The worlds most despicable nation ?

[cj's dad]

I vote for Pakistan.

This nation has contributed nothing for the good of mankind.
Somalia gets a strong 2nd place vote.

Interested in what others think about our global neighbors.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I vote for Pakistan.

This nation has contributed nothing for the good of mankind.
Somalia gets a strong 2nd place vote.

Interested in what others think about our global neighbors.

I thought it was interesting (read: outraegous) when the Pakistanis allowed the Chinese military to examine and remove parts from the downed US helicopter outside the Bin Laden compound.

[canleakid]

#1 with a bullet Pakistan

[Greyfox]

Not the people, but the regime in North Korea is without conscience.

[Tom]

Pakistan should be the target of pattern nukes.
There is nothing good or worthwhile about that nation.

Does anyone really believe they did not know Bin Laden was living there?
Besides mostie, I mean. :D

[Robert Goren]

Pakistan is a bad apple, but they don't hold a candle to the government of Myanmar ,formly known as Burma.

[PhantomOnTour]

Not the people, but the regime in North Korea is without conscience.
Make that 2 votes for North Korea, and an honorable mention to Myanmar.

Wonder how long it will take before someone says America.

[Mike at A+]

Make that 2 votes for North Korea, and an honorable mention to Myanmar.

Wonder how long it will take before someone says America.
Does Michele Obama post here?

[mostpost]

The Duchy of Grand Fenwick

[cj's dad]

The Duchy of Grand Fenwick

Interesting that in your kumbaya mentality you have no choice.

In other words, every nation is a good place that is simply misunderstood.

[newtothegame]

Yeah, I have to go with N Korea.....Myanmar, Pakistan, Iran......

[elysiantraveller]

I don't think Pakistan and Iran get in the top 5 but close...

1) North Korea (in a league of its own)

2) Myanmar (NK Lite)

3) Sudan (Genocide)

4) Somalia (No real Gov't entity, starvation is used as a weapon)

5) Cote d'Ivoire (Persistent Civil War/Genocide)

[TJDave]

No votes for China?

They steal our technology, our manufacturing base and bankrupt our labor force...All done with a smile and our government's blessing.

All other despicable nations combined don't even come close.

[Tom]

Agree on China - despicable nation.

N Korea
Mexico
Iran
Pakistan

Can you count Afghanistan? Or is it just Pakistan's toilet?

[JustRalph]

No votes for China?

They steal our technology, our manufacturing base and bankrupt our labor force...All done with a smile and our government's blessing.

All other despicable nations combined don't even come close.

Don't forget those policies on how many and what kind of child you can have.

The city council in Knockemstiff Ohio is pretty rough too

[elysiantraveller]

A lot of Americentrism in here...

[Tom]

I'd call it a lot of truth.

[PaceAdvantage]

A lot of Americentrism in here...Why wouldn't there be? Where else would you rather live, if I may so bold as to ask?

[elysiantraveller]

Because its unhealthy, xenophobic, and invariably leads to the subjugation of others...

As for where else I would rather live, that wasn't the question but the answer is no where and even if it was places like China and Mexico are a lot more desireable than some of the other places listed by people that can take off the red, white, and blue goggles for a second...

[woodtoo]

Sudan,Afghanistan,Pakistan in no particular order,tribe mentality,lawlessness.
The weapons of the 20th century in the hands of the savages of the
stone age.

[Tom]

OK, so the treatment of the people by the dictators of China is not despicable?

[elysiantraveller]

Its not even on the same planet as say Somalia, NK, Cote d'Ivoire, Liberia, Sudan, Congo, Yemen, Qatar, Syria, Zaire (CAR), etc. etc.

People don't think of them because of their Westernized/Americanized bias but most would live in China or Mexico WAY before those places.

[GaryG]

Detroit

[mostpost]

What do all the countries named here have in common? They are all populated by people of color. Black in the case of the African nations. Yellow in the case of China. Brown in the case of the Arab countries. I won't even speculate on why Gary G named Detroit.

The fact is that every nation on earth has done despicable things in its history.
Germans killed six million jews, plus millions of other "inferior" peoples. We held slaves for the majority of our time on this continent. Actions are despicable. Governments are despicable. Nations are not.

[Tom]

mostie....we are in 2011.
Care to join us?

And, btw, take your racist allegations and stick in your dead letter orafice.
Your racism is not welcome here. It shows what small minded ignorant person you really are. We have troops in S Korea who are willing to put their lives on the line protecting.....YELLOW PEOPLE. Yet black-hole minded people like you ignore the nukes and the the rest of the North and see only we don't like YELLOW PEOPLE.

[elysiantraveller]

Race has virtually nothing to do with it...

The reason is because for about the past 500 years world trade in terms of goods, ideas, and capital have flowed through the west. The previous 700 years before that it was through the Arab world. Going forward its most likely going to begin to center on China and the east Asia. Go read some Braudel.

The reasons these countries are listed is because A) Africa has been completely passed over by modernity, capital, and trade B) The Arab and Islam is going through a transformation and trying to find its identity/role in this era of globalization.

[PhantomOnTour]

mostie....we are in 2011.
Care to join us?

And, btw, take your racist allegations and stick in your dead letter orafice.
Your racism is not welcome here. It shows what small minded ignorant person you really are. We have troops in S Korea who are willing to put their lives on the line protecting.....YELLOW PEOPLE. Yet black-hole minded people like you ignore the nukes and the the rest of the North and see only we don't like YELLOW PEOPLE.
You missed the point of Mosty's post...oh well. Such is the case when all you can think of is how wrong Mosty is and how you're going to show him.
Whew...good thing you put him in his place :rolleyes:
After all you've read from him on this site do you think he's racist, or MAYBE just pointing out that all of the answers to the OP are non-white countries?

[JustRalph]

Race has virtually nothing to do with it...

The reason is because for about the past 500 years world trade in terms of goods, ideas, and capital have flowed through the west. The previous 700 years before that it was through the Arab world. Going forward its most likely going to begin to center on China and the east Asia. Go read some Braudel.

The reasons these countries are listed is because A) Africa has been completely passed over by modernity, capital, and trade B) The Arab and Islam is going through a transformation and trying to find its identity/role in this era of globalization.

You make some good points, but race is a factor. These "races" have different cultural customs and ideals that are not compatible with equal opportunity for all. These countries practice interracial and inter-religious discrimination of many different forms. Those not born to the right family, or the right religion have absolutely no chance of rising up from whence they came. That is a huge difference in those cultures and western culture.

This same type of disadvantage of the underclass is present here in the States. It is tacitly condoned here in the U.S. It is done with a passive manner that is diabolical in its nature. Not to mention championed by the high profile celebration of the purveyors of this culture. Most commonly in the black community. Young blacks are taught early on that they are disadvantaged and to follow a different path than their downtrodden brethren is a betrayal of their heritage. It is very similar to what is practiced in many of the countries listed in this thread. Tossing Detroit into the list is not that far fetched. Not even close...... and you can throw quite a few other cities in as well.

[mostpost]

mostie....we are in 2011.
Care to join us?

And, btw, take your racist allegations and stick in your dead letter orafice.
Your racism is not welcome here. It shows what small minded ignorant person you really are. We have troops in S Korea who are willing to put their lives on the line protecting.....YELLOW PEOPLE. Yet black-hole minded people like you ignore the nukes and the the rest of the North and see only we don't like YELLOW PEOPLE.

Racism is the belief in the inferiority of a particular race. You guys have redefined racism as pointing out someones racist belief. I noted that all the countries named in this thread had people of color as their majority citizens. That is true. That is not racism. Ignoring the malevolent actions of white nations, past or present, and concentrating on those of nations of color, is.

And, while our presence in South Korea does serve to protect those "yellow" people, our reason for being there is our own security interests. I served in Korea in 1967 and I can tell you that the South Korean people were very well equipped to protect themselves.

[Tom]

Name me a WHITE nation who is threatening to attack with nukes or treating its citizens like China does. England? France? Ireland? Sweden?

[PhantomOnTour]

Name me a WHITE nation who is threatening to attack with nukes or treating its citizens like China does. England? France? Ireland? Sweden?
See post #25

[elysiantraveller]

Name me a WHITE nation who is threatening to attack with nukes or treating its citizens like China does. England? France? Ireland? Sweden?

What are you talking about?!? Who is China threatening to attck with nukes?

[Robert Fischer]

the 'bad guys' are the most despicable nations

if you don't know who the bad guys are, watch the news

[JustRalph]

What are you talking about?!? Who is China threatening to attck with nukes?

Ever heard of Taiwan?

[mostpost]

Name me a WHITE nation who is threatening to attack with nukes or treating its citizens like China does. England? France? Ireland? Sweden?
I can name the white nation that did attack with nukes.

[GaryG]

I can name the white nation that did attack with nukes.Thank you HST....you had the huevos that FDR was lacking. Not saying it was a good thing that FDR passed on, but it severely shortened the war while saving countless lives on both sides.

[Tom]

What are you talking about?!? Who is China threatening to attck with nukes?

Operative word here is "or."
N Korea = nukes threats
China = murdering their citizens.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
I can name the white nation that did attack with nukes.


After Pearl Harbor and the Batan Death March, they were GD luck we didn't have a few more. I never, had a single ounce of sympath for anyone we nuked. The GD deserved it and more. We dropped two nukes and saved millions of lives and ended a war. And YOU have a problem with that?
MacArthur wnated 25 more to take care of China. We were stupid not to listen to him. He and Paton were about the only two with any common sense in 1945.

[Tom]

See post #25

Your reference makes no sense.

[elysiantraveller]

Ever heard of Taiwan?

It always amazes me that the west basically has a monopoly on Nuclear weapons and has had one since their creation. The United States is the only country to ever deploy them but the second a country that isn't part of the "west" seeks to gain nuclear technology they are immediately seen as threatening to use it.

Case in point Iran:

Prior to 2001 Iran was internationally recognized as the most secular, advanced, and free thinking Muslim country in the Middle East. What happened? It became included in the "Axis of Evil" speech and the United States went on to invade two of its neighbors overthrowing their governments and causing a pouring of refugees into the country.

Not taking specific sides in the Iranian armament debate given those events and the fact Iran's only political enemy in the region, Israel, has nuclear capability. Is it really a surprise that there was a rise of fundamentalism/militarism in that country? Can you really blame them?

[Saratoga_Mike]

It always amazes me that the west basically has a monopoly on Nuclear weapons and has had one since their creation. The United States is the only country to ever deploy them but the second a country that isn't part of the "west" seeks to gain nuclear technology they are immediately seen as threatening to use it.



Pakistan and India have nuclear arsenals, and North Korea allegedly has 7 to 8 nukes.

[elysiantraveller]

Pakistan and India have nuclear arsenals, and North Korea allegedly has 7 to 8 nukes.

Yes they have devices they just don't have effective means of deploying them. The scale still tips, landslides actually, the direction of the United States.

Any of them used one yet?

The fact is nuclear weapons are a great way to protect your sovereignty.

[PaceAdvantage]

Because its unhealthy, xenophobic, and invariably leads to the subjugation of others...Humans are indeed a flawed lot, and will continue to be for the rest of our existence.

I try and live in the real world.

[elysiantraveller]

Humans are indeed a flawed lot, and will continue to be for the rest of our existence.

I try and live in the real world.

You asked I answered.

Wasn't aware that attempting to change perspectives can't be done in the real world... thanks for clearing that up.

[TJDave]

Prior to 2001 Iran was internationally recognized as the most secular, advanced, and free thinking Muslim country in the Middle East.

By whom?

Iran was and remains a Muslim theocracy. Women are chattel. Nothing there is secular, advanced or free thinking.

Where do you get this stuff?

[Native Texan III]

By whom?

Iran was and remains a Muslim theocracy. Women are chattel. Nothing there is secular, advanced or free thinking.

Where do you get this stuff?

From actual events.
Prior to 1979 Iran was a CIA run puppet state and not a theocracy.
The same folks that armed Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.

"The shah managed to hold onto power until Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency in 1977. “Jimmy Carter…inherited a unique relationship with Iran and the shah, one set in place by Richard Nixon,” according to one source.*** “Nixon and the shah had known each other as far back as 1953, when as vice president, Nixon visited the young shah in the wake of the CIA-sponsored coup (Operation Ajax) that returned the shah to the throne. Two decades later when, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, President Nixon sought to reduce American military commitments in far-flung areas…Iran fulfilled a crucial role: protecting American and Western interests in the Persian Gulf. In return, Nixon and the shah agreed in a set of 1972 agreements that Iran would receive US military advisers, technicians and weaponry, including the most sophisticated conventional weapons then in the American arsenal.
“American deference to the shah spread beyond weapons to intelligence. The CIA dismantled many of its own operations in Iran, and it thus became more and more reliant on SAVAK, the shah’s feared secret police, for information about internal events…In these circumstances, the quality of American intelligence—both covert and open—on Iran declined steadily.” (p. 3) President Carter stopped in Tehran in 1977 to reach a verbal understanding with the shah on non-proliferation arrangements to accompany the sale of American nuclear power plants to Iran. "

http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=137

[elysiantraveller]

By whom?

