well....not this female...  

Reply By: KFC Kickin For ChristPosted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 it swallows the female and the black/minority vote. well....not this female...

If only all Democratic females {not saying you are a democrat} were as smart as you.

Iran: Moslty a treath to Israel, but can challenge USA's influence in Iraq (which is deteriorating incredibly), Pakistan an Afghanistan. So it's more a treath to America's interest rather than the USA themselves. If they get the Bomb, I don't think we will have much to fear of them using it. they will simply want to juice influence out of it (which they probably be) as a "strong ally" by Syria, Iraq and other Shia/Muslim Nations.

The problem, however, is that it will probably trigger a regional-wide race toward nuclear weapon.

If Iran is attacked to prevent them getting their hands on the bomb, Iran will retaliate in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably cause a lot of trouble in the Persian gulf, which, overall, will be about as bad as is they simply get the bomb (on the short term). The results long-term, however, could be better, worse, of just as bad as the long-term effect of having them the bomb.

NK: Ennough said. Again, treath to America's INTERESTS, not America itself. And they want attention

Hizbulla: Interest

Loose terrorism organisation: probably a treath to America, but not that much. There are better targets (such as swings countries who can be intimidated, and are less protected). Not to forget that these terrorist organisation do not seek to beat america, they want to Islamise the muslim world. Hitting America simply gives them huge PR points, but they have to fight secular regimes to allow islamic states all around. So I'd say they are moslty a treath to secular regimes in muslim countries (such as Egypt, Morroco, Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, etc...)

China: Ouch. That one can hurt a lot. They are a huge treath to America's economic interest world wide, as they are starting to compete for influence in the third world. Watch out for these guys.

Russia: Rise in antagonism against the West. I... don't know if they aim for regional, or international influence. To watch.

EU: Best friend in the block, but USA has to be careful if it doesn't want to see EU becoming neutral in it's fight. I think it would be a huge blow to America if EU started colding relations with America.



Sadly, I'd say the biggest threat to America would be obesity. Your population is getting bigger, loosing health.

America itself isn't treathened by anything, except obesity. America's interests, however, are challenged worldwide. But that always been.

This isn't really anything new. We have been butting heads with them since WWI.

As all of these things happen I do notice that Russia sides with the groups against us. I do agree with you that they are someone to watch. I'm not convinced that the KGB cease since Putin was a former but still has tendencies. I know Russia isn't happy that we are in Afghanistan and they don't like our base in Kyrgyzstan. Nice point Cikomyr.

Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Friday, July 27, 2007 Iran: Moslty a treath to Israel, but can challenge USA's influence in Iraq (which is deteriorating incredibly), Pakistan an Afghanistan. So it's more a treath to America's interest rather than the USA themselves. If they get the Bomb, I don't think we will have much to fear of them using it. they will simply want to juice influence out of it (which they probably be) as a "strong ally" by Syria, Iraq and other Shia/Muslim Nations. The problem, however, is that it will probably trigger a regional-wide race toward nuclear weapon. If Iran is attacked to prevent them getting their hands on the bomb, Iran will retaliate in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably cause a lot of trouble in the Persian gulf, which, overall, will be about as bad as is they simply get the bomb (on the short term). The results long-term, however, could be better, worse, of just as bad as the long-term effect of having them the bomb. NK: Ennough said. Again, treath to America's INTERESTS, not America itself. And they want attention Hizbulla: Interest Loose terrorism organisation: probably a treath to America, but not that much. There are better targets (such as swings countries who can be intimidated, and are less protected). Not to forget that these terrorist organisation do not seek to beat america, they want to Islamise the muslim world. Hitting America simply gives them huge PR points, but they have to fight secular regimes to allow islamic states all around. So I'd say they are moslty a treath to secular regimes in muslim countries (such as Egypt, Morroco, Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, etc...) China: Ouch. That one can hurt a lot. They are a huge treath to America's economic interest world wide, as they are starting to compete for influence in the third world. Watch out for these guys. Russia: Rise in antagonism against the West. I... don't know if they aim for regional, or international influence. To watch. EU: Best friend in the block, but USA has to be careful if it doesn't want to see EU becoming neutral in it's fight. I think it would be a huge blow to America if EU started colding relations with America.

