Which country or region do you think is the most dangerous one in the world?

longriver

Active member
To begin with, let's consider criteria and that means we need to ask "dangerous to whom?" There are plenty of local actors who are the nearest, greatest threats to the neighbors. So, let's limit ourselves to actors who can cause the greatest disruption through their actions to the most people over the next decade or so.
Here are my top 10:

10. Venezuela





9. Iraq and Saudi Arabia (Tie)





8. The European Union




7. Nigeria and Congo (Tie)

&


6. Israel and Palestine (Tie)

&



5. Iran





4. Russia





3. Pakistan





2. China





1. The United States




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which country do you think is the most dangerous one in the world?
The United States, China, DPRK, or other country else?
Please take a poll, also you can comment below.
source:http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/showthread.php?t=3461
 
(country)I think USA.They are taking us for the 3rd world war faster than any country in the world.
(region)Middle East from the ocean to the ocean.Every one want a piece of M.E cake.
I just want to imagin the 3rd world war(oh god).
 
How can the European Union can be most dangerous place in one place? :???:
 
australia... don't you know we have jaws the shark?
but on a more serious note pakistan is a serios threat to nearly everyone and I'm also very surprised dprk didn't make the top ten...
 
Pakistan is a serious problem to every single country in the world. I am absolutely astounded at how poorly protected their nuclear arnaments are.

I remember about a month ago when I was watching the news they made a report that terrorists have the ability to steal nukes from Pakistan because they are poorly defended.

Absoultely apalling.
 
don't believe everything you hear in news the Pakistan military is largely a law unto themselves and the only reason this is so is because they have the nukes and let me tell you they will never let that happen or all their power goes bye bye...
 
I know, I found out on Sunrise but I was disgusted enough to beleive it.

Anyways, back on topic:

As you said before, I think DPRK should be up there instead of Venezuela [But a bit lower down the list], MAYBE Somalia should be at tenth cause of all those ruddy pirates.
 
1. Iran
2. Pakistan
3. North Korea
4. Russia
5. China
6. Venezuela
7. Serbia
8. Mexico
9. Syria
10. Somalia



Why would you have the US or EU on your list? The US is only dangerous to countries that attacked it directly, or break treaties. The EU ( if you could rank it as a separate entity) is practically passive aggressive, the most they do is act like d***s on you tube.


How can the European Union can be most dangerous place in one place? :???:

Have you ever watched a European football game?
 
1. Iran
2. Pakistan
3. North Korea
4. Russia
5. China
6. Venezuela
7. Serbia
8. Mexico
9. Syria
10. Somalia



Why would you have the US or EU on your list? The US is only dangerous to countries that attacked it directly, or break treaties. The EU ( if you could rank it as a separate entity) is practically passive aggressive, the most they do is act like d***s on you tube.




Have you ever watched a European football game?

How on earth is Serbia on 7th?

And of course! Since Yugoslavia invaded New York in 1999, and took over Washington, America responded with its bombing of Yugoslavia!
 
Why would you have the US or EU on your list? The US is only dangerous to countries that attacked it directly, or break treaties.

Is this some sort of sick Joke?

Not many of these directly attacked the US. I expect some treaty or other was broken in most of these, but this seems to be the case with most wars, it's the intepretation of the treaty that's contentious. For a matter of interest which treaty do you think was broken in the case of Grenada and Iraq?

These wars don't include those involving deliberate political and economic pressure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
 
Last edited:
Is this some sort of sick Joke?

Not many of these directly attacked the US. I expect some treaty or other was broken in most of these, but this seems to be the case with most wars, it's the intepretation of the treaty that's contentious. For a matter of interest which treaty do you think was broken in the case of Grenada and Iraq?

These wars don't include those involving deliberate political and economic pressure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States


In Iraq it was compelled by the 1991 gulf war treaty to act when Saddam violated it. Grenada was pretty self explanatory, Cuba and the Soviets pulled a coop as soon as the British released them. Thats a challenge to the anti-imperialism treaties we have with North and South America.

Unless you mean the first gulf war witch was a wide scale exception, Saddam was threatening to invade other countries after he annexed Kuwait and committed a lot of warcrimes there over the year.


Are you suggesting via the undisputed word that is Wiki that every war the United States has been involved in was motivated by non-mandates?



Texas is a exception, we all know the cowboys give us Yankees a bad name, carelessly riding horses on the freeway instead of getting a real car.
 
Last edited:
Pakistan is a serious problem to every single country in the world. I am absolutely astounded at how poorly protected their nuclear arnaments are.

