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

[Revoltingest]

It has a greater potential to go wrong whichever path we choose.

My preference is for a strong defense over a strong offense.
A preemptive attack appears to have greater likelihood for carnage.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't believe that the huge majority of people in Israel want any more than to live their lives in peace and free from threat.

Can you name a country where the majority of its population doesn't want to live in peace and free from threat?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My preference is for a strong defense over a strong offense.
A preemptive attack appears to have greater likelihood for carnage.

Game theory is often counter-intuitive.

 

[Revoltingest]

Game theory is often counter-intuitive.

I think that as one goes up the chain of command,
It's less game theory...more religion & emotion.

 

[Caladan]

I think that as one goes up the chain of command,
It's less game theory...more religion & emotion.

Funny, I always saw it the other way. take for example Yizthak Rabin, Israeli chief of staff during the 1967 war, and later during the 90's Israeli prime minister who negotiated with the PLO, signed the Oslo Accords, an agreement which led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority.

 

[Valjean]

Perhaps Iran wants nukes -- if they actually do want nukes -- because they seem to the the surest deterrent to American imperialism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Funny, I always saw it the other way. take for example Yizthak Rabin, Israeli chief of staff during the 1967 war, and later during the 90's Israeli prime minister who negotiated with the PLO, signed the Oslo Accords, an agreement which led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority.

There are exceptions to my generalization.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think that as one goes up the chain of command,
It's less game theory...more religion & emotion.

It's not game theory on most levels. However, the reasons for peoples' decisions has no impact on the mechanics of game theory.

Or, let's say, ignorance of game theory doesn't make it irrelevant or inapplicable.

 

[gnosticx]

dangerous... all nations are controlled directly or indirectly through illuminati so. remember they control so called christian govts( they are no more than pagan sun worshipers, sol invictus, ie luciferan.) so theyre dangerous.....the islamic ones( a creation based on a mind control document cleverly crafted by satanic bloodlines).....communist ones who are supposedly atheistic but financed by taxpayer money from west....remember the first head of the un was a convicted headhunter....theyre all dangerous to our souls....we dont gave any real freedom ( and those words mean... an area outside nobles control owned by royal bloodlines...)...the only safe places physically are the mountains of ephraim ( the everlasting mountains..ie the andes and rocky mountains)....israel itself for a short period or with the remnant( who will come out through the north counties..inside the hollow earth.... joel 3.23.....or and this is cryptic as hell.....right where you are standing ( if you can make that place whole...but that requires you to not just believe this is a program in which you are living but a whole lot more....)

 

[javajo]

I think Israel has acted with great restraint for the most part even though she is surrounded by people who are taught to hate her and drive her into the sea. The problem with Iran is Ahmadinijad has said many times that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. They are so anxious to start a holy war to usher in the 12th Imam and the end times, that they are willing to drop nukes that close to their own country. Most all other countries do not want the annihilation of all mankind but theses cats don't care. Basically, I think when intelligence that they actually are arming missiles with nukes or are about to, Israel and maybe the U.S. will take them out.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think Israel has acted with great restraint for the most part even though she is surrounded by people who are taught to hate her and drive her into the sea. The problem with Iran is Ahmadinijad has said many times that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. They are so anxious to start a holy war to usher in the 12th Imam and the end times, that they are willing to drop nukes that close to their own country. Most all other countries do not want the annihilation of all mankind but theses cats don't care. Basically, I think when intelligence that they actually are arming missiles with nukes or are about to, Israel and maybe the U.S. will take them out.

As I recall (having posted the link in another thread), Israel also threatened Iran with destruction.
Would that justify a preemptive attack on Israel by Iran?

 

[javajo]

As I recall (having posted the link in another thread), Israel also threatened Iran with destruction.
Would that justify a preemptive attack on Israel by Iran?