What an EXCELLENT break down of events, the hows and whys you posed are right on the money, have one of my very rare cookies.

Reply By: Adventure-DudePosted: Friday, July 27, 2007 Russia: Rise in antagonism against the West. I... don't know if they aim for regional, or international influence. To watch This isn't really anything new. We have been butting heads with them since WWI. As all of these things happen I do notice that Russia sides with the groups against us. I do agree with you that they are someone to watch. I'm not convinced that the KGB cease since Putin was a former but still has tendencies. I know Russia isn't happy that we are in Afghanistan and they don't like our base in Kyrgyzstan. Nice point Cikomyr.

To think that Truman fired Patton over Russia, when we could have really wiped them out before they had a chance to grow into the Soviet Union. The Russians have NEVER liked us, they still do not, I do not know what Bush was thinking when he said something along the lines of " I looked into his {Putin's} eyes and saw an honest man." Putin is dangerous and now that they have a huge amount of Oil and natural gas they are more dangerous than ever.

Let's analyse Russia & China a little more..

China:

First, China is only NK's ally. They have a little animal madman who they can crush like a bug anytime they want, which provides both an excellent diversion in the region & a good safety measure against aggressive move against them. They'll simply cut the leash if they are threatened, and NK can give a huge bloody nose to Japan & SK.

Second, Africa. China is making incredible inroads in Africa, mostly with countries that are violating human's rights. Why? Because they are the only ones that accept to do business with these kind of people (not having to answer back to your population has it's advantages). So far, it's not such a big deal - these countries are getting more and more scarce -. But the bad thing is, China is gaining experience in establishing and exploiting economic protectorate. So far, the only countries that had any real experience in these matters were europeans democracies - and RUSS -. The latter did not answer to it's population.

Maybe Japan had some, but Japan was much more military oriented in it's protectorate establishments.

Russia: Russia is, indeed, giving support to America's opponent.

1- Iran. Russia is Iran's main ally, and friend. Maybe Iran will be established as a Russian proxy, but I doubt it (I'll get back to is in a second)

2- Syria. Russia is probably supplying weapons to this regime, which are probably supplied to the Hizbulla, creating a firestorm right on Israel's doorstep.

However, as you can see, Russia hasn't tried to establish any economic protectorate, as opposed to China. They currently already have a powerful grasp on European's economy, so they don't feel the need to overextend themselves. So why are they doing these things? Why is Russian taking an aggressive diplomatic position Vs America and Europe?

2 options. 1) Maybe Russia is trying to distract us, to cover China's quiet expenses.
2) Public Relation, to get on his side the world's next huge cultural revolution we will see.

War on Terror/Islamic Conquest:

As I said earlier, the terrorists aren'T trying to hit America. their main goal is to ISLAMISE the whole muslim world (from Morroco to Indonesia, going trough Saudi Arabian and all the Stan countries). The only thing "really" standing in their way are the Secular (often oppressive) dictatorial regimes. Iran is the only place where the actual revolution already took place, but Saudi Arabia is already ruled by pretty powerful religious autority.

You can see it happen everywhere, both by terrorism activity & democratic progresses. the Muslim Brotherhood is gaining ground in Egypt. Bombs exploded in Morroco for the first time this year. Turkey will soon have it's first president who's wife wear the forbidden veil.

Pakistan's governement is loosing stability every day. Talibans are gaining strenght in Afghanistan. Muslim extremists are gaining political power in every muslim and nonmuslim country worldwide.

