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.