View Poll Results: Who Is Currently Our Number One Enemy? (and why)

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • China

    9 36.00%
  • Iraq

    0 0%
  • Iran

    8 32.00%
  • North Korea

    0 0%
  • Russia

    0 0%
  • Another Country (please share who below)

    8 32.00%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    interesting and insightful observation.
    Let's just let that resonate a while.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    So again, who do you think is our current number one enemy and why?
    An important question to also ask is, Who considers the US its greatest enemy?
    From that list, only Iran and North Korea do.
    And of those two, Iran poses a much greater threat to the US and US interests.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    There is no such action. Our debt isn't callable by the creditor.

    They can sell the debt in bulk, which would lower the market price of that debt and lose them lots of money. When bond prices go down, interest rates go up. So it would increase the future borrowing costs of the US.

    They could also refuse to buy new US debt, which would also increase future borrowing costs.

    Note that neither action has any effect on the terms of existing debt. But since the US has plenty of short-term debt, it'll feel the market impact quickly.
    I guess I think of allowing existing bonds to mature and not buying additional ones as a type of collection action
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Let's just let that resonate a while.
    from here on, no more Mr. Nice BARYE !!!
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  5. #25  
    Europe has their own idea about who is the biggest threat:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70046760-2...nclick_check=1



    I noticed that Americans who love peace seem to like us, but I also notice that Americans who like to make war are the ones who hate french people the most. Maybe this is just a bad french stereotype, but this poll makes me think about this.
  6. #26  
    My friend in the UK sent me this one a few weeks ago. It's funny....yet sadly so so very true.

  7. #27  
    What is really funny about that picture, is the lack of any contrary pictures to "educate" us here Merkans to the "truth".
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    Europe has their own idea about who is the biggest threat:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70046760-2...nclick_check=1



    I noticed that Americans who love peace seem to like us, but I also notice that Americans who like to make war are the ones who hate french people the most. Maybe this is just a bad french stereotype, but this poll makes me think about this.
    Noticed this part of the article:

    "However, the youngest US respondents share the Europeansí view that theirs is the biggest threat, with 35 per cent of American 16- to 24-year-olds identifying it as the chief danger to stability."

    No one else sees this as somewhat stacking the deck? I mean while obviously there are some persons in that age range who may be competent to speak to foriegn affairs, I wonder exactly how many make up that 35%.

    Of course then I start thinking about all those stories regarding academic competency in the US . . .

    I wonder what age range was used for the five wonderful European countries. I also wonder what is exactly meant by "threat to peace;" I mean, whose peace exactly? Spain's? France's? Germany's? Italy's? UK's?
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I mean, whose peace exactly? Spain's? France's? Germany's? Italy's? UK's?
    Why does peace require a nation?

    And as far as humanitarian efforts go, helping people so that they know we are 'good' instead of harming them so that they know we are 'bad'.

    I mean... Nothing makes a radical like a martyr and, thus, apparent validation of the radical views.

    There are plenty of ways to do either but we seem to be focusing on the harm instead of the heal as of late. I won't wast time providing examples as they are all over the news.
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  10. #30  
    Our number one enemy is ignorance. Shallow thinking and apathy are close seconds. Next in line is government. Our 'external threats' are smokescreens designed to perpetuate the top three.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    An important question to also ask is, Who considers the US its greatest enemy?
    From that list, only Iran and North Korea do.
    And of those two, Iran poses a much greater threat to the US and US interests.
    perhaps that question is best addressed to Russsia and China.

    Last I heard they had not converted their missile silos to store grain.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    Why does peace require a nation?
    Oh by no means does it . . . unless you attempt to establish an entire nation as a disruptor of peace. So fine. The US is the biggest threat to world peace. Who exactly does the word "world" reference? Hell, even a general locale, say the Balkans or Middle East; maybe Asia? Europe? Where?

    And as far as humanitarian efforts go, helping people so that they know we are 'good' instead of harming them so that they know we are 'bad'.
    You do realize that many humanitarian efforts have been thwarted by evil dictators or rogue regimes exerting some form of significant influence (control) over the people we are helping, right (See the Battle of Mogadishu from 1993)?

    I mean... Nothing makes a radical like a martyr and, thus, apparent validation of the radical views.
    You're right . . .