Even terrorism against the West is part of this strategy. Why are they stabbing at the world's most powerful machine? Because they know that America, in it's arrogance (and yes, you are arrogant, sorry to say it), will do everything - everything - to protect it's citizen..

Or will it? Not really. They know that America's ruling class will do everything - a showoff - to keep itself in power, playing on America's fear. So they started war in 2 countries in the Muslim world, supporting Israel actions, even if they are often too harsh.

These actions, along with the help of Islamists, helps a lot to convince the muslim population that the secular regimes are America's puppets and allies against Islam. They play on their fear, just as America's powerful are playing on America's citizens.

So, it's just a matter of time. Even if America did not overacted, even if the whole West played it's hand perfectly, Islamisation is the next step in the muslim world. My guess would be in the next 15 years, take 5 or give 10.

So... let's get back to...

Russia:

It is trying to get on the good side of this coming wave, in order to ally with it, and turn it against it's ennemies. A dangerous gamble.

What should America do? The same thing than Russia. Get on the Islamist's good side, help making the transition the most bloodless as possible. Support democratic reforms to autoritarian countries (such as Egypt, Morroco), even if it leads to Islamic parties taking over. America's support of the previous totalitarian regime in Iran lead to it's antagonisation.

USA should learn from their mistakes, and not oppose the future evolution. It's the best way of ensuring American citizen's safety, to undermine the terrorists' sympathy base. The problem with this analysis, it's that people in power will have to take un-blazing actions, which doesn't win many votes.

right we shouldn't stand up to evil but join it.

Who is REALLY the Biggest Threat to America?



simple it is those who would stand by and allow evil to have its way.


whether it be the islamists, the child pradaters, or the mass killers. or people who would thrust their faith or lack of faith on others.

That's one way to put it. But why would you define Islamists as "evil"?

And if you disagree with my analysis, be it actions in progresses, or their consequences, you may criticize point by point. If you can only throw aimless rocks at what I say, be silent.

Hmmm, that's a very thought provoking perspective. I have often wondered if Russia is sending laundered monies to Iran after the 'hostage' of the British soldiers. I don't have any evidence to back this up but it lingers in my mind like a fly on poo. IF my idea is correct then this was actually a test for Iran brought on by Russia. Britain is considered one of the stronger military in the world and little Iran trying to play the bully was a chutzpah check to see if they had the courage to stand up to a superior power.

Once this soap opera was over I get the feeling that Russia was pleased. Hence why I suspect laundered money into Iran. We do know that Iran has been sending opposition against us in Iraq and Russia gave Saddam our invasion plans for Iraq. This is my potential link with Russia. Putin's visit to the US seemed more like a mere 'innocence' ploy similar to how the KGB of old used to operate in it's beginnings.

I'd be curious to hear what Cikomyr thinks about this (and anyone else for that matter).

With all that said I would have to add Russia and China to my list.

My list of perceived most dangerous threat to America:
1. Socialist 'progressive' Democrats - these are the far leftest that want elitist status. They are at the top because of their Stalinist policies and verbiage. An example would be Hillary Clinton.
2. Russia - I think Russia is the root of our opposition that we set up after WWI
3. China - Their economic stronghold as Cikomyr pointed out.

when Hitler did the same thing that the islamists are doing we called him evil.

however now we have to understand because it is their religion. i don't think so.

Hitler murdered 6 million Jews just because he wanted to. the Arabs are attacking Israel on a daily basis just because they want to.

we had a war against Hitler sure we didn't know about the camps until we got into Europe.

but we do know about the attacks on Israel by the Arabs. we see it on a daily basis almost.

and when Israel defends itself from these attacks. the world cries fowl. why because Israel has better weapons. well we have better weapons too i guess that is why the liberals in this country doesn't think we should be defending ourselves.

if we leave Iraq as it is we lose the fight. the Arabs will take it as we won't defend ourselves.

the democrats want us to stop the war in Iraq, but then they want us to invade Pakistan. they also want us to send troops to defAr.

i said not all liberals were evil. but i do believe all or almost all of the democrats in Washington are. because either they support the Arabs in what they are doing, or they are willing to stand aside and let the ones who do support the Arabs do whatever they want to.

as i have said before YOU HAVE TO STAND UP TO THE BULLY NOT RUN FROM HIM OR GIVE HIM YOUR LUNCH MONEY BECAUSE TOMORROW HE WILL WANT YOUR CAR KEYS.


but i guess the democrats can't compare the arabs to hitler. because they are comparing bush to hitler

Well, the question being, who is using whom? I think both is trying to get advantage of the other, and both thinks he's getting away with more than he's giving, which is the ground of a stable relationship.

Iran clearly showed to the other middle-eastern countries that it is ready to take on the superpowers of the world, and face them, defy them. Russia is happy to see that their protégé is able to potentialy open a solid diplomatic front against the West.



I am sorry, but I have to totaly disagree. You let yourself be shrouded by partisanism and biggotry.

"progressive" democrats aren't a threat to America, since the only way they can actually win - in a legal way, and every indicator shows that they are not going on the side of illegality - would be by votes. By democracy into action.

If they actually win trough democracy, it means that these people represent a fair share of America. There is no way a part of America would be a treath to America. How can your left arm be a treath to you?

I don't know much about America's political past. How democrats acted in the past 50 years, or republicans. The only thing I know is that a solid democracy should - no, it NEEDS - shifting of power from one party to the other. It's healthy for the country.

Left/Progressive vs Right/Conservative. Secularism/State religion. All of these conflict are healthy for a country, and if you cannot understand why people are on another side of one of these issues, and you simply despise them because of what they believe in, then maybe you are not mature ennough to live in a democracy.

And Liberal/Progressists/Pacifists are essential to America's well being, for your foreign image. I don't know about how Democracts are seen inside the U.S., but I sure know as hell that they are largely favored outside the U.S.. Having them in power from time to time helps to your image worldwide, which is essential to your survival as a superpower.

Here, read the morale of this little story : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_a_Little_Bit_Country

The people who made this show are probably one of the best thing to happen to America. It's so sad so little listen to them.

  

George W. Bush

I see you troll a lot around here, Col Gene. Except for raising polemics and being a pretty poor champion of Bush's protesters, what is your purpose?

You make me thinks of the Purzédurs. Sovereignists in Québec who do more damage to their cause by arguing the way they do than helping.

Cikomyr,

Let me clarify a bit for ya.

I labeled them Socialist 'progressive' Democrats because they call themselves 'Progressives' and Democrats. From their positions and the message that campaign is very much Socialistic. This category is not the mainstream democrats. These are the people who champion the Gov't being able to solve all our problems. They are campaigning a new fix all health-care when they are the one's who have put so much regulation on it causing it to become outrageous. They also promote the idea of shared wealth (very much a communistic idea). Although in theory I do support it but I know that it is TOO easily corruptive and find those who promote it do not exhibit any notable honest qualities it would take to have such a society.

I will admit that there are strong conservatives that would be harmful to us as well but I don't see them gaining the momentum as Socialists. I do agree with you that it is good for us to have diversity but anytime you go too far to the right or to the left it becomes dangerous. I don't fear the pendulum swinging just when it starts to hit the extremes.

Take for instance the forest. I don't agree that we should just log for business but that's the where the tree huggers help to balance it out. In 2002 I saw directly what can happen without clear cutting and some logging action with the 'Missionary Ridge Fire.' We lost over 70K acres and numerous homes too. This fire could have been managed easier if logging had been permitted. But too much logging isn't good either and that's where I am in agreement with you that these two balance each other for a 'happy medium.'

