Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands October 14th, 2011 12:00am

More likely to initiate a conflict leading to WWIII: Iran or North Korea?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment


10/24/11 10:22 pm

Oh we'll blow the shit out of North Korea. But Iran starts acting up, we have to, "Maintain democratic stability."

GeographyGeek
10/24/11 7:52 pm

I think they're both dangerous but when NK starts a war with SK, other counties will step in (China, US, ect.) and WWIII will begin.

jake Nevada
10/19/11 11:55 am

Dak you're a moron. I'm sure this poll, should it be made.... Ppl would agree overwhelmingly


10/18/11 7:19 pm

I think Israel is more likely than either of the others.


10/17/11 8:23 am

While Iran has many backers that are cold enemies of ours, I do not think they would get involved. That said, I believe North Korea world bring China into the skirmish resulting in a world war.


10/17/11 12:35 am

hmmm- the crazy one. definitely the crazy one.

Flooded Virginia
10/16/11 11:01 pm

more general conflict in the middle east. north korea doesn't have as many huge issues with its neighbors.

palindrome California
10/16/11 10:57 pm

Furthermore, Libyan oil was being traded previous to the Feb 2011 revolt by US oil companies Conoco Philips, Exxon Mobile and Morgan Stanley

palindrome California
10/16/11 10:50 pm

Libya acknowledged being a black-site for the CIA, and it's pretty well known now. As a matter of fact, many of the the jihadists that Gaddhafi had arrested escaped recently during the turmoil in that country with whereabouts unknown.


10/16/11 10:27 pm

I just looked at where we get our oil from and Libya isn't on the list. Franceband several other European countries get Libyan oil, when it is operational.


10/16/11 10:16 pm

there are 14 countries that acknowledged they were back sites for the US most European, so are using that special knowledge you have been given to now say Libya agreed to take Islamic terrorists and interrogate them?

palindrome California
10/16/11 10:14 pm

He never gave up his wmd's. Remember, that was a huge concern during the civil war.... The security of his chemical weapon stockpiles. We definitely get access to Libyan oil. Will our American corporations play nice and give us lower prices?That's a whole nother questiom


10/16/11 9:51 pm

axis of evil he decided to play nice on his own. Are you saying we get Libyan oil?


10/16/11 9:49 pm

fulcrum: I'm saying all weapons of mass destruction were given up voluntarily by Libya because he thought they could be next. Bush never got chummy with him over anything, After being called out as a member of the

palindrome California
10/16/11 9:46 pm

(cont) of now... No remnants of it... It was that nuclear program. Lol

palindrome California
10/16/11 9:45 pm

(CONT.) or because he decided to play by America's "rules"... Or because he provided detention "black sites" for America's War on Terror? Or because it opened the possibility of another previously closed market to U.S economic interests? It was the nuclear program... The one which there are no signs

palindrome California
10/16/11 9:43 pm

@Jopat. So you're telling me that, by your understanding, we got chummy with Gaddhafi bc he gave up his *non-existent* nuclear program? But we DID decide to let him KEEP his chemical weapons?It couldn't have been for the oil? Or sway with an influential OPEC member?Or as a cooperative regional ally?


10/16/11 5:33 pm

third times a charm. kandykane....


10/16/11 5:31 pm

should be Kanykane..... not La Diane....geeezzzz


10/16/11 5:30 pm

La Diane: ok I'll bite what land did we invade for? not counting manifest destiny, we all know the injustices done to native Ameicans.


10/16/11 4:40 pm

if this country is so horrific why would you continue to live here? I don't get it, we aren't perfect but really what's better? Please enlighten me someone...


10/16/11 4:39 pm

we are talking about oil

kandykane California
10/16/11 4:31 pm

@jopat- what did we invade for their natural resources? Does land count? If so, then i can name many instances.


10/16/11 11:21 am

I just wish the rest of the sheeple were given the special knowledge you have! What does it take to be an insider and know what everyone is thinking? Gosh get a doctorate!


10/16/11 11:18 am

fulcrum: as someone that doesnt understand basic international relations I do have a good enough memory as to why Bush was as you say chummy with Libya, once we invaded Iraq he knew he didn't have a chance in hell and volunteered to give up his nuke program.