Iran was and remains a Muslim theocracy. Women are chattel. Nothing there is secular, advanced or free thinking.

Where do you get this stuff?

Look up Iran under Ahmadinejad...

As far as Iran seeking to protect its security interests... here ya go.

Iran/US Middle Eastern Power Structure (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/5-Dr_Barzegar.pdf)

[elysiantraveller]

From actual events.
Prior to 1979 Iran was a CIA run puppet state and not a theocracy.
The same folks that armed Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.

I wasn't even going to get into that with him... Our interference in their development as a nation is extremely well documented...

[PaceAdvantage]

I wasn't even going to get into that with him... Our interference in their development as a nation is extremely well documented...Being proactive is often the proper way to go.

You seem to claim the world would be better off if these things hadn't happened, if America did not "interfere."

However, the world may actually be better off as a whole.

I know this is going to spark debate (HAH!), but a recent case in point would be the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11.

[elysiantraveller]

Being proactive is often the proper way to go.

You seem to claim the world would be better off if these things hadn't happened, if America did not "interfere."

However, the world may actually be better off as a whole.

I know this is going to spark debate (HAH!), but a recent case in point would be the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11.

I don't really think non-intereference is possible... Thats just the way human nature is groups seek control over markets, capital, resources, etc.

To be non-interfering would be to deny whats in your best interests and in the case of Iran how far back do you go? The collapse of the British Empire or even further to the 150-200 years of imperialism and colonialism the region went through?

If you believe in the Global Hegemonic Stability theory then we don't really have any choice but to interfere in the affairs of other nations whether it be because of a moral imperative, personal interests, or international pressure. Our role as the global Hyper-power is to preserve ourselves as best we can while maintaining global security. We do it as long as we can until we decline and another superpower emerges to fill the role.

Thats how it works it makes sense historically. I'm not saying its right or wrong and its also why I pointed out that having a purely Americentric view of world affairs is misguided. While acting out that role as the global superpower we piss off ALOT people whether our actions were right or wrong. So when we think of the most despicable nations of the world and notably countries like Iran who obviously don't like us its important to not say: "I hate them because they hate us," but instead take a different approach of asking "why do they hate us." When looking at it that way, or reading the paper I posted before, its pretty easy to see why Iran doesn't like us... we've given them absolutely no reason to.

PT:

Crap, really wish I would have better understood what you were saying before I typed all of that.

Anyway, if you are interested read that paper I posted because it explains how our invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan has lead to problems in the Middle East power structure and is a root cause for our current icy relations with Iran.

[PhantomOnTour]

Djibouti

[PaceAdvantage]

Anyway, if you are interested read that paper I posted because it explains how our invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan has lead to problems in the Middle East power structure and is a root cause for our current icy relations with Iran.Is it possible that problems in the Middle East power structure may turn out to be beneficial to the world in the long term?

[Greyfox]

Is it possible that problems in the Middle East power structure may turn out to be beneficial to the world in the long term?

Absolutely yes. One might argue that the current roots of the uprisings in the "Arab Spring" have been catalyzed by George Bush's intervention in Iraq. If some of these Country's become more democratic then George Bush's place in history will rise. At this time it's too early to tell the outcome of all that upheaval yet.
One can only imagine though it is a matter of time (perhaps years) when Iran is in mayhem as well.

[boxcar]

Thank you HST....you had the huevos that FDR was lacking. Not saying it was a good thing that FDR passed on, but it severely shortened the war while saving countless lives on both sides.

It has often been said that "war is hell", and from things I've read and listened to by warriors who have fought, I would have to agree that this assessment is anything but hyperbolic rhetoric. Therefore, one would think that the most humane thing to do in war is to fight it with overwhelming brute force in order to achieve the triple objectives of killing as many of the enemy as possible so as to end the conflict as quickly as possible, and thereby preserving as many lives on our side as possible. Yet, liberals seem to think that fighting protracted, prohibitively expensive, politically correct wars wherein we inflict as few enemy casualties as possible and put more of our troops at appreciably higher risk is the more humane approach. Go figure.