I agree that there SHOULD be some bi-partisan but in the recent years I do not see the socialist left (again not all democrats are in this category) compromising on their end. I see the conservatives giving an inch and they want a mile! I see more of an all or nothing from them while they claim it is the conservatives doing such. With that said I don't see the likes of these Socialist bringing any form of bi-partisanship.

I am really enjoying the interplay between the two of you, but have nothing of substance to add to this, so I shall watch from the sidelines and maybe learn a few things.

CikomyrJuly 28, 2007 21:11:46Reply #65
“I see you troll a lot around here, Col Gene. Except for raising polemics and being a pretty poor champion of Bush's protesters, what is your purpose?”

To show that we need to change our policies both foreign and domestic. The policies we are following are causing harm to our country and MUST be changed!

Actually, it's a socialist idea. And communism is inspired by it. the U.S. citizen seem brainwash to qualify as "communism" anything that looks like wealth redistribution, with it's negative overtone inherited by the cold war.



Sadly, any systen is easily corruptive. In Québec, the same arguments are used AGAINST right-wing economic politics, saying that the private industry is too easily corrupted, that it cares only about it's profit, not the people's well being.

So.. since the same argument can be used against both side of the fence, I think the whole "corrupted" thing is irrelevant as an argument. At the end, it's the people within the system that counts. Do you trust the one who tries to win votes, or the one who only cares about his balance sheet/shareholders's support?



Sure they act that way. Just as conservative act the same when they were in their position. Think of it, they have a uber-conservative president (who seems to quote the bible more often than the constitution!), with a congress/senate who almost gave him a blank check (up to this year).

As you said, there are conservative extremists also. You mostly focus on the liberal extremists, while they are as much a treath to america than the con-extremists. But... the worse thing is, these extremists elements are quite healthy for a country, because they allow the mainstream population to see how stupid these people act, in order to find the good balance.

Balance is better if it's the extreme sides of the balance who hold the weights. If not, the balance can fall into immobilism.

And you think that your arguments here will actually change something?

Or you just have a lot of time to waste? You can't change people's opinion in forums.

Some folks take this site much to serious, this is a place for the "average Joe" to write about whatever.

Colgene is one of those that fall into the "YOU MUST LISTEN TO ME I KNOW WHAT IS BEST BECAUSE I AM SMARTER THAN YOU" categories. We have a few of them from both sides of the political spectrum, I must admit sometimes I too fall into the "hey this is serious listen to me cause I know better" category myself. Most of the time it's just a place to write what's on YOUR mind, opinions, experiences, what ever.

I have learned a thing or two here, made a few pals and a couple of people that I stay in touch with outside of Joeuser. One of them I consider a friend. I believe she considers me a friend too.

I really appreciate your comments, and insight into America from a foreign perspective. While I do not agree with you most of the time, I find your interest and willingness to listen to all sides to be very refreshing.

And your comment here is worth its weight in gold!

I guess I fall into the "Smug know-it-all diletante Québécois who is too economicly conservative in Quebec, too liberal in the U.S., but moslty liberal into his social choices". A verry narrow field, I understand



And these comments are really appreciated, thanks. So, let's stop dabbling in sentimentalities, and back to business. Someone else has any intelligent counter to the proposals that have been said earlier, or wants to add more data to the discussion?

i was watching the show ice truckers last night. something got my attention. most of the truckers are from the USA. one of the truckers had to be med evact. all told the med. cost was 12,000 dollars. I thought Canada had universal med. so why would they charge an American for med services when he is providing a much needed service.

I am going to answer that question, but I want mostly to discuss the topic, which is the potential treaths to america.

As I understood what you said, an USA driver had to pay in Canada, and you are wondering why we ask him to pay if we have free health care?

Because "free" health care isn't that free. It's for Canadian citizen & residents (official). Any foreigners has to pay the bill.

The same can be said for drug insurance, school tarifs, and the likes.

But I can't stand Americans who live near the borders, managed to get a citizenship in Canada, and while paying taxes to the US, come using our system.