Titanium New York
10/16/11 9:56 am

Neither pose a substantial threat! The media has blown the situation in Iran out of proportion. Iran's military budget is around $9 billion, which puts them behind the 'powerhouses' like Greece and Australia. nukes aren't a concern either because they've halted their program.

TopsQueen Oregon Coast
10/16/11 9:16 am

Sounds like The battle of Armagiddion
In the Mid East.


10/16/11 7:55 am

North Korea is a little crazy

RJ1969 SoCal
10/16/11 1:40 am

china would nuke NK for us. they trade more with SK than NK, as well as Japan...and, of course, their favorite customers...the US. ideology will lose to markets with this one.

RJ1969 SoCal
10/16/11 1:38 am

all our enemies need to do is sit back and let us do the work for them. cross us, and we will unite and fuck you up.


10/16/11 1:23 am

@RJ1969...I second that! We are, oftentimes, our own worse enemy.

Theshamwowguy Pittsburgh, PA
10/16/11 1:05 am

Lets hope north korea doesnt see this then go crazy and actually initiate it...

RJ1969 SoCal
10/15/11 11:42 pm

the biggest threat to America is Americans.

9teufel Connecticut
10/15/11 11:38 pm

Iran. Because of religious fanatisism.

palindrome California
10/15/11 10:57 pm

@Edge... I believe you explained your point of view well enough and anyone with a brain and critical thinking skills can understand what you're saying. Jopat is.... Well, a sheep. he doesn't understand basic international relations or political sciences...

palindrome California
10/15/11 10:52 pm

McLuke. Oh and Bush also (infamously) called Hussein and other world leaders "evil-doers"... Which doesn't sound that bad but if you gauge it relative to his intellect, that was a tremendous insult...Now whether or not it was right is different. You asked when was the last time. Youve been served

palindrome California
10/15/11 10:49 pm

Mcluke. Ronald Reagan, devil that he is, referred to the Soviet Union as "the evil empire". He referred to numerous world leaders as "crackpots", "bandits", "cowards" etc. Multiple U.S officials have used rhetoric like that to describe other nations. Gosh. Get a doctorate.

palindrome California
10/15/11 10:47 pm

McLuke. G.W Bush of course referred to a number of countries as "The Axis of Evil" (and then decided to get chummy with one of them, Libya for who knows why). He polarized the country and the world with his "with us or against us" and "Good guys and bad guys" foreign policy

edge3100 Portland, Oregon
10/15/11 9:53 pm

...just the two cents of a punk high school kid. ;)

edge3100 Portland, Oregon
10/15/11 9:53 pm

There are always reasons for taking out bad guys or bad governments. My assertion, as a person who was on the inside during our build up for the war in Iraq, is that the reasons the government gives the public are usually about 10-20% of the true story..


10/15/11 8:30 pm

Like kill more of our soldiers, kidnap more idiot tourists or start intruding in Iraqi affairs more than they are now.


10/15/11 8:28 pm

it makes sense that the oil producers are looking to find a more stable currency. I wish them luck so far they can't. Stay tuned on going to war with Iran, if we do, it won't be done lightly and it will be because they've done something to provoke us.


10/15/11 8:24 pm

When Carter was president and oil was expensive there was talk about using another countries currency, that's an old trick that OPEC's pulled out of it's hat several times. Since Obama has become president and we started printing money (QE1and QE2)


10/15/11 8:19 pm

He was killing the sheets in the south from helicopters and he had violated UN sanctions numerous times.


10/15/11 8:17 pm

I do agree that keeping Iraqi oil flowing was in the best interest of the world but I honestly don't agree that was the reason we went there. I think at the time there was a real concern this idiot had WMD's or was close to getting a nuke.

edge3100 Portland, Oregon
10/15/11 7:21 pm

..and it won't be WWIII, it will just be the next country we go to war with.

edge3100 Portland, Oregon
10/15/11 6:50 pm

...and it won't matter who is President (Obama, Romney, Palin ((gasp!))). When the threat to our economy is large enough, we WILL invade Iran. That is why stories about Iran will not go away in the media; so that we have a basis for invading in the eyes of the American people.

edge3100 Portland, Oregon
10/15/11 6:43 pm

So you see, Iran will not start WWIII, we will do it in reaction to Iran economically threatening us via oil.