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

Is it possible that problems in the Middle East power structure may turn out to be beneficial to the world in the long term?It is unlikely that it could end up any worse than it is now.

[Robert Goren]

Absolutely yes. One might argue that the current roots of the uprisings in the "Arab Spring" have been catalyzed by George Bush's intervention in Iraq. If some of these Country's become more democratic then George Bush's place in history will rise. At this time it's too early to tell the outcome of all that upheaval yet.
One can only imagine though it is a matter of time (perhaps years) when Iran is in mayhem as well.I guess there is all ways hope that "Arab Spring" will make things better. But I think what will happen is that the Arab countries will just trade a bunch anti American tyrants for new bunch of anti American tyrants. The only thing GWB will have accomplished is the death of America GI's and the wasting of American money. I hope I am wrong, but I am afraid all I see for the future in the Middle East is pretty much the same mess with new Islamic names leading it.

[dav4463]

The scary thing is our president may answer "Israel".

[TJDave]

Absolutely yes. One might argue that the current roots of the uprisings in the "Arab Spring" have been catalyzed by George Bush's intervention in Iraq. If some of these Country's become more democratic then George Bush's place in history will rise. At this time it's too early to tell the outcome of all that upheaval yet.
One can only imagine though it is a matter of time (perhaps years) when Iran is in mayhem as well.

The families of those killed/injured in the Israeli bus and other attacks of the past few days would disagree...Strongly. Egypt may have been a despotic hellhole but at least it kept its Muslim extremists in check.

Apparently, no more.

[Greyfox]

Today is far too soon to judge the long range outcomes of the "Arab Spring."

[turninforhome10]

"If you believe in the Global Hegemonic Stability theory then we don't really have any choice but to interfere in the affairs of other nations whether it be because of a moral imperative, personal interests, or international pressure. Our role as the global Hyper-power is to preserve ourselves as best we can while maintaining global security. We do it as long as we can until we decline and another superpower emerges to fill the role. "


Do you feel that the cold war allowed for a more lax status of global policing under the Truman Doctrine in the sense of more rigid boundaries? Does a capitalist democracy operate better with a well defined enemy?

[lsbets]

Prior to 2001 Iran was internationally recognized as the most secular, advanced, and free thinking Muslim country in the Middle East.

What? Iran has been a theocracy since 1979. No free thinking, brutal oppression of anyone who didn't adhere to the mullah's will.

Wow. I am amazed at how little some people know.

[Tom]

The scary thing is our president may answer "Israel". His wife answered America. So did his spiritual adviser of 20+ years.

[elysiantraveller]

Is it possible that problems in the Middle East power structure may turn out to be beneficial to the world in the long term?

Probably but I see that occurring if and when Iran begins playing a bigger role in the affairs of the region and all parties involved, the US, Israel, and Iran stop playing this zero-sum game of sabre rattling.

I think that to continue to deny that Iran is a major player in the Middle East is stupid and dangerous. They recently won the proxy war that occurred between Israel and Hezbollah. America cannot continue to pursue a Israel/America first the rest of the Arab world second agenda as it simply will not work in the long term. I think the end result of the Arab Spring is going to be Iran fostering support to all of these new governments and cementing itself as the Arab leader in the region.

A lot of people here are now going to accuse me of agreeing with "evil" Iran but the fact of the matter is they are a major player in the region and should be treated as such... We pursue our "American" agenda everywhere in the world every single day its absolutely moronic to think Iran won't in its own near vicinity.

[elysiantraveller]

Do you feel that the cold war allowed for a more lax status of global policing under the Truman Doctrine in the sense of more rigid boundaries? Does a capitalist democracy operate better with a well defined enemy?

Not sure I understand the first question... The United States at the end of the second world war was more than a super power, its commercial, industrial, and military might was on a plane unobtainable by any other country in the world. The US also had to immediately fill the void left by the declining old world so I think "police" action was much more rampant and out of necessity.

As to your second I don't know in comparison to what? I think the United States has had tremendous inherent advantages over every foe its faced that far outweigh our capitalist/democratic system. To try and answer I suppose being a democracy with a defined enemy is a plus because there has to be popular support for the effort.

