Are USA & Israel The Most Dangerous Countries In The World?

[Revoltingest]

Iran will most likely be more than happy to give Hezbollah or other proxy groups a nuclear present as soon as possible who have very little to lose in using them as a means of extortion or first strike.

I don't share that opinion.

Can you think of proxy groups that Israel might give one too who'd do similarly?

I see a different risk for Israel, where the government might provoke a conflict resulting in use of nukes.

Maybe if Iran wasn't ruled by the IR regime and didn't have links to known terrorist groups who have made clear their intent to destroy Israel things would be different. I don't think Israel should do the dirty work though, I think they're ignoring a great opprotunity to arm and let the Kurds take out their armies.
But it doesn't suggest to you that they'd be handing out nukes like Christmas presents to their proxy buddies?

I don't say that Iran should have nukes...only that preemptive invasion looks worse than reaching negotiated agreements.

Are you conveniently ignoring....

Now, now....I haven't accused you of "conveniently ignoring" things.

....that when Israel invades another country (name them specifically...Egypt, Syria, Lebanon) it was because they were dealing with...(gasp)....countries intent on obliterating them?

All invaders give reasons for invasions. At some times, this is more reasonable than others. But if preemptive invasion because of threats
voiced is justified for the USA & Israel, then this would also justify Iran's nuking up, especially after Iraq's invasion. After all, the USA has
a long record of backing up threats with conquest. And since it's joined at the hip with Israel, Iran should mount a strong defense.

Or just deliberately brushing it aside.

Play nice, now.

When Israel took out Syria's nuclear reactor, no one really said much because they all knew it was for a good reason. When Israel took out Iraq's nuclear reactor, Ron Paul was one of the only Republicans who actively supported it even, for he understood that Israel had a legitimate threat to deal with.

Twas a dangerous game then too, but I see even more dangerous circumstances now.

What would suggest such a thing? Iran does most of its current "dirty work" in the form of using Proxy groups and intelligence operations. Saddam wasn't the one who initiated the Iraq-Iran war for example, he initially offered peace, and the Ayatollah flat out refused and continued to send out agents to stoke Shi'a-Sunni civil war.

I don't buy that view of history, which is based upon Saddam's word. Iraq (now a quasi US ally) invaded Iran.
And contrary to what we often hear in the media, he did have & use "weapons of mass destruction", ie , chemical weapons.

Hezbollah gets nearly all its money from Iran. What do you think they want a nuke for in the first place? Do you think they are afraid of being invaded without one or something? Israel has a legit reason to carry them as a deterrent from proven hostile elements. Who does Iran need a deterrent to exactly if they weren't building them?

Iran has the same need for nukes as Israel.
I'd be OK with all parties eschewing them.
Moreover, all parties engage in covert mischief, so no one's hands are clean.

 

[Caladan]

Not what I said.

It does seem that you are willing to put aside Iran's actions in the middle east and use the slogan 'Iran didn't invade anyone'.
my challenge is pretty simple. what does that slogan worth, if Iran is engaged in hostilities in the region? their tactics maybe simply used on what they can exploit and what they can do as opposed to invading a nation without benefits. who will they invade? for what reason?

Why must you be sorry?
Israel & the US are openly talking of invading Iran.

WOW. you must be reading some very different news outlets.
would you please provide me the sources in which both Israel and the US are openly talking about invading Iran?

They each have a history of invading foreign countries.

Israel does not say anything about invading Iran. nor is it even remotely possible for Israel to invade Iran.
Israel does not share a border with Iran, it is a small nation of a handful of millions. Iran on the other hand is a huge nation with dozens of millions of people. all the media sources have been doing is trying to make a news story out of a possible strike on Iranian nuclear sites.
just like Israel conducted in Syria and Iraq, in both those cases no land invasion was made.

But nothing in Iran's words or actions suggest to me that they plan an unprovoked attack.

I doubt many in the Israeli government if any actually believe that Iran plans a strike on Israel, the whole showdown is about the balance of power in the middle east and in the world.
by all other standards, it is everyday politics.