I remember about a month ago when I was watching the news they made a report that terrorists have the ability to steal nukes from Pakistan because they are poorly defended.

Absoultely apalling.

That's shocking. Pakistan has got to be one of the most unstable and unsafest countries right now. And to think that they have nukes AND the fact they are so poorly defended is scary.
 
could you answer WHY you put Serbia on 7th spot?


They do have a tendency to go off on rampages..

Last time they had a military tyraid it nearly drug everything into another world war- like with the first one. Don't you remember how royally ticked the Reds where over the Kosovo thing? I thought they were ready to declare war on NATO for interfering with the whole thing.

I think i would have ranked it higher, but there was a lot of other big fish stirring trouble- plus things seemed to have cooled down marginally from a few years ago.
 
Last edited:
Grenada was pretty self explanatory, Cuba and the Soviets pulled a coop as soon as the British released them. Thats a challenge to the anti-imperialism treaties we have with North and South America.

Gosh, I am shocked people are even trying to defend this, are you saying every time there is a coup, the US can jump in and use it as an excuse for political ends blaming the Soviets or someone? If so why didn't the US STOP the Chile coup rather than instigate it?

By a vote of 122 in favour to 9 .. with 27 abstentions, the United Nations General Assembly adopted General Assembly Resolution 38/7 which "deeply deplores the armed intervention in Grenada, which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of that State

After the invasion, Prime Minister Thatcher wrote to President Reagan: This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime. I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East-West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of Cruise missiles in this country...I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication. The full text remains classified.

With regards to the 2003 Iraq war you have me totally confused, was the excuse not regime change or WMD? These issues are incidentally coming out due to an enquiry at this moment (Blair and therefore Bush knew there was no active WMD prior to the invasion)
 
Last edited:
Yup sounds familiar doesn't it?

The Rationalizations for the Invasion The U.S. invasion of Grenada was the first major U.S. military operation since the end of the Vietnam War. Indeed, it may have in part been a test of the so-called "Vietnam syndrome," the purported "affliction" that makes it difficult for the American public to support U.S. military intervention without a just cause. As with Iraq, the initial justifications for the invasion proved to be either highly debatable or demonstrably false, yet it still received bipartisan support in Congress and the approval of nearly two-thirds of the American public


Reasons for the Invasion Why, then, did the United States invade? Many believe that Grenada was seen as a bad example for other poor Caribbean states. Its foreign policy was not subservient to the American government and it was not open to having its economy dominated by U.S. corporate interests. A show of force would cause states with similar leftist nationalist ideals to think twice. If a country as small and poor as Grenada could have continued its rapid rate of development under a socialist model, it would set a bad precedent for other Third World countries. In short, Grenada under the New Jewel Movement was reaching a dangerous level of health care, literacy, housing, participatory democracy, and economic independence.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/25966.html
 
Gosh, I am shocked people are even trying to defend this, are you saying every time there is a coup, the US can jump in and use it as an excuse for political ends blaming the Soviets or someone? If so why didn't the US STOP the Chile coup rather than instigate it?

By a vote of 122 in favour to 9 .. with 27 abstentions, the United Nations General Assembly adopted General Assembly Resolution 38/7 which "deeply deplores the armed intervention in Grenada, which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of that State

After the invasion, Prime Minister Thatcher wrote to President Reagan: This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime. I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East-West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of Cruise missiles in this country...I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication. The full text remains classified.

With regards to the 2003 Iraq war you have me totally confused, was the excuse not regime change or WMD? These issues are incidentally coming out due to an enquiry at this moment (Blair and therefore Bush knew there was no active WMD prior to the invasion)


I really couldn't care less what the useless UN says about anything. We run our own affaires not the rest of the world. If someone is threatening us we will take action against them. If someone is trying to take over someone in the Western hemisphere we will stop them. They where both the case in Grenada. Thatcher ( As much respect as i have for her) doesn't rule us and neither do the Soviets. Yeah Wiki can be a pain sometimes too dont worry about it.

The 1991 gulf war cease fire agreement restricted Iraq on several counts, WMD being among them. In fact WMD was only one of many reasons given to take action against Saddam, a violation of the treaty meant a return to hostilities ( Desert fox? ) Saddam knew it, and so did we. When he violated the treaty, we took action.


The UN is one of the biggest foul ups and corrupted organisations in the history of man. They want global domination, we run our own business- not a bribed Moroccan diplomat. If our treaties and agreements force us into war- then we must honor our word and protect our friends and our own people. If we let someone violate a treaty and we dont de anything about it- why should anyone take our treaties seriously?
 
Back
Top