yes

and I'm not looking at what iraq was capable of 2 decades ago, i'm looking at what it can do now.

my my, 2 decades ago, i could screamed and cried and got what i want ... sadly, i can't do that today ..

Wasn't the US supporting Iraq in those wars they kept starting? Up until they invaded Kuwait of course.

KJ

The point is that ME countries other than Israel or Palestina are also quite capable of starting a ruckus. Iran comes to mind. Also Saudi Arabia.

To the extent that it was supporting Iran's enemy. Same thing happened in Afghanistan in the 80's; the U.S. supported the mojahedin in order to stick it to the USSR.

a) Contrary to popular belief, Iran isn't middle east. You call them that and they'll prolly get very sad.

b) Saudi isn't capable of starting nothing. They rely on armies from different nations to protect them (subcontracted pakistani army for their own protection .. i have my theories on that but a lot has to do with trusting ones own people with warfare equipment)

Most middle-eastern are capable of war yes ... starting a world war? No. Most dont have a reason to and most know they'll be beaten down to a pulp.

What popular belief? Middle East is a geographic region, and Iran is most certainly a part of it.

Saudi Arabia is home to the most notorious terrorist in the world as well as 19 out of 20 9/11 hijackers. The current government is sort of fighting them, and that's good. But who's to say that the tides won't change (say, if the world stops relying on oil), and they won't become sympathetic of them?

Remember, World War would be very easy to start (and very quick to be finished as well, as someone pointed out); all you'd need is to set off a couple of nukes in Russia and the U.S.

a) I'll get back to you on the iran being middle east though i certainly doubt it is.

b) you're mistaking the issue completely now. a few terrorist starting a war is all good but that doesn't mean a country started it. If I was to start up a conflict by attacking newyork with a ratchet, that doesn't mean canada (or pakistan, however you want to see it) started a conflict .. its the actions of someone who is not endorsed by the govt of that country (whether that be genuinely or in the eyes of the public)

oops ... my fault .. i mistook middle east for arab countries..... apologies.

Yes, of course I understand the point about rogue terrorists, that's why I'm not saying that it was Saudi Arabia that attacked us on 9/11; however, IF the attitudes over there were to change, and the government became an accomplice to terrorists that would be a different story.

"If"

That could be any country then : )

the chances of a world war being sparked by a random middle east country to me is as high as just about any other average country out there ...

I'd say it's a bit higher. Not that it's likely, but it's not it's not out of the question either.

it has to do with the fact that Saudi is run by dictators (not psychotic 'i want to take over the world' dictators, but opressive dictators nonetheless).

having a small number of armed saudi forces (with the rest being foreign) helps keep them in power...[/b]

well i can think of quite a few countries with a bigger potential of sparking one.

I'm more strict about the expanse of the Middle East.

I see Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, and Bahrain as completely part of the region. Iran, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, and Turkey are transition states, having one foot in the Middle East and another in another region.

Egypt being also part of Africa, Iran part of Central Asia (not to mention the equivalent of the historical Persia), Turkey a transition between Asia and Europe (Cyprus could be seen as such as well), and Yemen and Oman being fringe regions at the end of the Arabian Peninsula.

Mere technicalities, really, but still...

Not so technicality, its interesting you bring it up when EU just recently accepted them on the ten year plan. Its funny because i always thought about it as such also, and so do tons of travel guides if you've ever noticed.

Ya, Istanbul especially. Gateway to Europe, etc. as if that's so original

Personally, I see Turkey as far more Asian, not only because it actually is overwhelmingly in Asia, but also because culturally, it is far more in tune with the Asian countries. It's also overwhelmingly Muslim, which automatically differentiates it from most of Europe.

even though this won't happen its an idea.....the EU starts becoming a strong alliance strong as US or stronger and something to spark it will all cause them to join together and fight this big war. It could be the EU empire but hell it won't happen at least i dont think. Hope i don't get jinxed.

I have always read that Russia and Turkey are both considered Asian as well as European countries.

A united europe going against america. It could happend. Germany would be at the helm of it though. That's my theory.

Ya, they technically are, as is Cyprus (well, somewhat).

The unofficial division between Europe and Asia is the Bosporus which connects the Black Sea with the Mediterranean and cuts right in the middle of Instanbul, as well as the Ural mountain range, which cuts Russia's west front and includes it with Europe. One unclear area are the three Caucasian countries, Armenia, etc. since they technically are within that boundary. But I think most consider those to be Asian countries.

More specifically about Russia, around 4m sq. km are in Europe, the other 13m in Asia. Russia thus accounts for 40% of Europe's landmass and 30% of Asia's (43m sq. km).

There are some who refuse to seperate Europe from Asia, and I actually agree with them. Unlike Australia or Africa, where there are clear cutting lines, Europe is very much part of the landmass that includes Asia. Eurasia

That's what pisses me off about Europe and Asia. It's territory isn't clearly defined like the rest of the world. We all know where North and South (central too I guess) start and finish but not europe and asia. It should just be one huge block.

its separated by ural mountains but i see what you mean. No mass of water is separating them.... Its obvious between North & South America....Europe & Africa (Mediterranean SEa), Asia & Africa (Red Sea & ISthmus of Suez)

We know exactly where Europe and Asia are divided (Ural mountains, then the Caucusus and then Istanbul).

The point about Russia and Turkey is that the majority of their land is located in Asia, but the most important parts of the countries are in Europe (less so with Turkey, but still). So Russia has always considered itself to be a part of Europe, and not Asia. I bet it's the same with Turkey.

But every other place has a body of water that shows a clear seperation. For europe and asia all you got is a mountain range. They should flood the area around the ural so there can be a body of water there.

The bodies of water between North and South America and between Africa and Asia were artificially created.