To question "the holocaust" doesn't signal something worthy of invasion.

how are the two related? you compared the rhetoric of Iran and Israel. I showed you how they are both extremely different. then you posted in response the following:

Regarding the phrase "Death to Israel", one must consider culture in discerning meaning.
They also yell "Death to traffic jams!". Yet it's clear that they have no plans for a military assault on traffic jams.
Analogy: If one American sayid to another, "F*** your mother.", fisticuffs could result.
But if a Russian said that to another, the meaning is more similar to "Meh...".

so if a nation calls for the destruction of my country, I should simply shrug it off? or excuse them for having a lesser culture?

Good! I hope such views prevail.

I'm surprised that is all you have to say on this information, considering you actually think that Israel plans on invading Iran.

 

[gnomon]

I vote for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and it's neighbors as the most dangerous nations on the planet.

 

[Revoltingest]

It does seem that you are willing to put aside Iran's actions in the middle east and use the slogan 'Iran didn't invade anyone'.

We all have our opinions of each other's shortcomings.

my challenge is pretty simple. what does that slogan worth, if Iran is engaged in hostilities in the region? their tactics maybe simply used on what they can exploit and what they can do as opposed to invading a nation without benefits. who will they invade? for what reason?

Challenge? I'm just discussing issues. I don't rise to challenges. (It's all I can do to snack, work & surf the net at the same time.)

WOW. you must be reading some very different news outlets.
would you please provide me the sources in which both Israel and the US are openly talking about invading Iran?

No, I'm not looking up sources for broad opinions about what I see in the news.
You should note though, that we in the US have a history of invasions.

Israel does not say anything about invading Iran. nor is it even remotely possible for Israel to invade Iran.

This seems a matter of word choice & likelihood of consequences of a military strike.
I call that an invasion. I can see that others might prefer "surgical strikes within Iran".
But if these don't end up being so effective or surgical, escalation to the level of our Iraq or Afghan invasion loom large.

Israel does not share a border with Iran, it is a small nation of a handful of millions. Iran on the other hand is a huge nation with dozens of millions of people. all the media sources have been doing is trying to make a news story out of a possible strike on Iranian nuclear sites.
just like Israel conducted in Syria and Iraq, in both those cases no land invasion was made.

See above.

I doubt many in the Israeli government if any actually believe that Iran plans a strike on Israel, the whole showdown is about the balance of power in the middle east and in the world.
by all other standards, it is everyday politics.

That seems reasonable. To me, it points away from a preemptive military attack.

how are the two related?

I thought you were relating them. I don't link them either.

so if a nation calls for the destruction of my country, I should simply shrug it off? or excuse them for having a lesser culture?

I don't presume to tell you what to do, but I think concern is appropriate.
(I don't consider their culture "lesser".)
I'm arguing against preemptive military attack.

I'm surprised that is all you have to say on this information, considering you actually think that Israel plans on invading Iran.

I find that sometimes people ask for more facts & evidence supporting opinions, & that the result is argument over details.
The larger issues can get lost. I provide more info when I think it appropriate.

 

[Shermana]

I don't share that opinion.

There once was a group called Hezbollah
Who got funded by the Ayatollah
With missiles and more,
They are ready for war,
There's a reason they were kicked out of Angola

Angola Gets Rid of Its Hezbollah Muslims; When Will We?

I see a different risk for Israel, where the government might provoke a conflict resulting in use of nukes.

I personally would never
Pull the Nuclear lever
Unless necessary
When things get too hairy
For the stakes are so high they're forever

I don't say that Iran should have nukes...only that preemptive invasion looks worse than reaching negotiated agreements.

Only one reason for them that they want
For no Jew in Israel to haunt
Can you name an agreement,
to be reached with the vehement?
Do you think all they want is to taunt?

Now, now....I haven't accused you of "conveniently ignoring" things.

You act as if they invade
without just cause being made,
Can you name just one time,
it's been Israel's crime,
To make an unjustified raid?

All invaders give reasons for invasions. At some times, this is more reasonable than others. But if preemptive invasion because of threats
voiced is justified for the USA & Israel, then this would also justify Iran's nuking up, especially after Iraq's invasion. After all, the USA has
a long record of backing up threats with conquest. And since it's joined at the hip with Israel, Iran should mount a strong defense.

