Worst/Most Dangerous Countries in the World

[Geronimo]

United States: US is the first and the only country that has dropped nuclear bomb during the war. US has invaded many countries to throw the legitimate governments in the recent past. Also, it's extremely hypocritical and contradictory when it promotes democracy in slogans and supports dictators in reality (re: US supports primitive Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).

China: Since 2009 China has asserted its sovereignty over the South China Sea by enforcing an annual fishing ban, conducting regular maritime patrols, and undertaking scientific surveys and military exercises in the disputed islands and waters of the South China Sea.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Luckynako

[Redael]

Stop with anti-us propaganda. This is MURICA land of the free home of the brave and back to back world war champions.

[Fox Fire]

Erm no one has said the Palestinians need America's permission to have a state. If they could quit attacking Israel and maybe accept one of the many peace offers that'd be great. Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs in Syria have. Also Syria has killed five times more Arabs in the past four years than Israel has killed in its existence. The only reason that Israel gets 5x more negative press than everyone in the region combined is because it's easier to blame da jooz for your country's problems than it is to actually do anything about them, and Middle Eastern dictators take full advantage of that.

 

Please, tell me how Israel is worse than Saudi Arabia, or Syria...

 

Also, Jews have continuously inhabited the area for 3000 years.

You're kidding right? It's Israel that refuses to abide by the peace terms they agreed to. Instead, they annex land that legally is not theirs and errect a wall, most of which is inside territory they agreed is not Israeli. As for your death statistics, [citation needed]. 

Jews may have historical ties to the area but so do Arabs. The original Kingdom of Israel was only made possible through genocide. Thousands of years later, after the area is almost entirely inhabited by Muslims who've been living there consecutively for generation, the UK makes a shady agreement with Jews across Europe to create a Jewish state in a predominantly Muslim area, regardless of what the people living there have to say about it. You say Arabs have more rights in Israel, but I call bullshit. If they did, Israel would not be regularly bombing their own Arab people. Because let's remember, if Israel is the one with a right to exist, all those Palestinians are in fact Israelis.

The Palestinians do need Americas permission to have a state. Which is why they currently do not.

[greatkitteh]

Stop with anti-us propaganda. This is MURICA land of the free home of the brave and back to back world war champions.

But the NSA spies on you, Guam still cant vote in your elections, The Chinese and Soviets bore the most casulties of world war two, America didnt join untill It was clear germany would lose, The average Japanese soilder surrendered less than Americans in world war two, and your blasting american propogamda about anti american propoganda.

[Big Brother]

The Palestinians do need Americas permission to have a state. Which is why they currently do not.

 

You sure about that? Surely there are other ways to Palestinian statehood than "because the US said so"?

[Spite]

Ain't never going to be a two state solution, so there's never going to be a Palestinian state. Don't kid yourselves, the Israelis would nuke themselves before they let their country fall to the Arabs.

[Fox Fire]

You sure about that? Surely there are other ways to Palestinian statehood than "because the US said so"?

Except there really isn't because the US dominates international law?.....

[Rozalia]

United States of America

The United Kingdom

France

Germany

Sunni Gulf States + their Islamic terrorist minions

China

Russia

Iran

North Korea

Turkey

Israel

 

In regards to most dangerous (top being most dangerous), though some could easily be swapped there (any below the Gulf States). Worst would be North Korea followed by the Gulf States only because you can at least escape the Gulf States, not so much North Korea. 

 

You sure about that? Surely there are other ways to Palestinian statehood than "because the US said so"?

 

The USA wields it's veto in the name of Israel who does not have one. Nothing unique to Israel of course because if the Kurds keep on their path of establishing a state (beyond the current autonomous province nonsense) then Turkey will get on it's hands and knees for America to "save the day" and block it. 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Rozalia

[Peter Quill]

2. North Korea

North Korea.

NORTH KOREA, GODDAMIT!

[Abu Haddad]

1. Zionist terror regime

2. USA
3. France
4. United Kingdom
5. Russia
6. Iran
7. DPRK
8. China
9. Assad Regime
10. Germany

[Vassili Dovgan]

1. Zionist terror regime

2. USA

3. France

4. United Kingdom

5. Russia

6. Iran

7. DPRK

8. China

9. Assad Regime

10. Germany

 

I'd say Germany is much more dangerous than the DPRK. We've got banks.

[Big Brother]

Except there really isn't because the US dominates international law?.....

 

And it's not like anyone ever breaks international law on a regular basis, right?

 

You overestimate the grip of international law and the level of control the United States possesses, through such laws or otherwise. If the entire world actually pandered to such laws and American will all the time, it would be a lot different.

 

Did the Russians care about international law when they invaded Georgia and set up Abkhazia and South Ossetia as more or less sovereign states? Do you think the people living there care about it? How about the Transnistrians or the people in "Novorossiya", do they obey international law? Do you think people have any regard for international law in places like Post-Gaddafi Libya or Somalia? No, probably not.

 

And is the United States the only player on the geopolitical scene with a seat on the Security Council and with interests in international law and its application? Certainly not.

 

International law can be and is defied all the time, by many different people all around the planet. Abiding by laws is hardly the only way things get done. If the Palestinians or Kurds build a state in practice yet in defiance of international law, it's still a state. It doesn't matter who dominates international law if you simply break it.

[greatkitteh]

North Korea.

NORTH KOREA, GODDAMIT!

Acuse the north of an dynasty? Look at Mrs.Park of south korea. Accuse the North of not investing enough in health? Look at MERS of south Korea. Accuse the north of Forced conscription? Look at draft resistance in south Korea.

I'd say Germany is much more dangerous than the DPRK. We've got banks.

It takes two nukes to wipe out an bank but a million to wipe out sovreignty

[Lannan13]

1. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

2. Syria

3. Iran

4. Pakistan

5. North Korea

6. South Suddan

7. Russia

8. Germany

9. Turkey

10. Egypt

[Stormrideron]

For the most dangerous country.

 

1. The Daesh

2. USA (Best military, technological advanced)

3. China (They can easily draft billion of their people into army and still make more babies.)

4. Russia (Well this is obvious, they want to bring back USSR again)

5. Iraq

6. North Korea

7. Libya

8. Palestine

9. Irasel

10. Pakistan

[Fox Fire]

And it's not like anyone ever breaks international law on a regular basis, right?

 

You overestimate the grip of international law and the level of control the United States possesses, through such laws or otherwise. If the entire world actually pandered to such laws and American will all the time, it would be a lot different.

 

Did the Russians care about international law when they invaded Georgia and set up Abkhazia and South Ossetia as more or less sovereign states? Do you think the people living there care about it? How about the Transnistrians or the people in "Novorossiya", do they obey international law? Do you think people have any regard for international law in places like Post-Gaddafi Libya or Somalia? No, probably not.

 

And is the United States the only player on the geopolitical scene with a seat on the Security Council and with interests in international law and its application? Certainly not.

 

International law can be and is defied all the time, by many different people all around the planet. Abiding by laws is hardly the only way things get done. If the Palestinians or Kurds build a state in practice yet in defiance of international law, it's still a state. It doesn't matter who dominates international law if you simply break it.

The United Nations is the child of the United States, more particularly western governments. After the end of WW2, the Builderberg group was also established. It's founders goals were essentially global unity. 

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/mar/10/extract1

You can even think of this as an attempt at creating a one world government. Under favorable conditions, it might have become one. However it's mostly focused on the west considering that's the foundations of the group. You can go ahead and think that Europe isn't a US puppet, but it really is. There were many agreements made during and after WW2 that were pressed by none other than good old USA to completely reshape the world into what we have today. Notice that what were once the most powerful empires in the world, and also our own allies, are now dismantled. Meanwhile the US is really the only nation to truly gain something from WW2 at very minimal cost. The way the US played that war was pure genius. That's basically how you take over the world by barely lifting a finger.

Russia invading Georgia is crap example. For starters, the Georgians were racist !@#$ who would have preferred to kill everyone in Ossetia, etc. Georgia bombed and killed Russian peacekeepers which in my mind, is an act of war. Georgia poking a frost grizzly bear with a sharp stick and bombing civilians no less, isn't really my idea of Russia violating international law. But further more, just like the US, Russia is a considerably powerful nation. Just like the US, they will violate international law when they see fit because nobody is going to stop them. As for the rest of your examples, citizens in nations don't follow domestic law just because it's law. None of this is even relevant to my point.

There are 5 nations that actually matter on the UNSC. 3 of them always vote together because they are basically enforcing whatever we decide to vote for. I've heard plenty from Europeans expressing displeasure with this. People saying "We need our own foreign policy, not Americas foreign policy".

What you're trying to say is that international law doesn't matter, seemingly under some assumption that it will never be enforced. But you're wrong. It's enforced all the time. It just tends to be less strictly enforced the more powerful the force breaking the law is. Like Iran, North Korea, India or Pakistan on nukes. And then there is Israel, whom the US simply doesn't seem to care what they have or do as long as they can keep the middle east destabilized for us.

The intentions of very rich and powerful people in the west are a lot more shady than you're willing to admit.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Israel is a puppet state overseen by the United States. Its a well established military port and air base for the US.

[Big Brother]

The United Nations is the child of the United States, more particularly western governments. After the end of WW2, the Builderberg group was also established. It's founders goals were essentially global unity. 

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/mar/10/extract1

You can even think of this as an attempt at creating a one world government. Under favorable conditions, it might have become one. However it's mostly focused on the west considering that's the foundations of the group. You can go ahead and think that Europe isn't a US puppet, but it really is. There were many agreements made during and after WW2 that were pressed by none other than good old USA to completely reshape the world into what we have today. Notice that what were once the most powerful empires in the world, and also our own allies, are now dismantled. Meanwhile the US is really the only nation to truly gain something from WW2 at very minimal cost. The way the US played that war was pure genius. That's basically how you take over the world by barely lifting a finger.

Russia invading Georgia is crap example. For starters, the Georgians were racist !@#$ who would have preferred to kill everyone in Ossetia, etc. Georgia bombed and killed Russian peacekeepers which in my mind, is an act of war. Georgia poking a frost grizzly bear with a sharp stick and bombing civilians no less, isn't really my idea of Russia violating international law. But further more, just like the US, Russia is a considerably powerful nation. Just like the US, they will violate international law when they see fit because nobody is going to stop them. As for the rest of your examples, citizens in nations don't follow domestic law just because it's law. None of this is even relevant to my point.

There are 5 nations that actually matter on the UNSC. 3 of them always vote together because they are basically enforcing whatever we decide to vote for. I've heard plenty from Europeans expressing displeasure with this. People saying "We need our own foreign policy, not Americas foreign policy".

What you're trying to say is that international law doesn't matter, seemingly under some assumption that it will never be enforced. But you're wrong. It's enforced all the time. It just tends to be less strictly enforced the more powerful the force breaking the law is. Like Iran, North Korea, India or Pakistan on nukes. And then there is Israel, whom the US simply doesn't seem to care what they have or do as long as they can keep the middle east destabilized for us.

The intentions of very rich and powerful people in the west are a lot more shady than you're willing to admit.

 

Sorry about the really late reply, I'm not a very consistent poster.

 

You have some valid points, but I still don't completely agree with you.

 

Let's be clear, I never claimed that international law doesn't matter. I never claimed that the American government, and groups like the one you mentioned, cannot influence national governments and politics all over the globe. But having the ability to influence and affect something, is not the same as having complete control. Obviously, the US government and the Bildeberg group, are not the only people in the world who have an interest in affecting and influencing the political course of the world's countries. They are surely capable of shaping things according to their own will, but so are a lot of other people. Politics is essentially a battle of wills, a struggle between different influences, and to think that any one group, whether it's the US government, the Bildeberg group or anyone, always get their way every time in every single situation, is too far fetched for me to accept as fact. The world really isn't that simple.

 

Referring to Europe as one entity is really inaccurate and just poor terminology. I'm sure you already know that Europe consists of many entities, with many different organizations and influences coming into play. Even if you were talking about the European Union, you have to take the interests of each member nation into account, plus there are plenty of countries in Europe that aren't in the EU, and pursue completely different political directions. Some Europeans might take issue with having a foreign policy so much like the American one, but I don't really see this as something resulting out of control as much as it's a result of coinciding interests.

 

As for Russia's invasion being a bad example, sure maybe, but you basically made my point for me. "They will violate international law when they see fit because nobody us going to stop them". Of course, you're completely right about this. My point was only that anyone can defy international law, strong or weak, though like you said, the less powerful, the more enforcement. But even in cases where enforcement is sought, it doesn't always go as planned. International law can be interpreted differently by different political actors, it does matter and it can be enforced, but enforcement can also fail and the laws can be defied.

 

I'm an anti-capitalist dude, if there's someone I don't trust it's the rich and powerful. I'm sure their intentions are the shadiest of shady, what I doubt is their supposedly unfailing ability to always get their way. Believe it or not, there are many situations where money and power isn't enough and hardly even matters.

[Naruu]

Saying Israel is dangerous is a tad bit incorrect, it's only so if you're living in Gaza. So Palestine is a dangerous country, if you count at as a country, rather then Israel. I'd much rather live in Israel then Saudi Arabia where you can be executed for being gay, as an example.

[Abu Haddad]

You can't say the daesh

Because daesh stands for ad dawlatul islamiyah fil Iraq was sham.

Translates to The Islamic State in/of Iraq and Greater Syria/Syria/Levant.

Your saying the the Islamic state ......

[Doktor Avalanche]

The Islamic State from what I am aware of hates it when people call it Daesh.

Which with many people, globally, justifies calling it Daesh.