    Especially when those radical views intentionally play on expected results.

    There are plenty of ways to do either but we seem to be focusing on the harm instead of the heal as of late.
    Then you and I share a difference in understanding of the role of government. The fact is, the private sector does quite a bit for the rest of the world. I'll be generous and even cite one:

    According to Wikipedia, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has:
    • gave 750 million dollars for vaccines SPECIFICALLY for children in developing countries
    • provides 17% of the WORLD'S budget to fight against polio
    That's only one, imagine if I spent the time and really researched how much the US' private sector gives to help the world.

    Oh hell, just one more . . .

    Sandra Bullock gave (herself) $1 million to the Red Cross after 9-11 (I know CONUS doesn't count) and another $1 million, again to the Red Cross for the 2004 Tsunami victims.

    But no, the US is simply bad for world peace.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    According to Wikipedia, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has:
    • gave 750 million dollars for vaccines SPECIFICALLY for children in developing countries
    • provides 17% of the WORLD'S budget to fight against polio
    That's only one, imagine if I spent the time and really researched how much the US' private sector gives to help the world.

    Oh hell, just one more . . .

    Sandra Bullock gave (herself) $1 million to the Red Cross after 9-11 (I know CONUS doesn't count) and another $1 million, again to the Red Cross for the 2004 Tsunami victims.

    But no, the US is simply bad for world peace.
    I think there is a clear record that Americans are quite giving - and that includes our government. How generous we are to whom and why are another matter entirely IMO. But I give a lot and many other Americans do too - including my favorite President (TIC), who has done some good work in this regard.

    Back to Hobbes' original question - the reason I haven't answered yet is because I think our political leaders - and we as a nation - cannot seem to wrap our minds around this nebulous new enemy called "terrorism". Terrorism transcends flags, currency, borders, governments, uniformed armies, etc. and we just cannot understand it all. Having a country (or countries) as enemies is so much easier to sell and rally around.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    perhaps that question is best addressed to Russsia and China.

    Last I heard they had not converted their missile silos to store grain.
    Both Russia and China compete with the US for resources and alliances, and they both support or do business with nations that we'd like to isolate. But despite their lack of democracy, neither are likely to go to war with the US anytime soon.

    Contrast that with Iran, which according to Bob Baer, a former CIA operative in the Middle East, declared war on the US in 1979, but the US didn't notice. In addition to being the most active state sponsor of terrorism, they funded the killing of a couple hundred US marines in Beruit, and they're supporting Sadr, who Maliki said is worse than al Qaeda. And there's North Korea, which technically has been at war with the US since 1950, and which has been selling missle technology to other nations and may do the same with nuclear technology.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    You forgot "Ourselves".
    I cannot believe I find myself agreeing with daThomas.
  16. #36  
    HobbesIsReal>>

    One needs to figure out which came first... and who orchestrated what... and you'll find the answer. Look at the slow and steady media buildup to marshall people's opinion and label Iran a "threat" (or whatever).

    Nothing in today's world just "happens" anymore. Much of what goes on in this world is the result of careful media manipulation by interested parties (businesses, governments...) to achieve the desired results. And public memory is really short.

    Most people read the papers, watch TV... and believe everything. In my local newspaper, 30% is advertisements, 30% is advertisements masquerading as news, 20% is irrelevant crap masquerading as news, and just < 20% is news (much of it manipulated by self-serving businesses and politicians).

    The other side is the sponsorship to agencies like IAEA (or whatever). Take Swiss watches for example. They have this game going on for a long time: they have a "standard" spelt out by a "certifying agency" and any watch that "passes" their scrutiny has a much higher value by branding etc. But wait.. only Swiss watches qualify to be submitted... and the main thing is the certifying agency is sponsored by the manufacturers themselves...

    As a non-US person, when I look at it, this is what it looks like: Afganisthan: destroyed, Iraq: destroyed, Pakistan: destroyed, China: destroyed... (when I say "destroyed" I mean it's people, not a few politicians blessed by the US). And we common folk are made to believe that every life is sacred... and every human being is entitled to their dignity.