[Tom]

A lot of people here are now going to accuse me of agreeing with "evil" Iran but the fact of the matter is they are a major player in the region and should be treated as such... We pursue our "American" agenda everywhere in the world every single day its absolutely moronic to think Iran won't in its own near vicinity.

Like Chamberlin did with Germany in the 1930's? Appeasement?
How'd that work out?

[elysiantraveller]

Like Chamberlin did with Germany in the 1930's? Appeasement?
How'd that work out?

Comparing Iran to Nazi Germany is hilarious...

Shall we have a war Tom? We've fared pretty well in those thus far... :rolleyes:

[TJDave]

A lot of people here are now going to accuse me of agreeing with "evil" Iran but the fact of the matter is they are a major player in the region and should be treated as such... We pursue our "American" agenda everywhere in the world every single day its absolutely moronic to think Iran won't in its own near vicinity.

Some made made the exact same case for Germany in the 1930's. We fixed that problem later rather than sooner and at great cost. We shouldn't make the same mistake in waiting with Iran. Especially since they are well near acquiring nuclear weapons capability.

[Tom]

Comparing Iran to Nazi Germany is hilarious...

Shall we have a war Tom? We've fared pretty well in those thus far... :rolleyes:\


Why is that? You doubt Iran is behind many of the terror attacks going on today? How do we "treat them like it?"

[elysiantraveller]

\


Why is that? You doubt Iran is behind many of the terror attacks going on today? How do we "treat them like it?"

I know for a fact they supported Hezbollah in their recent war with Israel.

But to consider them a emerging global superpower is dumb even for you.

Fine instead of letting them play a bigger role in the area (I bolded that word because thats what we would be doing... letting them).... you'd rather have another war? Is that it?

[Greyfox]

I know for a fact they supported Hezbollah in their recent war with Israel.

But to consider them a emerging global superpower is dumb even for you.

Fine instead of letting them play a bigger role in the area (I bolded that word because thats what we would be doing... letting them).... you'd rather have another war? Is that it?

You don't need a war to cut the head off a snake.

[elysiantraveller]

You don't need a war to cut the head off a snake.

What are you talking about?

I get the cool cryptic response but how exactly does that pan out? You commit political assassination and expect the people of the nation to be like... "ho hum I guess I'll go see whats on the TV?"

It shouldn't take a foreign policy expert to know that killing another countries leaders is an act of war...

[Greyfox]

It shouldn't take a foreign policy expert to know that killing another countries leaders is an act of war...

You're being naive. There are ways to get rid of Imadinnerjacket and the Ayatolah's group without public awareness as to who did it.
It's an act of war if your waving the American flag in front of them as the assassinaton takes place. That or going to the United Nations for permission would be absolutely stupid.

[elysiantraveller]

I'm being Naive?

This isn't a Tom Clancy novel... this is the real world... who would get blamed for it?...

All of this sounds a lot more difficult than letting them exercise their soveriegn rights...

[elysiantraveller]

You're being naive. There are ways to get rid of Imadinnerjacket and the Ayatolah's group without public awareness as to who did it.
It's an act of war if your waving the American flag in front of them as the assassinaton takes place. That or going to the United Nations for permission would be absolutely stupid.

Actually you know what... this is exactly the problem.

To put this in a microcosm I'm simply stating we should let a country practice its autonomous rights and maybe things will get better.

The response here is no they shouldn't be allowed to do what they want in their own country and if they do we should kill them... killing them is okay... but if we secretly kill them.... man that would be GREAT! :rolleyes:

And people wonder why American's aren't well liked in the world.

[Tom]

And people wonder why American's aren't well liked in the world.

We are liked enough by those who matter.
The respect an any muslim nations and a sawbuck will get you a Starbucks coffee. Ditto Russia and China.

And, nations smaller than some our our cities don't count for spit. Even all rolled up into one little hump.

[Mike at A+]

Well, I've been silent in this thread until now. Yesterday, two American KIDS were sentenced to 8 years in an Iranian jail on trumped up charges of spying when everyone in the world knows they were hiking and mistakenly crossed the Iranian border. Meanwhile our idiot in chief is golfing on Martha's Vineyard without much to say except for the usual sound bite that he is upset. This is basically a kidnapping. When (and if) these kids are released, we should tell Iran that we are going to nuke Tehran in 48 hours and for humanitarian reasons, they should evacuate. When 48 hours elapse, we should tell them that we were only joking.