I dunno, a ticket with Barak on top and hillary a Veep has alot of chance, it swallows the female and the black/minority vote.

Hillary would not go for 2nd fiddle - she already did that for 8 years.

True, but I agree also that they are losing the steam they had.  It's a good chance they will repeat the '04 election and make it about hating Bush, instead of their own ideas.

We shall see docm, maybe she will take second fiddle with the hopes of Barak getting killed.

gee Dog, maybe someone will point out to the stupid motherfuckers that BUSH is not running in 08, then again maybe they are to stupid to figure that one out!!!!!

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.