I am unaware of that threat and would have to know more about it. Israel from all I know only wants to live in peace. It is the fanatical brand of Islam that wants them destroyed. I think if Iran does acquire nukes they will use them in short order. Israel has nukes, but has not used them. If Israel must hit Iran it will be a surgical strike to prevent loss of as much life as possible. I think it is not correct to equate Israel with her enemies.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am unaware of that threat and would have to know more about it. Israel from all I know only wants to live in peace. It is the fanatical brand of Islam that wants them destroyed. I think if Iran does acquire nukes they will use them in short order.

I don't think so. They don't have a recent history of invading their neighbors.

Israel has nukes, but has not used them. If Israel must hit Iran it will be a surgical strike to prevent loss of as much life as possible. I think it is not correct to equate Israel with her enemies.

A "surgical" strike could quickly escalate into something far larger.
Israel & the US have been threatening Iran with this for decades. It's safe to presume that Iran has taken counter
measures which could largely defeat this approach. But then comes the retaliation, which would also likely be planned.
Add to this the potential conflagration of all out religious war. I lobby for the big-stick-held-in-reserve approach.

 

[Caladan]

I don't think so. They don't have a recent history of invading their neighbors.

This isn't the first time I hear it. but I can't stress enough how irrelevant this is. Iran technically did not invade anyone. but they have a better method, they arm, train and even fight alongside organizations such as Hezballah and Hamas and use these organizations in proxy wars against other nations, they destabilize the Sunni Arab nations through fuelling strife among their local Shiite populations. these are all hostile tactics.

also regarding your comment about calls of destruction. the leader of Iran made highly provocative remarks about Israel. I do not recall any Israeli PM making similar remarks. furthermore Iran has the dodgy business of fuelling more hatred by arranging for holocaust denying conferences on its soil. their propaganda and mentality are very different from the Israeli one.

A "surgical" strike could quickly escalate into something far larger.
Israel & the US have been threatening Iran with this for decades.

What are your sources for this?
Israel and Iran were allies up until the take over by the Islamic revolution in 1979. the current showdown with Iran's nuclear program is relatively new, and has more than the concern of Israel or the US. Sunni Arab states and European nations have been concerned as well.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

The world is overpopulated anyway might as well thin the population.:banghead3

This is a joke, right?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I am unaware of that threat and would have to know more about it. Israel from all I know only wants to live in peace. It is the fanatical brand of Islam that wants them destroyed. I think if Iran does acquire nukes they will use them in short order. Israel has nukes, but has not used them. If Israel must hit Iran it will be a surgical strike to prevent loss of as much life as possible. I think it is not correct to equate Israel with her enemies.

Iran knows the end game...they lose! So why would they destroy themselves' with so much to gain with Russia and China?

 

[Revoltingest]

This isn't the first time I hear it. but I can't stress enough how irrelevant this is.

In order to judge a threat, I look at current actions & words in light of politics & history.
Each component is relevant to the larger picture.

Iran technically did not invade anyone. but they have a better method, they arm, train and even fight alongside organizations such as Hezballah and Hamas and use these organizations in proxy wars against other nations, they destabilize the Sunni Arab nations through fuelling strife among their local Shiite populations. these are all hostile tactics.

I've no argument with that. But covert & semi-covert methods are common to all players in this game.
So Iran's tactics don't mean too much. Of course, if they eschewed such tactics, that would be telling indeed.

also regarding your comment about calls of destruction. the leader of Iran made highly provocative remarks about Israel. I do not recall any Israeli PM making similar remarks. furthermore Iran has the dodgy business of fuelling more hatred by arranging for holocaust denying conferences on its soil. their propaganda and mentality are very different from the Israeli one.

I discount political rhetoric directed at the masses....in both Israel & Iran. But I don't see them as so different from each other in their vitriol.
Moreover, I also note that Iran's supposed calls for the destruction of Israel are often misquotes. Eg, Fox News is big on such word twisting.

What are your sources for this?

The Revolting Guide To The Galaxy.....OK, just my guestimation.

