POLL: Most Dangerous Country

Remove all ads!

Last thing i've heard about the trouble in the middle east is that Iran accepts humanitarian aid from every country in the world EXCEPT from Israel. Just to show how deep these feelings are rooted.

Pretty stupid those Iranians, because if what i hear is correct, Israel has some of the finest rescue teams in the world, with very experienced personel AND they're only 200 Kms or so away from the scene of the earthquake.

But no, they're not welcome. They rather die than accept aid from Israel, which IS offered btw.

 

joacqin wrote -

well ,this is exactly my fear, that the world will go on pretty much as it is, a world where someone can say - ok, the worst thing that can happen is a nuke wiping off a city. is this the world you want to live in? true, the world will keep on exisiting, but if this is what living will be like - people afraid to go anywhere, fly anywhere, live normal lives, who would want to live in such a world?

Pac man - shortest distance between Israel and Iran is more than 1000 km

 

Oops, i meant a two hours flight.

Anyway, here's the article i was talking about.

Iran clarifies the Middle East

Dennis Prager

December 30, 2003

If you want to understand the Middle East conflict, Iran has just provided all you need to know.

A massive earthquake kills between 20,000 and 40,000 Iranians, and the government of Iran announces that help is welcome from every country in the world . . . except Israel.

This little-reported news item is of great significance. It begs commentary.

Israel not only has the world's most experienced crews in quickly finding survivors in bombed out buildings, it is also a mere two-hour flight from Iran. In other words, no country in the world would come close to Israel in its ability to save Iranian lives quickly.

But none of this means anything to the rulers of Iran. The Islamic government of Iran has announced to the world that it is better for fellow countrymen and fellow Muslims -- men, women and children -- to die buried under rubble than to be saved by a Jew from Israel.

That is how deep the hatred of Israel and Jews is in much of the Muslim world.

Hundreds of millions of Muslims -- Arab and non-Arab, Sunni and Shi'a -- hate Israel more than they love life. Leaders of the Palestinian terror organization Hamas repeatedly state, "We love death more than the Jews love life." And now, Iran announces that it is better for a Muslim to asphyxiate under the earth than be rescued by a Jew from Israel.

Naive Westerners -- which includes most academics, intellectuals, members of the international news media, and nearly all others on the Left -- refuse to acknowledge the uniqueness of the Arab/Muslim hatred of Israel and Jews. Yet, there is no hatred in the world analogous to it. Not since the Nazi hatred of Jews has humanity witnessed such hate.

That is why finding survivors from earthquakes, creating a Palestinian state and life itself are all far less important in much of the Islamic and Arab worlds than killing Jews and destroying the little Jewish state.

That is why Arab newspapers run articles by Arab professors describing how Jews butcher non-Jewish children to use their blood for holiday meals.

That is why Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad could get a standing ovation from the heads of every Muslim country when he told them "the Jews rule the world by proxy."

That is why Palestinian parents celebrate the suicide terror of their sons -- the joy of killing Israeli families far outweighs the pain of the death of their child.

Western naifs like to believe platitudes such as "Deep down, all people are really the same," "All people want peace," and the great untruth of multiculturalism that no culture is morally superior to another. That is why they choose not to face the truth about the Nazi-like hatred that permeates the Arab/Muslim world and the consequent moral gulf that exists between it and Israel. It shatters too many of their illusions.

Surely the Iranian refusal of rescuers from the Jewish state ought to help all these people acknowledge the unique hatred that is at the root of the Arab-Israeli dispute and recognize that it is therefore a conflict unlike any other on earth.

So, too, the immediate and sincere Israeli offer of rescuers to Iran should make the moral gulf between Israel and its enemies as clear as day. Despite the fact that Iran is the greatest backer of anti-Israel (and anti-American) terror and despite the fact that Iran repeatedly declares that Israel must be annihilated (in other words, seeks a second Jewish Holocaust), Israel offered to send its people to save Iranian lives.

The two reactions -- Iran's preference for Iranian deaths to Israeli help and the Jewish state's instinctive offer to help save Iranian lives -- ought to be enough anyone needs to understand the source of the Middle East conflict. But they won't. Because those who are anti-Israel or "evenhanded" are not so because of the facts, but despite them.

 

Really hard to explain this. I'm not trying to make a point here, just express this feeling I have, that Israël is the most dangerous country around imo.

There is violence on both size, nothing could be more true, some Jews and Muslims (I'm tired of game consoles) hate each other passionately over there, true again. A certain percentage of the Muslims and Arabs I know won't sleep well until Israël is no more, and a certain percentage of Jews and Israëli I know won't sleep well until every one of their enemies (let's call them that) is either dead or in a prison camp.

This is among people who live here in Belgium, a couple thousands kilometers away from the fray. I can't possibly imagine how people over there feel and think day after day.

Israël can unleash far more violence than Syria or Jordania or Iraq or whatever. I believe this is an established fact. On top of that, as demonstrated by recent international events, those countries are being watched very closely by the world's big dogs. On the other hand, the Israëli authorities do exactly what they want, assured none of the big dogs will ever take provebial "drastic" measures against them.

On another field on thought, Israël is rather "coherent" whole with authorities, police, justice system, economy, a certain unity... its adversaries aren't "coherent" as in there is no such decision-making body capable of actually ruling in a coherent way. For instance, it is my impression that Arafat has little power other than a symbolic one, that he can't control all the loonies who go blow themselves on occasion. it's about separate groups, each with their own agendas, funding, etc designed only to fight.

To me, this means that Israël has to be the bigger man, because it actually can. It has the power to do so. I realise it's in no way fair and it implies unspeakable sacrifices, but it is their move to make, for the other side (or should I say sides?) just can't make it.

It can also keep on fueling the fire and provide every bloody dictator and fundamentalist with a splendid recruiting theme. So the conflict rages on, propagates in the whole world until every single country on this planet goes either apartheid-like or the Balkan way.

The danger I see is not about nukes or armies, but rather about yesterday's neighbors taking on each other with kitchen knives. A globalised civil war of some sort.

Again, I didn't vote Israël in this poll because I think there's the cause of all violence, 'cause I hate that country, or Jews or N-Gage players or what the truck, neither because of fairness, unfairness, blablabla... just this feeling I have and that I'm trying to explain in a foreign language.

 

I voted US, just because I can watch their news, and it is never that happy. Murder this, homicide that, grand theft auto, yada-yada-yada. Doesn't really make me want to go to the 'land of the free'.

 

A free society, as a consequence, allows people to act on their evil impulses.

Naturally a capitialist press will report the negative aspects of society more often than positive.

Of course, the United States is about the size and population as the whole of Europe, and per-capita I've heard that crime is quite lower here than over there. Its been awhile since I heard the statistic - it was in class when I was an undergrad - that crime in the U.S. is approximately 50 to 60% of the crime in Europe.

Canada... I don't know. From what I have heard it is quite pleasant up there.

P.S. The bad stuff you do hear - that's L.A.

 

I'm not sure if this is the whole story about crime. At least, I think it's safe to say, the more rural, the safer. The more urbanisation chiefly , the more crime. Plus plenty of other factors.

Strangley enough, the same think is for a free market society. The more TV and radio stations, the more reporters, the more cameras and microphones in the near of bloody places, the bloodier gets the picture of the world.

I'm actually convinced that this is true. And then I am convinced, that "Europe" is a quite colourful place. But this goes well with what I know (or my stereotype ?) of Belorussia, Russia and Ukraine and so on.

As for Western Europe, I think crime rates are lower then the US.

http://www.mercerhr.com/pressrelease/details.jhtml/dynamic/idContent/1084835

Edit: Pfelling.

[ January 05, 2004, 22:52: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

Try this: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030317&s=bivens

'nuff said

 

@ Ragusa

You're referencing a tabloid? Tsk tsk.

But in response...

1) France is a democracy. Britain is a democracy. India is a democracy. Does the United States worry about them? No.

2) The U.N. has become of the League of Nations. They did not enforce their own edicts. Their authority, both moral and legal, has evaporated.

3) ... are you referring to land mines?

4) I assume you are referring to the close Bush-Gore election? Rather than write a long diatribe describing the United States Consititution and the Electorial College - I will just suggest you do some basic research.

 

A short short comment here, why did the league of nations fail? Because the great powers of the time didnt support it. Why does the UN fail? Because the great power of our time dont support it. Simple as that really.

 

I voted India, I wished I could have voted for India and Pakistan in double pack. They got the numbers, they got the guns, they got the bombs, they go the hate verus eachother and they won't give dam neither about themselves nor anyone else, when they crash into eachother. And there's a chance a raving looney gets power over one of them.

 

The failure of the League of Nations was due to the fact that they could only serve as a place to debate and pass non-binding resolutions. They had no actual power. Its moral authority was destroyed because it did not have the courage to stand up to Hitler and basically made no stand or objections until it was too late.

The United Nations failed because it contained a rather minor, but fatal, design flaw. The U.S. system is based on the concept of checks and balances, its unfortunate that the U.N. was not designed the same way.

Any member of The Security Council can veto the Assembly, but the veto basically cannot be overridden. In other words, one corrupt or cowardly nation on the Council can paralyze the U.N. - which is the case now.

Perhaps the World will get it right the third time around.

[ January 06, 2004, 00:10: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

 

Voted USA. As I said before, they have the biggest guns.

 

What's a bigger danger:

A) a 1/5 chance of being beaten and mugged or;

B)a 1 in a billion chance of being murdered?

Bicker about the odds but that seems to be the crux of the divergence of opinion.

 

North Korea

They've been nothing trouble for 50 years and it probably won't change for the next 50.

edit: Moonstone!

 

Blackhawk,

Oh yes? By not agreeing to Bush's war? There is a thing named veto in the security council, and the US cheerfully make use of it whenever it suits their purpose, like for protecting allies like Israel. When something they badly want is stopped because of a veto, that's a sign of the UN inefficiency.

The US don't have a true interest to change that situation, because their position could only become weaker - so it's easier to cynically accuse the UN of inertia while contributing to it. And that's the game the US play at the UN under Bush.
The UN is only as effective as its members make it. When the UN is blocked by any of the permanent members, it is inefficient. It depends on the good will of the permanent members. The US recently haven't shown much of that. In fact, the Bush administration's contempt for the UN is unmatched.

And that silly tabloid brings up a good point after all: The US refuse to allow inspections of their bioweapon activities, which are, and I believe that, mostly defensive ... but, on the other hand, they are, as it sounds, keen on also developing some offensive stuff, nonlethal though, but still illegal, stuff against people, stuff against material - and that would be prohibited even under US law. Check that link to the Sunshine Project for more info, the non-lethal weapon section.
The point they make is that in the US these are questions of national security. One might think Iran thinks the same about their programs.

And that tabloid's final conclusion about what the other countries think of that is remarkable too:

It works that way: After the US attack on Iraq, Russia and China and iirc India too have declared they also possess the right for unilateral pre-emptive war. That should illustrate one of the destabilising effects of eroding international law Bush style. Speak about a bad example.

[ January 06, 2004, 12:20: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Well, good thing that China and India finally have an excuse for their decades-longstanding policies regarding unilateral, preemptive war to prevent their restive provinces (Taiwan and Kashmir) from declaring independence. Hope they weren't holding their breath for the US move on Iraq - or maybe they started breathing at Kosovo? or Haiti? or Panama? or Grenada?

You're right about the nonlethal bit, Ragusa. Per BW/CW conventions, countries are permitted to shatter, scorch, sunder, slice, dice, slash, thrash, bash, mash, and crash however they want - but heavens forfend that they develop chemical or biological weapons that are inconsistently nonlethal.

 

Biological weapons are banned mainly because they are unpredictable, able to spread like wildfire and wipe out entire populations if things go bad. Not to mention the possibility of mutations that cannot be countered on the fly.

A napalm bomb, or a cluster bomb only wreak havoc in a localised aerea, bioweapons don't, they spread ... they can't be controlled as easy as conventional weapons, even chemical weapons.

There is a marvellous book and play, unfortunately in german, named "Zucker", or sugar. It describes the effect of a bio-organism spreading, turning paper into sugar, and mankind back to the stoneage. Something that doesn't kill, isn't logically harmless.

 

A better reason to ban "non-lethal" weaponry is that it usually isn't non-lethal at all. Soldiers are typically healthy young males, and innocent civilians are typically babies, li'l kids, women, and the elderly. Doses that merely knock out virile males kill the women and children; doses that knock out the women and children don't faze the men. Same with biological weapons that, like you said, get out of control quickly. Unlike, say, conventional explosives and small arms, whose spread can be easily contained...oh, wait, never mind. But at least the damage, like you said, is localized. (Not that limited localization helped at Verdun.)

But this is off-topic...or maybe I'm just reinforcing the "America-first" position for this poll!

 

I agree, you saw that when russia used it's "non-lethal" gas with lethal effect on these chechen terrorists holding a theatre hostage, and with lethal effect on the hostages ...

As for war remainders and localising them, we can be lucky the US and UK have sent us copies of their bombing camera films, so we can locate the likely impact aereas of the duds. But even that's not always enough - three weeks ago I've been held up by the finding of a dud during construction work, a british 4000lb aerial mine (some 90% of the weight high explosives) - found after 50+ years, and disarmed. Fortunately we have experts and procedures for that ready, unlike the usual third world country.

Mankind's modern wars sure leave their heritage.