Which is a bigger threat to the US?

[John Dibble]

North Korea is probably a bigger threat to it's neighbors than us, and considering how completely dependent they are on the foreign community for food I don't think they'll be that big of one if they've got any brains. I don't think Iran has any plans to nuke us, though I think overall they are more of a threat to us, but moreso to Israel.

[John Dibble]

Stupidity is the biggest threat

Of course it is - now just determine which country is the most stupid, and answer accordingly.

[John Dibble]

Stupidity is the biggest threat

Of course it is - now just determine which country is the most stupid, and answer accordingly.

Not funny

What got stuck up your rear?

That's a little better.

Seriously though, stupidity-anyone's stupidity, including ours- is the biggest threat to this country.

Of course it is - I wasn't entirely joking the first time. Ignorance, stupidity, and the like are threats everywhere. And countries with higher degrees of stupidity in their leadership are usually greater threats, as they're less likely to consider the consequences of their actions.

[John Dibble]

Why do people see Iran as a threat.  Iran has constantly said they plan on using nuclear capabilities for recreational purposes; powering houses, providing electricity and such.  It's the media and George Bush claiming they plan to use it for making weapons.

Possibly it has to do with Iran's leadership saying that Isreal should be wiped off the map. I know Kim is a nutball and all, but from the looks of it North Korea isn't advocating any holy wars.

Given that Iran's leader is advocating one, you shouldn't blame people for being scheptical about everything that is said regarding their peaceful intentions with this program.

[John Dibble]

Stupidity is not a constant variable, however. Otherwise rational people (or leaders) can be driven to irrational things, while even the vilest of dictators (Stalin) could be cold and calculating.

I never claimed otherwise, but you can judge which leaders are more likely to do crazy and stupid things based on their regular behavior.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree - you have to take into account the general behavior of a country(both leadership and people) when deciding whether or not that country might pose a threat. The country is a threat because of that behavior. Countries that don't talk about wiping others off the map because of stupid bigotry and hatred tend to be a greater threat to civilized society than ones that generally behave rationally. That's common sense, right? Taking into account these general behaviors isn't irrational, rather it's the smart thing to do. It also does not deny the possibility of rational behavior - that possibility is taken into account by the fact that your maintain diplomatic channels with the nation in question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not advocating an 'us-vs-them' mentality - I'm merely saying that one should seriously look at the behavior of other countries in determining how to deal with them. You can't make irrational, stupid behaviors and mentalities go away by simply ignoring them, now can you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, duh - but the world isn't full of rational states, now is it? Because it isn't, we should rationally analyze which countries tend to be more irrational than others so we can know what we're dealing with. The irrational behavior of Hitler and Nazi Germany was ignored for a good long time, and it almost ended up in the Nazis controlling all of Europe. As I said, you can't ignore such a problem and expect it to just go away.

[John Dibble]

Er, when I speak of rationality, I mean very narrowly construed, as in maximizing one's material self-interest. The only "ideology" this rationality allows is materialism. The actions of such as Al Qaida don't fall into here, nor are the actions of Nazi Germany. Even the US invasion of Iraq is not fully rational by this account. The Nazis, Al Qaida, the communists... were all driven by something other than material self-interest. Materialism, otherwise known as greed, is the one ideology least threatening to the US, and also the oldest ideology of mankind.

Well, I suppose you can see how one would get confused by that, lol. Anyways, I would agree materialism is the least threatening general ideology for another country to have - as they say, the business of America is business, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I think you take it a little too literally then, because I don't think that's the kind of mentality anyone is espousing. When I say 'Iran is a threat' I mean that 'Iran, in the state that it is in at this moment in time, is a threat' - change the state that Iran to something more acceptable and Iran ceases to be a threat. Countries aren't static entities, and few people would act otherwise. After all, Britain and the US used to be on pretty bad terms with the whole revolution and war of 1812 and all, but now we're valuable allies. Conversely, Iran was once a country of little concern to us.

[John Dibble]

My problem is labelling states as irrational (by the above definition) is that by identifying the states rather than a type of behavior (Islamism, or communist terrorism/blind hatred) as a problem, it's setting up a poor mindset to tackling the behavior itself. If "Iran" is a threat, then "Iran" must be minimized: not Iran's poor behavior must be minimized, not Iran's radicalism or support of terrorism that must end, but Iran itself must end, which of course is impossible without war. From this kind of mentality diplomacy can hardly ever succeed.

Well, I think you take it a little too literally then, because I don't think that's the kind of mentality anyone is espousing. When I say 'Iran is a threat' I mean that 'Iran, in the state that it is in at this moment in time, is a threat' - change the state that Iran to something more acceptable and Iran ceases to be a threat. Countries aren't static entities, and few people would act otherwise. After all, Britain and the US used to be on pretty bad terms with the whole revolution and war of 1812 and all, but now we're valuable allies. Conversely, Iran was once a country of little concern to us.

Right, so it's not very helpful to label nouns like entire countries as threats rather than behavior types. Iran is a threat only because, and to the extent that, it embraces terrorism, Islamism, anti-semitism, etc. And if the Iranian state disappered but these things remained, we'd still have an enemy. On the other hand it was not too many years ago that even the current Iranian regime was quite a bit more sane than it is today. So to label the behavior type as the true enemy is more precise, and a more precise way of thinking.

Well, precision matters when determining why a country is a threat, but as I said I don't think most people would take "Iran is a threat" in quite the literal sense you're implying here. I'm pretty sure they would be able to gleam the reasons why Iran is a threat. So, while you can try to be more precise, it's difficult to actually deal with a behavior directly - for instance the 'war on terrorism' taken literaly tries to make war with a concept. It doesn't work by itself. The actual 'war on terrorism' is a battle against the groups that use terrorism. Since those who behave in threatening manners often tend to group up, be it a terrorist group like Al Queda or a nation like Iran, to an extent you have to think in terms of the groups espousing those behaviors. Hence, "Iran is a threat" is not imprecise, so long as you know the reasons why.