Israel and Iran were allies up until the take over by the Islamic revolution in 1979. the current showdown with Iran's nuclear program is relatively new, and has more than the concern of Israel or the US. Sunni Arab states and European nations have been concerned as well.

It's fine to be concerned. I just oppose a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

 

[Caladan]

In order to judge a threat, I look at current actions & words in light of politics & history.
Each component is relevant to the larger picture.

I've no argument with that. But covert & semi-covert methods are common to all players in this game.
So Iran's tactics don't mean too much. Of course, if they eschewed such tactics, that would be telling indeed.

So Iran's tactics are completely irrelevant? its irrelevant when they destabilize Sunni nations? when they send arms to terror organizations or use terror organizations in regional conflicts?
but at the same time saying that 'Iran did not invade anyone' should somehow mean something?
I'm sorry but if you actually do look at actions as you say, wouldn't you agree that actions speak louder than words?

I discount political rhetoric directed at the masses....in both Israel & Iran. But I don't see them as so different from each other in their vitriol.

They are extremely different. this is the Iranian president in the following video, if you can find me the Israeli prime minister in a similar show of vitriol, I'll be happy to take a look.

[youtube]FckLO8HcNyo[/youtube]
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Death to Israel" - YouTube

Moreover, I also note that Iran's supposed calls for the destruction of Israel are often misquotes. Eg, Fox News is big on such word twisting.

You know. we can turn this every way we want. we can say that the Iranians don't say 'death to Israel' but what they actually say is 'down with Israel', we can say that calling Israel 'the little Satan' has a different context in Islamic terminology. but at the end of the day, this is extreme propaganda and demonization which doesn't exist in normal platforms. normal countries today do not put up conferences in order to question the extent of the holocaust.

It's fine to be concerned. I just oppose a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

The former Mossad chief did not support a strike on Iran, the current Mossad chief doesn't seem to support it either.

 

[Revoltingest]

So Iran's tactics are completely irrelevant?

Not what I said.

its irrelevant when they destabilize Sunni nations? when they send arms to terror organizations or use terror organizations in regional conflicts?
but at the same time saying that 'Iran did not invade anyone' should somehow mean something?

It suggests to me that an all out assault against Israel or anyone else isn't their game plan.

I'm sorry but if you actually do look at actions as you say, wouldn't you agree that actions speak louder than words?

Why must you be sorry?
Israel & the US are openly talking of invading Iran. They each have a history of invading foreign countries.
But nothing in Iran's words or actions suggest to me that they plan an unprovoked attack.

They are extremely different. this is the Iranian president in the following video, if you can find me the Israeli prime minister in a similar show of vitriol, I'll be happy to take a look.
[youtube]FckLO8HcNyo[/youtube]
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Death to Israel" - YouTube
You know. we can turn this every way we want. we can say that the Iranians don't say 'death to Israel' but what they actually say is 'down with Israel', we can say that calling Israel 'the little Satan' has a different context in Islamic terminology. but at the end of the day, this is extreme propaganda and demonization which doesn't exist in normal platforms. normal countries today do not put up conferences in order to question the extent of the holocaust.

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

The former Mossad chief did not support a strike on Iran, the current Mossad chief doesn't seem to support it either.

Good! I hope such views prevail.

 

[Shermana]

I think that's the wrong argument to address. Rather.....
Is there a good argument for a preemptive attack on Iran in order to prevent them from having nuclear weapons?
Such an argument should address the potential for incurring further much greater wrath of the Islamic world at an
unprovoked (no attacks by Iran) & hypocritical (by nuclear powers who would deny this power to others) attack?
Moreover, Iran might find new allies in Russia & China, who would likely see opportunity to flex greater power on
the world stage.

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

It suggests to me that an all out assault against Israel or anyone else isn't their game plan.

But it doesn't suggest to you that they'd be handing out nukes like Christmas presents to their proxy buddies?

Israel & the US are openly talking of invading Iran. They each have a history of invading foreign countries.

Are you conveniently ignoring 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? Or just deliberately brushing it aside. 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.

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

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. 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?