Backing up threats with conquest,
Is something that not just america does best,
Armed terrorist groups,
Throw the naive through loops
When they detonate their bomb vest

Play nice, now.

Play nice as well,
Israels' invasions were to quell
Attempts on her citizens to gore,
In the bloody six day war,
Syria hit first with the artillery shell

Twas a dangerous game then too, but I see even more dangerous circumstances now.

It's now even worse,
They want every Zionist in a hearse,
And to spread revolution,
Instill the Shia' institution,
And Israel to their plans is a curse.

I don't buy that view of history, which is based upon Saddam's word. Iraq (now a quasi US ally) invaded Iran.
And contrary to what we often hear in the media, he did have & use "weapons of mass destruction", ie , chemical weapons.

If you do not believe,
and you think I deceive
look it up for yourself,
Or a Brittanica on the shelf,
Saddam offered peace, civil war the IR tried to weave'

Debating A War In An Unlikely Place « Voice of Balatarin

“Yes, it is true that Khomeini didn’t start the war; however, he is to blame for his wrong policies– asking Iraqi Shiites to rebel against Saddam’s regime–which provoked Saddam to invade Iran.”

“There are two main reasons why Iraq invaded Iran and the west either supported or turned a blind eye on it. First of all, I have to explain that the term “imposed war” is a wrong term used by many Iranians, especially the younger ones who are mostly influenced by the regime’s propaganda. Secondly, we should never forget the provocative actions and crazy speeches by Ayatollah Khomeini in the days leading up to the war. For example, the speeches Khomeini made as a Grand Ayatollah–the highest ranking religious leader among Shiite Muslims–to ask (give fatwas to) Shiite Iraqis to fight against the Sunnis and Saddam, who were a minority group In Iraq. Or Khomeini called Saudi Arabia “Hejaz,” a very old name of that region. Iran became Israel’s worst enemy overnight, threatening the west and their interests in the region. Thirdly, Saddam was very sure Iran could not fight well and he could achieve his goals quickly, because Khomeini executed or dismissed the best and most experienced army generals. As a result, it is terribly unfair and naive to think that Saddam Hussein was the only one to blame for the blood spilt during the war.”

Iran has the same need for nukes as Israel.
I'd be OK with all parties eschewing them.
Moreover, all parties engage in covert mischief, so no one's hands are clean.

You cannot compare the two if you comprehend,
Iran has no need for nukes to defend
What reason would anyone invade otherwise?
Their S-300s can clear out the skies,
The reason they want them is for gifts to send.

 

[Revoltingest]

A re-run....

The US says no Persian nukes,
& threatens some deadly rebukes.
But lacking the moxy
we'll do it by proxy,
relying on Zionist kooks.

 

[Gharib]

I'm hoping this thread will win me a popularity contest.

U.S., Israel Discuss Triggers for Bombing Iran

It appears that their rationale is as follows:
We get to have nuclear weapons, but Iran has no right to them.
Iran threatens Israel, & Israel threatens Iran. Only the former is wrong.
A preemptive attack on Iran might start WW3, but that's acceptable if it enhances security of Israel & cheap oil.

We are a threat to peace, & must be stopped!

Qur'an 2:11-12

When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!"

Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.

 

[Shermana]

A re-run....

The US says no Persian nukes,
& threatens some deadly rebukes.
But lacking the moxy
we'll do it by proxy,
relying on Zionist kooks.

The kooks are the ones who don't understand
That Hezbollah wants to remove Jews from the land,
It's not like Israel
would dole out the Vitriol
If their existence was not always at hand.

Quran 5:20-21

And when Moses said to his people, "O my people, remember the favor of Allah upon you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the worlds.
O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and do not turn back and [thus] become losers."

 

[Revoltingest]

The kooks are the ones who don't understand
That Hezbollah wants to remove Jews from the land,
It's not like Israel
would dole out the Vitriol
If their existence was not always at hand.

Quran 5:20-21

And when Moses said to his people, "O my people, remember the favor of Allah upon you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the worlds.
O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and do not turn back and [thus] become losers."

Criminy.....there is just way too much religion going on over there.