USA vs Middle-East, who safer for the rest of the world?

So there has been this huge questionaire in one of our biggest newspapers.

The result shows that the majority (62%) see the USA as the biggest threat for (world) peace. And that the US goverment is a bigger thread then terrorisme (38%).

Also the majority thinks that the USA will not have enough support/allies for a new war (Iran).

Do you agree?

common sense and current evidence shows that the US is much more dangerous for world stability and peace than anyone in the middle east.

choking on a big mac is a bigger threat than terrorism no matter how many politicians, media outlets etc... try to instill a sense of constant fear in us. i'm pissed off that i didn;'t save this but in my old war, terrorism and conflict uni module the lecturer uploaded a list of risks of death in the USA in the past x amount of years.

terrorism was 1 in 1,000,000 (for obvious reasons)
stuff like getting hit by a bus, heart attackm food poisoning, sporting injury etc... were all significantly higher.

we should start a war on buses


as for will the US have support for a future invasion of iran?

no ****ing way, the nations who stayed out of iraq are perfectly legitimate to give us the old "we told you so" treatment following the abject bullshit, lies and dishonesty that has led us into the war plus the subsequent ineptness of most parties involved that has turned it into a shitpit that it is.

the nations who joined the USA in this venture know that they were stupid and will under no circumstances be falling over themselves to get into another ill-fated, un-needed and pointless quagmire.

No, it's absolutely ridiculous to think America is the biggest threat to world peace. I can only assume that someone who says such a thing is either an idiot plain and simple or a sheep caught up in the Bush hating movement and generalizing that to the entire country.

To take just two examples of what we're facing in the Middle East, and I say we because all of us regardless of whether we support America in any way are targets for these groups.

You've got Iran who's leader and supporters and law makers are actively seeking nuclear weapons and who have publicly, explicitly and repeatedly called for a nation and all it's people to be wiped off the map; are one of the worlds largest state sponsors of terrrorist groups and are eagerly awaiting the immenent return of their messiah who will usher in Armageddon and it's man's duty to bring that on. That is dangerous. Granted there are plenty of people in Israel and America (over 40% if polls are to be believed) who too would like nothing more then to see this take place aswell, so perhaps faith and irrationality regardless of where it is located is the biggest threat to world peace.

Leaving aside Iran, a nation state, there is just no possible way anyone with an ounce of common sense who has engaged in a seconds worth of thinking could think America is more a threat to world peace then the extreme Islamic fundamentalist movement. This is not a single organisation. It's not just Al Qaida or Osama Bin Laden, it's not confined to one part of the world, it's an ideolgy based on faith. It's not amenable to rational discussion or reason. These people, and collective groups, want to drag the entire human civillisation back to medieval pesantry and they have no quams about killing and being killed in order to achieve this goal. They seek to undo every single human advance ever achieved, and left untouched they could do a damn good job of achieving their goals. Just look at Iraq to see what the parties of God are doing to that country.

These people aren't fighting the US, they're fighting each other. You've got Sunni's killing Shiites and vice versa, Sunni's killing Sunni's and Shiites killing Shiites. This is not America's fault. However inept their execution of the liberation was, and that is primarally down to having an insanely inept, naive and stupid commander in chief, they went there to remove a horrendous dictator who had destroyed that nation and to offer freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq. This was a right and just thing to do and an incredibly noble thing to do. What has happened is the parties of God have obliterated any chance of that happening, at least in the near future. George Bush and the planners of this war should be held responisble for the terrible execution of this war but they did not seek to cause this situation in Iraq. Their motives were noble. The parties of God wanted exactly this outcome. This is what they strove for and this is as ignoble a motive as one could imagine. This is what is perpetuating violence around the world by being just what is needed to recruit more and more people to strap on the suicide vest. Anyone who thinks this is the direct fault of America has forfeited the right to be taken seriously as far as I'm concerned.

Iraq had disintergrated long before America launched their invasion and this violence was going to happen even if America stayed out of Iraq. Saddam was on his way out and the Saudii's and Iranian would have flooded in and the sectarian violence we're seeing now would be nothing compared to what it would've been. But again I have to reiterate this point, the US did not actively intend to cause destablisation or unnecessary violence or suffering, and they are not the ones perpetraiting the violence nor are they the motivators or inspirors of all the violence taking place in the the Middle East. They are not the cause. Their intentions are just the opposite. The people who are committing these acts are responsible and are the dangerous ones.


I agree that every country in the world who opposed the war in Iraq can legitimately say "I told you so". So what, I say, that's incredibley childish. This effort has been a disaster, and it didn't have to be but that's beside the point. The point is Iraq is where it is and the question is what do we do now. What is the right, just and moral thing to do now?

Maybe you saw this situation coming but does that absolve you of the responsibility to do something to help the people who are suffering now when you have the ability to help them? I don't see how anyone can morally defend that position.

Can anyone really be so naive to think that defeat in Iraq will simply mean a defeat for the Bush administration? If we abandon Iraq tomorrow the country will turn into a state far, far worse then Afghanistan was under the Taliban. It will be an unimagionably catastrophic situation with terrorist organisations free to do as they wish. And that would be disastrous to world peace.

The fact is there are three wars going on in Iraq right now. The first is the fight between Sunni and Shiite's for dominance or Iraq. This is a tragic sectarian war. This isn't really our problem and there's not even a lot we can do about it other then trying to containing force but the truth is anyone who has died as a result of this war has in truth dies for nothing.

The second is a fight against Al Qaida. This is a war we must not lose. America shouldn't leave until Al Qaida is driven out of Iraq and completely desimated (and this is a concern for every country in the world and to ignore it is to prepetuate and bring violence upon ourselves). This is already happening to a great degree and it could only be benifited by the aid of other nations. And while targeting Saddam was certainly not part of the stupidly called "War on Terror", this fight most certainly is.

And the third is the struggle of Iraq's Kurdish minority to defend and consolidate its regional government in the north. Kurdistan is the great success story of this effort and a shinning example of what could have been. Thankfully as Hillary Clinton has said (although it remains to be seen if this is still her position) we cannot abandon the Kurds to slaughter as we once did. America led this war and now as such they have responsibilities that they cannot absolve themselves of, and since a good or morally justifiable case can't be made for abandoning Iraq on the latter two fronts, anyone who has the ability to help on these fronts and does nothing is indirectly responsible for every life that will be lost as a result of their inaction. The ability to distinguish among these different definitions of the "war" is what ought to define the difference between a serious politician and a political opportunist, both in Iraq and in America (and the wider world).

America is not a largest threat to the world. Iran too, isnt... However, opinions like Butters are threat!

You can't take these things at face value.. obviously Iran is a bigger threat to "world peace" in reality, but figuratively speaking saying America can be construed as the biggest threat with its world tour war on terror threatening to visit any country that America takes a disliking to.

You could argue that America just sitting back and leaving alone would make a more peaceful world, but equally you can argue that that would allow the "rogue nations" - as decided by ze yankees - to become a bigger threat..and so on..

as opposed to the USA who actually have nuclear weapons?

who actually are in a state of war just now?

state sponsors of terrorism? america invented that game. it's their state sponsored terrorism that has allowed iran to have such a regime....

and the god squad are in charge of the US too. don't think idiot politicians full of bullshit religious dogma is confined to the islamic world. god even talks to bush. i don't think i've ever read iran's top dogs saying allah speaks to them and tells them what to do?!?!?!



i don't hate bush, i actually kind of feel sorry for him and i did support him well into the iraq war but there's only so much you can let slide before you realise just how inept the man is.

i also don't hate the US. actually i love the place and most of the people in it so don't think that this is just an attack on the nation.

but as reality would have it, we're discussing world peace and at the present all that iran is guilty of is rattling it's sabre and POSSIBLY trying to attain nukes whereas the US is upto it's eyeballs in shit with regards to conflict.

The difference being the liklihood of either nation using them. Despite the nutbags who have some power in the US, they almost certainly will never use another nuclear bomb again, certainly not to attack another country anyway. It's possible they could drop one if they are attacked but even then I wouldn't see it happenning. The difference is the Iranians want one not for defensive purposes but have explicitly said they want one for offensive purposes, namely wiping Israel out of existence. This sort of rhetoric indicates a much higher likelihood of them using a nuke for offensive purposes then America.

Do you really, honestly think America is likely to use a nuclear bomb, save for say some unprovoked nuclear attack on them, and even if that were to happen do think it's likely to happen? You're obviously a very smart guy so I just can't see how you could rationally say yes to that.

Fair point I grant you. Of course America's past support of shockingly bad regimes are not really equivalent to Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah.

Trust me I know however America unlike any other country has a constitutional seperation of church and state. This will prevent it ever becoming a theocracy. Whatever the beliefs of the law makers they have to follow the constitution and that is what makes the US the anthisesis of nations like Iran.

Really? Iran is a theocracy, or a 'theodicy' for want of a better phrase. The mullahs run the country and the President is every bit as delusional.

I have no regard for Bush at all. I think he is an imbicile of the highest order. He's naive, childish, insecure, uneducated and I absolutely hate his use of faith as a justification for doing what he wants.

Yes but you surely can't be that short sighted. The Islamic facist movement is a major and iminent threat to world peace and America has no choice but to fight them for the sake of preserving freedom. I certainly don't think they are going about it in a smart or particularly effective fashion and that surely is a result of who is in charge but the threat to world peace is not America is any way at all. It is those that they are fighting who are the threat.
Imagine in 1938 America had launched an invasion of Germany to remove Adolf Hitler. You could well have made the argument that they was a destructive force to world peace but what would the alternative have been. As it turns out we know exactly what it was. Just because one nation is engaged in war at a given moment in time does not mean that that nation is responsible or the cause.

To argue America is the problem is absolute piffle, and I frankly find it difficult to sum up any respect or time for people with such attitudes. To argue that America is the danger to world peace makes the assumption that Bin Ladenism is like some sort of liberation theology and these people only exist and do what they do because of America's policies and if only America would change it's ways and it's foreign policies all these people would cease their violence, suicide bombings and efforts to reduce mankind to peasentry. This is an insane notion.

why would the US not use a nuke? are you privvy to information that none of the rest of us are? nope you're just assuming that iran is likely to use one and the US is not.

that has no basis in reality. it's simply your opinion and i s no more valid (or invalid) than someone who would suggest that the US is more likely to use a nuke than iran.

as for state sponsored terrorism. i'm not talking just about the US instilling tinpot dicatators. they have been (and still are) active in subversive measures in regions all over the world in sponsoring, arming and aiding terrorist groups to fight against governments and regimes the US is hostile too.

the US is pretty hypocritical to get its nose out of joint when the possibility of another nation doing it to them comes around.


the seperation of church and state can only go so far when the guy in charge who god apparently speaks too is also in charge of electing the judges for the highest court in the land, has a presidential veto and hasn't been too fussed about ignorant parts of the constitution when it's suited him.

Wiping Israel off the map would solve a lot of problems

But the US would never let that happen of course, wonder why

and yet so many people don't understand the hatred from the middle east towards the US

I understand it tho, most Americans have the exact same thought about Muslims then Hitler had about Jews, it's scary

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/2742..._herleven.html

The USA, the land of the free!!
Yeah right