, have stopped to be there sinc elong before the same people, nmost of them, got even born. And the overwhelming majhority of thoese peple that today get labelled as "Palestinians" - in fact as migrants from Arabab neighbouring places who moved into the "occupied" territories AFTER the Israel state was founded. That they additionally multiply like rabbits without having the ifnratrsurcture and logistical and economical and sovereing financial basis to maintain and keep alive such a communal, national entitity, does not help anyone either.

It is all about creating an argument Israel against by mere numbers, by the crowds and masses. That most of them have an origin that had little or nothign to do with Palestine before the Israeli state was founded, for some reasons is of no concern for most commentators. We have seen the same in Kosovo, which later was claimed to be "Alabanians". That almost 80-90% of those Albenians now living in Kosovo have moved their from alabnian after the Yugoslavian republic was brought to its knees, while bringing Serbian control of Kosovo to an end over an argument that it already were so very much Albanian while in reality back then it was not, for some strange reason never gets reported.


I can only say once again: demographics and migration are WEAPONS. They do not make an effect as quickly as the impact of a bomb, but they make a much more pressing and long-lasting effect than even a thousand bombs. And there is no military defence against the, and poltical defence against them can easily be brandmarked as racism. That'S why demographis and migration get used as weapons. It'S a win - win situation for the side using them.

Who is the bigger threat to the world, the US or Iran?

China.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe you feel differently but I don't think the assassination of a scientist, especially by persons unknown, is a justification for a nuclear war, which is what a nuclear deterrent is all about.

Hi August, personally I can't think of a rational justification for an attack using nuclear weapons and I invite you to explain how you came to think that I might. While I would hope you agree that Iran has neither threatened to do so nor would it consider it an option unless in appropriate defense or retaliation, as obviously it would be MAD suicide, you miss my point. Israel has nuclear weapons developed in secret and against global opposition. Iran is simply doing the same if they are doing it at all, which incidentally there is no empirical evidence for. I certainly would be if I were them, for exactly the same 'deterrent' arguments that all the nuclear armed nations use and I am not prepared to really believe them when they deny it, neither am I prepared to believe that either Mossad or CIA (or SAS, whomever you like) were not responsible for the attacks inside Iran when they likewise, deny it. Also, regardless of yours or mine opinions on the subject, assassinations of scientists who are civilians are acts of terrorism in and of themselves, and can only reinforce the attitudes of the governments the authorising bodies verbally aspire to curtail.

Originally Posted by August

The same countries that invaded Israel in the first place? Those are the ones you support?

No, August. I support the concept of the United Nations, it is regretful that in regard to Israel they have a saboteur on the SC and are largely impotent because of it. Most Americans (and pretty much all non Americans) I converse with are against the idea of America becoming a global military police force, which is what the UN were setup to do. If the US government actually took their position there seriously 'in the spirit' so to say, rather than for purely selfish reasons, well, who knows. They cannot own the UN, but they can and do prevent it from achieving its aims. I do not assert they are exclusively guilty of this type of behaviour, but they do so with far more impunity and regularity than the others. I support people trying to do what is right, because it is right, and that is all. I should make it clear now that in no way do I think modern governments or their figureheads are truly representative of the human beings they supposedly govern, when I use a nations name in the singular I am only referring to its leaders. This is however irrelevant, what both you and Skybird (HI SKY! I didn't think your ignore list would work for too long.) have failed to address in my previous post is, with slight extrapolation :

What it actually achieves is promoting anti-Israeli and anti-US sentiment globally but especially in Iran, as well as likely reinforcing any ideas the Iranians may have that they surely need the nuclear deterrent tool for themselves, as well as global support for this probable intent, again especially in Iran.

Oh, and Sky if you are still not ignoring, if my logic is circular as you suggest, where is the evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons project? Where are the threats of nuclear action by Iran against Israel? Where are Saddams WMDs? It is just smoke and mirrors, for political and ideological reasons, and you should take your own advice to wake up to the fact. I have argued with you regarding Palestine before, and my position is set. What Israel does in occupied Palestine is criminal, if they want the righteous position they claim to have then they should either, cease occupation, or, simply claim the land as their own, and in doing so grant the same civilian rights to the inhabitants as are granted to the inhabitants already within their borders. Keeping people in a perpetual no mans land is not only criminal and inhumane, it is tantamount to genocide.

Now I am way off topic, apologies. The US is certainly more dangerous in capability, I'd say they were about even in intent.

Regards, Sam.