dani67, Militants, Phoenall, Penelope, et al,
Some of this is questionable!
Most evil countries:
1.N.Korea - nukes against South Korea and US possible etc
2.Russia - nukes against Israel and US possible
3.Pakistan - with Al Qaida
4.Afghanistan - with Al Qaida
5.Saudi Arabia - Al Qaida leader Bin Laden's home country
6.Yemen - with Al Qaida
7.Iran - nuclear program
8.Tunisia - ISIS recruits members
9.Iraq - with ISIS
10.Mali - with terrorists
Mostly terrorism we should not lose against.
Iran doesn't have nukes, Israel does.
How do you know ?
Arab nation's have terrorists and they kill eithchadder. Maybe America will go in war against Al Qaeda and IS in Iraq and Yemen and Pakistan or it is so all real ?!
iran and pakistan arent arab nation
(QUESTIONS)
• I thought the Iranians were Persian and not Arab.
•∆• Do the Arabs mind being called Persians?
•∆• Do the Persians mind being called Arab?
• During my time in Afghanistan, I was given to the impression that the Afghans think of national identity in terms of Pashtun monarchies. I had the impression that Afghans do not think of themselves as Afghans, or Arabs or even Persians; but rather as Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks or Hazaras. However --- even at that, it is much less important to them than the association and loyalty is usually to their family, kin group, clan, or tribe.
•∆• Do you actually think there is a strong Arab connection to the Afghans?
•∆• what is the real ethnic origin of the Arab?
Countries, in that sense the cultures that inhabit a country, are not evil. It is more the case that the activities of these diverse cultural groups is are "evil" in the sense that they rebel against the normally accepted behaviors of the more developed cultures.
The list of countries above are a list of threats (not all inclusive) in an ever growing dangerous world; but maybe not for the reasons cited.
Nuclear threats are complicated. The fact that a given country has Nuclear Weapons might actually be more of a danger to that country than to the rest of the world. While the official politically correct position on First Strike Policies, defined in UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), is defined as aggression and is internationally inappropriate, it none-the-less is an option held by most countries with a first strike capability. The consideration of which countries have Nuclear Weapons is only makes a strategy more sophisticated and complicated. While the US and it allies often criticize acts of aggression, in terms of the present day Five Eyes (as well as France, Russia and China, plus a few others), the First Strike Option is still on the table.
• While there are many that believe the State of Israel has a Nuclear Weapons Capability (NWC), firm evidence and confirmation is sorely absent. Israeli NWC is called "ambiguous" simply because no nation has come forth with any relevant and current intelligence or evidence that would be definitive.
* North Korea (PRK) is another country in which its NWC is ambiguous. There is no evidence that the PRK has either a true and functioning Nuclear Weapon; or that it has a weapon that matches to a delivery system. While it is politically expedient to portray the PRK as a potential adversary, the leadership has no wish to be burnt to the ground (by Russia, China, or the US) should they demonstrate an eminent threat.
Most Respectfully,
R