    But that is how the world is, and so it will be.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Back to Hobbes' original question - the reason I haven't answered yet is because I think our political leaders - and we as a nation - cannot seem to wrap our minds around this nebulous new enemy called "terrorism".
    Respectfully, I would say it has little to do with whether or not our political leaders and us as a nation can do so, it seems more like an issue with just you (as to why you have yet to answer).

    Terrorism transcends flags, currency, borders, governments, uniformed armies, etc. and we just cannot understand it all.
    Absolutely. I agree 100% on that point; however . . .

    Having a country (or countries) as enemies is so much easier to sell and rally around.
    Terrorism tends to flourish better and faster when, at least in some part, sponsored by a nation or nations--which I tend to believe Iran is very guilty of.

    As such, I chose them as our biggest threat. I would love to be able to say the biggest threat to world peace was some radical group. Why? To me that would signal a significantly reduced threat.

    Note: Of the various gangs spread world-wide (MS-13, Hells Angels, etc), none of them are considered a threat to global security. Coincidentally, they all lack state sponsorship as well.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Both Russia and China compete with the US for resources and alliances, and they both support or do business with nations that we'd like to isolate. But despite their lack of democracy, neither are likely to go to war with the US anytime soon.

    Contrast that with Iran, which according to Bob Baer, a former CIA operative in the Middle East, declared war on the US in 1979, but the US didn't notice. In addition to being the most active state sponsor of terrorism, they funded the killing of a couple hundred US marines in Beruit, and they're supporting Sadr, who Maliki said is worse than al Qaeda. And there's North Korea, which technically has been at war with the US since 1950, and which has been selling missle technology to other nations and may do the same with nuclear technology.
    Perhaps the hesitancy to deal with Iran stems from a desire on the part of the powers that be for completion of the mid-east "peace" process.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    Respectfully, I would say it has little to do with whether or not our political leaders and us as a nation can do so, it seems more like an issue with just you (as to why you have yet to answer).


    Yes, it must be an issue with just me. It is my lack of understanding of how the world works that has this country in the worst foreign policy crisis since the founding of our great nation. You know, because the whole "bring em' back dead or alive" and "make it a big glass parking lot" mentality has been paying huge dividends for us.

    Terrorism tends to flourish better and faster when, at least in some part, sponsored by a nation or nations--which I tend to believe Iran is very guilty of.


    Well if Iran is guilty of sponsoring terrorism then I'd say they could be considered an enemy. The problem we have is that America has no credibility so what we say matters very little to most of the world. So in a simple world of "good" vs. "evil", I get the whole "Iran is the enemy", really I do. If forced to pick, they're at the top of my list and were well before the Bushies misfired in Iraq.

    I just don't think the whole axis-of-evil-cowboy-simplistic-view of the world has worked....at all. And picking a "number one enemy" seems to play right into that mentality that I simply refuse to ascribe to.

    As such, I chose them as our biggest threat. I would love to be able to say the biggest threat to world peace was some radical group. Why? To me that would signal a significantly reduced threat.

    Note: Of the various gangs spread world-wide (MS-13, Hells Angels, etc), none of them are considered a threat to global security. Coincidentally, they all lack state sponsorship as well.
    I think we can agree to disagree here. The new terrorism of this millennium is well funded by various sources and not all of it is state sponsored. Moreover, they are amongst us - spread throughout the world and most certainly living within friendly borders as well as unfriendly borders. We cannot just go around bombing entire countries trying to weed these people out IMO or their ranks will grow even faster...as has happened since Bush's brain got Bush-whacked.

    Moreover, even if an "evil" country is sponsoring terrorism we may want to show some semblence of consistency in how we treat these countries. We don't do that today and never have.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 04/02/2008 at 06:46 PM.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Noticed this part of the article:

    "However, the youngest US respondents share the Europeans’ view that theirs is the biggest threat, with 35 per cent of American 16- to 24-year-olds identifying it as the chief danger to stability."

    No one else sees this as somewhat stacking the deck? I mean while obviously there are some persons in that age range who may be competent to speak to foriegn affairs, I wonder exactly how many make up that 35%.
    I have bad news to tell you. Those 18 to 24 year olds who you think are not competent will be voting in record numbers this November. How do you say in your movie Apocolypse now "the horror, the horror".
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions