I am amused by the person who asked what woman outside of America is safe walking the streets. The USA is not safe, because it has a huge drug problem, and drug addicts (meth, heroin, crack ...) have to steal for their habit; and meth addicts can be gratuitously violent. Also it isn't just NRA members who have guns: criminals have formidable arsenals and kill with impunity, albeit mostly within their own communities.
Saudi Arabia is the safest country in the world for walking about. Some guy who touches you has his head cut off before he knows he's even been to court.
Switzerland and the Nordic countries are much safer than the USA.
But the question asks about "dangerous" countries in a different sense. Iran and North Korea -- but never Iraq under Saddam -- are capricious, unpredictable, dangerous. Afghanistan, post-Saddam Iraq, Somalia and Sudan are lawless, anarchic. Much of Africa and much of Latin America is suffering from globalization and subsidized American food exports that have wiped out domestic agriculture -- except for drugs.
Bush, and his country, will reap what they have sown: a new wave of heroin cheap enough for primary school kids to buy; a new wave of gratuitous suicidal terrorism that will become harder to detect as increasingly it is picked up by a home-grown fifth column of second-generation immigrants and by converts such as Adam Gadahn.
Bikini Atol might be safe. And French Polynesia generally.
Unless global warming ends the ecology as we know it. Experts speculate that 2 degrees more of warmth may be the tipping point. After that, billions die.
2006-10-18 20:16:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
OK, just for the sake of argument accept that the United States of America is the best armed and therefore, only on that level, the most dangerous country in the world. What course of conduct would you urge the leaders of your country, assuming just for the sake of argument that you had the right to petition the leaders of your country? Would you tell them to act like a democratic country that is willing to limit its disputes with the US to the diplomatic sphere, as Libya has done of late, or would you advise your leader, again assuming that you had the right to do so, to develop a nuclear arsenal.
Hints: Libya disclaimed nuclear ambitions; Iran and North Korea are actively seeking nuclear weapons. Who is more likely to be on the receiveing end of a preemptive strike?
Second hint: The major wars of the 20th century were started by Germany and Japan. Were they "haves" or "have nots" when they started their wars? Right, they were have nots. So being a poor Islamic country, if a factor at all, would be what? A factor pointing to likely belligerence, exactly. All you have to do is apply the knowledge and logic that you have and you will be able to answer your own question.
Final hint: Are the people of the United States of America safer with a crazy gunslinging John Wayne president scaring all the bad have not countries who might step out of line?
2006-10-18 20:32:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by mattapan26 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You DO realize that most countries who sat out the war in Iraq were involved in the Food for Oil scandal, right? And that the UN now approves of what we've done in Iraq? And that Hussein's own government has admitted that there were WMD's? And that WMD's were found? Sure, it wasn't what we expected to find, but the fact remains that Hussein had them, they were still dangerous, and he wasn't ALLOWED to have them AS PER the cease-fire agreement signed at the end of the first Gulf War.
Therefore, the two most dangerous countries in the world right now are North Korea, and Iran.
Speaking of Iran, it's AWFULLY convenient that we went into Iraq for WMD's, there were trucks SENT BY HUSSEIN into Iran, and suddenly Iran is developing nuclear power, don't you think?
Some people try to say that Iran and Iraq weren't allies. One problem with that. This isn't the first time that something was sent into Iran from Iraq, and that time, Iran sent it back!
BS pretext for war, my butt!
2006-10-18 20:19:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
The most dangerous country, does not exist, It is the people that live in each country, who, are the dangerous ones . Our planet, can hold all people ,we just don't know it yet ,because we are too busy minding ,other peoples countries business to mind our own. and do something about it like stretch ,out a bit and stop building in one same area . their is a whole lot of land out there where we could live miles apart ,from each other then we will stop all the nonsense, about danerous overcrowding ,and why are their so many people living only in my part of the country. as I travel ,I always get inspired as to how much land is empty, and how over crowded we live in cities. with every-one around us, and complian, yet we will not move out ,and live, off our own land with our own sweat of what we plant and produce. why complain ,about goverment .when we are the voters who campain to put such people in command ,and give them the control. over what is to be done. I say if , you can't fix it shut up or speak up, to the media your point of view you can also speak up, about what you feel is wrong. to the media and feel better about getting your point across, to those whom you feel should hear you point of view .
2006-10-18 20:29:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by lytesdelite 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It will vary,recently a man went wild and stabbed several people dead in a japanese city.What would you think of people who were seated in their offices,very safe in their offices in world trade center in America?How about Colombian university mascare,in the same country?How about the most pledging democracy in the world where people from other countries are being chased because they do not belong there?I mean South Africa.Nowhere on this Earth is safe including where you are.If insecurity is not from man,it is from natural calamities like earth quakes,Tsunami,name it.Jesus is our safety and redeemer wherever we are.May it be America or Colombia.Do not be afraid of those who destroy the body and can not destroy souls.I proclaim the power of Jesus to the world from today and forever now.
2016-05-22 01:24:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
With the Republicans in office the United States of America.
The U.S. has one of the largest nuclear arsenals and has a recent history of pre-emptive strikes.
2006-10-18 20:02:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Venezuala is getting pretty scary. They are seeking nuclear technology and aligning themselves with radical Islamists. Time to kill Hugo Chavez and nip this problem in the bud!
2006-10-18 20:17:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by robertbdiver 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I won't dispute the way we look right now. Give us a little time to oust the current batch of dirtbags, and things hopefully will get better soon after.
2006-10-18 20:09:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by notme 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
what the most dangerous is the first will be difineted so we can get the sulotions . ,, whealth obtainer in economic ...power abusing in world afairs...destroy our globe envirement ...human rights??? and so on..?? every one would be the dangerous in one of above and unknowed aspect ....
2006-10-18 20:31:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by odysseyhellas 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I feel completely safe walking the streets in my America, how many women in the other countries can say that?
2006-10-18 20:05:10
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