Most Dangerous Country to the World

[protocol_alpha]

What do u think?

[mistled]

None of those. Whenever terrorists get their hands on a nuke of somesort, it'll be from Libya. So they are the most dangerous.

[MrVulcan]

china

they are the only country that would use the nutron bomb tech, the us and russia have it too, but thanks to clinton, china has built 3-4 of them as well.

*** we had the spy!!! He let him walk WITH our documents!!!!
!@$##%$#%$#%($#%@$#(%&^%**&_)@%$)% ARGH!!!!!!:mad: :furious:

P.S.
NK has said that they will sell their nukes to other groups, so out of those 3, I would say NK, but yes libya is also very bad about that...

[CockRoach]

CANADA!!!!

[KoldFusion]

BET I CAN GUESS WHO VOTED FOR THE U.S.!

[OneManArmy]

keep in mind you Anti-American Nazi's. A dangerous country is not determined by how much power and force it has, but by WHAT THEY WOULD DO WITH IT. Sure America has lots of weapons BUT WE WOULDN'T GO APE SH*T WITH EM.

[Gortha]

Originally posted by OneManArmy
keep in mind you Anti-American Nazi's. A dangerous country is not determined by how much power and force it has, but by WHAT THEY WOULD DO WITH IT. Sure America has lots of weapons BUT WE WOULDN'T GO APE SH*T WITH EM.

lolololol

bUT It IS deTERMined by who leads the Country aND the WeaPons. :eek: :eek: :eek: ;)

[CockRoach]

excellent point onemanarmy
i dont think people realize that innocent civilians are the targets, that would be a waste of ammo, saddam and all the evil masterminds are targets..... obviously is a "innocent civilian" is makeing guns and shooting at americans then theyre not innocent anymore

[Gortha]

Here are some nice votes....

http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/bush_attack.htm

http://evote.eu2003.gr/EVOTE/en/index.stm

[mistled]

Oh good grief, we stickied this?? Why??

dang vulcan, china didn't even jump to mind. Yep, China is the most dangerous from a 'country that will start WW3' standpoint. And I'm still with Libya from a 'most likely to give some freak a nuke to kill Americans with' standpoint.

and I'm going to refrain from even replying to Gortha. Hard to debate with someone who would despise someone no matter what he did (yes, I'm talking about your stance on US President Bush).

[ABRAXAAS]

well first off one of the only countrys in the world the us could never deffeat is canada, but china in my books is the dangerous country ;)

[Derv]

Most countries hate America, so if Bush get all power hungry and war hungry then yes, America could be the most dangerous, especially with all of the money he's dumping into "defense." I think that the key word in this is "World" because while NK and Iraq want the US to die, we are just one country. While the US wants Iraq, later NK, and all terrorists to die, so therefore the US is the most dangerous. Terrorists and authoritative countries are a part of the "world" also.

[Unregistered]

There are no stupid questions. Only Stupid people.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Derv
Most countries hate America, so if Bush get all power hungry and war hungry then yes, America could be the most dangerous, especially with all of the money he's dumping into "defense." I think that the key word in this is "World" because while NK and Iraq want the US to die, we are just one country. While the US wants Iraq, later NK, and all terrorists to die, so therefore the US is the most dangerous. Terrorists and authoritative countries are a part of the "world" also. Bush isn't power hungry though. If America was ever truly dangerous to the world, it was when the US was firing a record number of cruise missles towards Iraq, while also being involved in Haiti and Somalia. Did anyone whine about American power then?? No. The world is full of hypocrits.


No one wants all of Iraq and North Korea to die. Good grief, where do you get this stuff?? I'd be happy if just Saddam died in those two countries.

Your logic is still flawed though, even if you account all of the people in Iraq and North Korea. The combined populations of those two countries is at most 45 million people if I remember correctly. The population of the US is closer to 260 million. The US may only be one country, but it has almost 6 times the number of people.

[Lexington_Steele]

Dangerous is not determined only from the flexing of military power, flexing of economic power must also enter your equasion of most dangerous.

[MrVulcan]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
Your logic is still flawed

I agree with this statement

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVulcan
I agree with this statement
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end."

Now who said that? ;)

[protocol_alpha]

arg who made this a sticky..lol all my other posts ive havent seen in a while lol ...well thanks who made this is a sticky...any way back to the point

Im from US but im a German, I could say all three lol

cause A)US has alot of the upperhand ion the world
B)Irqi cause they got a fuggin pyscopath as a dictator
C)NKorea are totasl asses for going Nuclear when the rest of the world is disarming nukes

:nazi: :domotwak: to korea and Irqi

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
Dangerous is not determined only from the flexing of military power, flexing of economic power must also enter your equasion of most dangerous. True, but given the 3 choices we were given, I think it's safe to assume the poll is supposed to be about weapons as opposed to money. ;)

I agree with this statementThe Vulcan has spoken. This thread may now be closed.

"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end."I'll assume Spock??

[Destroyeron]

Originally posted by OneManArmy
keep in mind you Anti-American Nazi's. A dangerous country is not determined by how much power and force it has, but by WHAT THEY WOULD DO WITH IT. Sure America has lots of weapons BUT WE WOULDN'T GO APE SH*T WITH EM.


sadly....:(

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
True, but given the 3 choices we were given, I think it's safe to assume the poll is supposed to be about weapons as opposed to money. ;)


There are still many different ways to determine who is the most dangerous.

Like what country could do the most physical damage to the earth through WMDs.

Or you could do it by saying what country has the most powerful military.

Or you could do it by saying what country is the most powerful country in the world.

Or you could do it by saying the most dangerous country is whatever country is the most likely to declare war in the next month. ;)

[protocol_alpha]

Ok whos most Dangerously

A)Militarily
B)Econmiclly
C)Polilitcally
D)Nuclearly

Kant Sp3ll srry

[Hamma]

I have no idea why this thread was stickied

[MrVicchio]

POWER TO THE STICKY!

No seriously, Lex, shut up, quit playing troll k? Yes there are many ways a country could be a danger to the world, but unless you truly are a brainless trwerp instead of just trolling for your own gigles, its pretty obvious the intent of the poll.

N. Korea... an economic power house? please

Iraq? Well.. if they didn't have a mad man as a leader whose squandered that once good country... maybe they could play ball...

The USA.. yep...

And the rest of your "feed me" trolling can be boiled down just as simply.

If you wanna contribute, contribute, but tossing that stuff out just so someone will bite is :rolleyes: lame.

Sadly.. I jsut bit.. ah well, I felt like taking out on you my frustration with reloading every freaking thing, finding disks... cd keys... finding patches on line... bah...

[Airlift]

The US is definately more dangerous than either NK or Iraq, but there is nothing inherently evil in being dangerous. Soon, we will slaughter the Iraqi military and we would most likely roll over North Korea fairly easily in the event of a war.

A cop with a gun is more dangerous than a crook with a rock, but that doesn't mean the cop will shoot you or that the crook won't smash your head in with the rock.

[Navaron]

:stupid:

People don't realize we could've started taking over the world after Sept 11. We used a lot of restraint. Our government has never been run by emotion. Look at our policies towards the palistiniens - the same people who danced on the streets on Sept 11.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio

No seriously, Lex, shut up, quit playing troll k? Yes there are many ways a country could be a danger to the world, but unless you truly are a brainless trwerp instead of just trolling for your own gigles, its pretty obvious the intent of the poll.
hahaha, have you nothing better to do then flame me. (Btw Just about every time you flame me you are going to get response from me. Seems to me that you are the one who is trolling).

The intent of the poll was to determine which country was the most dangerous.

That is a bit open ended. Unless you are a "brainless trwerp" you should be able to see how this could be interepreted different ways.

BTW try to lose the grudge against me, m'kay. :p

[Derv]

Your logic is still flawed though, even if you account all of the people in Iraq and North Korea. The combined populations of those two countries is at most 45 million people if I remember correctly. The population of the US is closer to 260 million. The US may only be one country, but it has almost 6 times the number of people.

Who said anyhting about everyone in the country dying? If the US went to war with NK and Iraq, they would lose a lot more people than we would, partly because we would crush them so fast. The US has more military power than both these countries combined, by a large amount.

[Spider]

Mistled you say his logic is flawed and yet you say you would be happy if only Saddam died...

When you know the facts if only he died then a succesor (not by blood) would take his place... or a big civil war will start.

Now you think about that ;)

[mistled]

Originally posted by Derv
While the US wants Iraq, later NK, and all terrorists to die, so therefore the US is the most dangerous. Was I supposed to interpret the above as just a couple of people in each country when you say 'the US wants Iraq... to die'??

[MrVulcan]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end."

Now who said that? ;)

true, but until you advance all the way through logic, and understand it, you are unable to make the next jump *according to the great vulcan scrolls as well*

[mistled]

Originally posted by Spider
Mistled you say his logic is flawed and yet you say you would be happy if only Saddam died...

When you know the facts if only he died then a succesor (not by blood) would take his place... or a big civil war will start.

Now you think about that ;) Ok, thought about it and I stand by my statement. Here's why. :)

His statement was an attempt to use logic to prove a point. He was using the number of groups involved to prove said point. I merely pointed out that the size of those groups is also important.

My statement about own happiness was not trying to prove anything. It was a statment of emotion that has nothing to do with logic. Logically, the problem would not be eliminated by the simple killing of Saddam and stopping there (and this actually may be flawed, since it is always possible that the US could control the region without anyone else dying. But given the improbability of that scenario, we'll ignore it for this discussion). But emotionally, which is what I was speaking of, I would be happy if his was the only death. My statement of my feelings was not meant to be taken as an attempt at logic, I'm sorry if it was taken incorrectly.

[Spider]

Nah im the french Canadian one here I am probably the one that was confused :p

[protocol_alpha]

:eek: