What is the greatest foreign threat?

[James T. Kirk]

What is the greatest foreign threat? Where should the US government focus our diplomatic, intelligence and military resources in the next four years?

[onehandle]

1. Arnold Schwarzenegger. nt

[salib]

2. Our own Administration

They are the ones that are expanding the threats to us abroad.

[James T. Kirk]

4. The title says "foreign threat".

But thanks for playing!

[BlueEyedSon]

52. Depends where you live!

[James T. Kirk]

87. The phrasing of the question implies that it is a question for Americans.

[Pegleg Thd]

3. It is going to take

most of the time to get everyone back from the mess the bush bastard has us in now..:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[matrixchick]

5. Our Selves

We are our own worst enemy.

[James T. Kirk]

6. Again, the question is foreign threats.

Not home-grown threats.

[jcappy]

16. we ALL estranged

[American Tragedy]

44. Foreign is relative

[James T. Kirk]

50. For the purposes of the poll, this is from an American perspective.

[Stew225]

7. Monaco. Things have simply been too

quiet there for too long now.

[Ranec]

12. LOL

:headbang:

[bullimiami]

8. kerry and his fellow frenchies.

right?


:)

[James T. Kirk]

17. Wrong!

Both because Kerry is not foreign and France is not a threat to anyone except Greenpeace!

[James T. Kirk]

48. I must correct myself about France not being a threat!

Apparently, they are a threat to their former colonies!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/11/09/ivory.mbeki/index.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Venezuela! That commie Chavez is obviously in league with Castro

and the Sandanistas, and we can't allow them to have control of all our oil in that country.

[WMliberal]

11. we have to stop him before

he unites with Lula! All of South America would be under the thumb of the left. You can only guess where they'd set their sights next.

[Lefty48197]

10. You forgot Poland

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[James T. Kirk]

32. Ha ha. Poland has not been a threat since 7/1/91.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_pact

[bemildred]

13. Other: there is no substantial foreign threat.

[James T. Kirk]

18. You're not worried about even al Qaeda? Wow.

Bin Laden and his al Qaeda network attacked us on September 11, 2001. Even after the multinational rout of the Taliban, Bin Laden and thousands of the terrorists are still out there plotting to kill us.

[bemildred]

20. Not much.

Al Qaeda is a criminal gang, not a foreign nation, and they
would have been far less dangerous if we went after them as
criminals rather than pretending it is a war. In a real war
you lose more poeple in combat than get killed every year in
car accidents. There is absolutely nothing new about al Qaeda
and terrorism and the whole lot. THe one interesting thiing
about 9/11 is how successful they were, and I blame that on the
incompetence and/or complicity of the US "security" establishment,
and THAT is a domestic threat.

[James T. Kirk]

22. Don't take your eye off the ball!

Al Qaeda is a real enemy. They killed more Americans in a single day than the Soviet Union ever did, with all their armored divisions and nuclear weapons. In terms of the damage they can inflict on the US mainland, they are worse than Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.

[bemildred]

23. Bullshit is not an argument.

I didn't say they are not an enemy, rather the opposite.

[James T. Kirk]

24. You said, "Other: there is no substantial foreign threat".

I disagree with you. I think al Qaeda is a substantial threat. I also disagree with your belief that there is no substantial foreign threat because I believe there are other substantial threats beside al Qaeda.

[bemildred]

27. Fine. Opinions will vary.

I do not consider al Qaida to be substantial in the way the
USSR, for instance, was substantial, and you listed countries,
so I figured it was about countries, but whatever. Nobody wants
to invade the US, and the only ones interested in actually attacking
us on our own turf are criminal gangs like al Qaida that are annoyed
about our instrusive meddling with their cultures. This is rather
an old story, colonial enterprises are not new, and the basic plot
has been around for quite a while. The main difference is the
natives are much better armed and better informed than they were
a hundred years ago. Even then it was touch and go at times. But
nobody is going to come over here and hunt us down if we leave them
alone. Nobody. I don't consider people that will leave me alone if
I leave them alone "threats".

[Jim Sagle]

64. Too bad w took HIS eye off the ball.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

26. Keep telling yourself that al kada did 9/11

the evidence and convictions just keep piling up, dont they? :nopity:

[James T. Kirk]

28. I'll bite. So, who did 9/11 if it wasn't al Qaeda?

[James T. Kirk]

31. Osama bin Laden just admitted 9/11. Again.

Get your head out of the sand and pay attention.


http://www.aljazeera.com/email1.asp

"We decided to destroy towers in America," bin Laden said, referring to the World Trade Center.

"God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said.

[teryang]

21. I'm with you - no substantial foreign threat

...other than those we create.

[Aidoneus]

14. You and Madagascar.

Cheating with the answer.. What you suggest focusing the resources of happens to be a bigger problem than the others (not to let some of them off the hook, but there are priorities here). You and those in the pic should be very closely watched.

[James T. Kirk]

19. I'm not foreign and neither are the people in the photo.

[gottaB]

15. greatest security threats

Ignorance, global warming, AIDS, systematic inequalities, lawlessness, nuclear proliferation (with a bullet), war, international terrorism....

Don't miss the forest for the trees.

[serryjw]

65. I'll plaay....lets continue........

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,: Mujahadden , Sharon..I'll stop now!

[gottaB]

68. gnats

The havoc wreaked by e.g. HIV/AIDS is far more detrimental to US national interests than anything the Saudis have done or are likely to do.

In some ways it seems that the Saudis are actively working against our interests, but I think one can too easily slip into a paranoid mindset about such things, losing touch with the many realities that are transnational or haven't historically fallen under the purview of nation states. The movement towards militant Islamic fundamentalism, which the Saudi royals have arguably supported, would seem to be a serious immediate threat, in that anti-Westernism is one of its explicit values, and the US and its closest allies have been targetted for violent attacks. In the long run, however, I suspect that the fundamentalists are responding to and exploiting social crises that will be better resolved through liberalization of the economic and political conditions under which many Muslims live. So my sense is that while it appears that the Saudis as a whole may be acting directly against the US, the reality is that most are acting against a broader set of phenomena more directly experienced, and the targetting of US interests by some radicals figures into strategies of indirection that will fall into abeyance as other ways of solving problems prove more fruitful.

[James T. Kirk]

25. John Kerry: North Korea = threat

"The threat posed by North Korea is too dangerous to allow someone else, be it our allies or China, to negotiate our interests."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2003_0806.html

[James T. Kirk]

29. Iran: "Death to America!"

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles/3iran_us.html

When throngs of whacko fundamentalists shout "Death to America", that sort of scares me. No votes for Iran?

[James T. Kirk]

30. Who voted for China?

An interesting choice. They were very much in the news before 9/11/01.

[NCN007]

51. I cant vote, but id defenetly pick china

Our go-it-alone foreign policy (or lack thereof) is causing us to lose economic ground in Asia fast. China has a huge population, a booming economy, is coming out of an industrial revolution, and is gobbling up investments across Asia and the south Pacific that we have been neglecting. A strong China will be able to exert huge amounts of economic and military power over a large portion of the globe, and could use this to influence things like our relationship with Tawain, Japan, S. Korea, and Austrailia to their liking. In the long term, potential conflict with China would make Afganistan and Iraq look like the Philippine Insurrection in comparison to World War I.

[hollowdweller]

74. I can't either, but China too. They are sucking $$ and US jobs by the ton

And when they can't outbid us for it when oil gets tight they will do the same thing we are doing right now to Iraq to us.

[Al-CIAda]

75. China-

Why then was CHINA given MFN status just days after 9/11.
Yep, just another thing they snuck in on us.

[James T. Kirk]

84. China was "favored" long before 9/11/01.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_favored_nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Trade_Relations

I don't think it was "snuck in" any more than it was in previous years.

[justa]

85. China owns to much of our debt.

We don't have a choice than to give them MFN status. If we push to hard they can dump the bonds they are holding and further collapse our economy.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Stupid voters who elect morons like Bush...

..and who think that the US isn't seen as a threat by the rest of the world, because what the rest of the world thinks isn't important to those sort of twits. The US is without a doubt the single greatest foreign threat, and I personally find the idea of worrying about what other state is a threat to the power of the US to be kind of silly, as there's no state powerful enough to even make a dint in US power and global hegemony...

Violet...

[James T. Kirk]

34. Two points on your answer...

1. "Stupid voters" are not a foreign threat. Please choose on the of the foreign threats in the poll.

2. These states and terror groups don't have the power to take over the US or even totally defeat our "hegemony", but some have the ability to cause us serious damage. Case in point: Al Qaeda and 9/11/01. You don't think al Qaeda is a threat? "Osama bin Forgotten" for you, I guess...

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Two points on yr two points...

1. Sorry, but stupid voters definately are a foreign threat. Just look at the election result in the US. You think stupid, selfish morons re-electing Bush doesn't make the US a foreign threat to other parts of the world? I'm not an American, so I can't choose on of the options in the poll, and even if I were, I'd be pointing out that the US is a far greater foreign threat than anything else could be to the US...

2. Why did you put hegemony in dit-dits? Is it because you don't understand what the word means perhaps? Or is it because you disagree with my use of the word? No, that wouldn't work, or you'd be disagreeing that those who vote for Bush are indeed stupid people...

So, if you want to focus solely on what's seen as a threat to the good ol' USA while ignoring the much more serious threat that the US poses to the rest of the world, what do you suggest the US do about Al Qaeda? More of the same? Ignore everything that happened in the world prior to Sept 11? Fill me in...

Violet...

[James T. Kirk]

47. Know your hegemony!

1. Foreign Threat - As you said, this poll is for Americans. You are muddling up the semantics.

2. Yes, I know what a hegemon is. :eyes: I think calling America a "hegemon" is a silly insult. Here is a point to consider. Australia has fought alongside the "hegemon" America in all of its major wars of the 20th and 21st centuries.

- World War I
- World War II
- Korean War
- Vietnam War
- Persian Gulf War
- Iraq War

Perhaps we should be afraid of your little lapdog hegemon wannabe (hegemonnabe?), too. :eyes:

The United States is an exceptional nation that has done more to spread liberty and civil rights in the past one hundred years than any other has.

The US and our allies (including you) should continue to pound Al Qaeda until they are defeated.

[SweetLeftFoot]

67. Disenegenous

You say Australia has fought alongside the Us in all its major wars of the 20th and 21st Century. That's wrong.

The US did not fight in the Boer War, Australia did, both as a federated nation and as individual colonies.

In World War 1 and 2 it would be FAR more accurate to say, "the US turned up LATE on both occasions to fight alongside the Aussies and in both conflicts Australia suffered far greater losses as a percentage of population".

Jesus, if I hear/read/see any more US propaganda about "the Greatest Generation" ... "How we saved Europe" etc etc ... I'll be sick. Aussies, Brits and Kiwis were holding the line against the Nazis for two years before luckily, Hitler made the fatal strategic error of attacking Russia. Decisive US involvement was really just restricted to logistics. Same with WW1. Aussies had been fighting and dying (and developing the tactics that would eventually help break the stalemate of trench warfare) for three years before the Yanks turned up.

In addition, the US did not fight alongside Australia in Malaysia durting the 50s.

Most notably, the US offered only minimal support to our liberation of East Timor in 1999.

[James T. Kirk]

70. The "it" in "its" referred to America, not Australia.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Huh?

I don't think you do know what a hegemon is, so here goes:

Hegemony: What USA wants to have over the world, including the space around it, according to repeated declarations from Rumsfeld and Pentagon. (SEE: Rumsfeld).

http://www.skog.de/endiction.htm#h

*snicker*

Okay, now for a pretty good and simple to understand definition of hegemony:

HEGEMONY (hegemonic): The processes by which dominant culture maintains its dominant position: for example, the use of institutions to formalize power; the employment of a bureaucracy to make power seem abstract (and, therefore, not attached to any one individual); the inculcation of the populace in the ideals of the hegomonic group through education, advertising, publication, etc.; the mobilization of a police force as well as military personnel to subdue opposition.

http://www.sla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/marxism/terms/hegemony.html

Now perhaps you could try to explain why you think the label of hegemon doesn't apply to the US. Then I'd really love to hear yr take on US foreign policy over the past 100 years that has you thinking that the US has given a toss about spreading liberty and civil rights anywhere else but inside the US itself. What it's given a toss about is propping up brutal dictatorships if that brutal dictatorship will continue working for US interests, rather than the interests of its own people...

Not at all sure why it matters what wars or invasions Australia has been involved in. But a note of historical accuracy - this may come as a shock but WWII began in September 1939, not December 1941. It's amusing though to encounter such an Americocentric view of history that someone could try to claim that WWII was America's war. Australia was right there from the start, and its involvement in the war had absolutely zero to do with the US. The involvement had to do with being part of the British Empire...

Hey, if the US and its allies should be pounding Al Qaeda, then what the hell are they doing going off on a tangent and invading Iraq??

Violet...

[bemildred]

35. Other: theft of vital bodily fluids. nt

[number6]

36. Israel

our support of, unites Muslims world wide against us
gets new recruits for AL-CIA-Duh and many other groups
who are using terrorism as a tactic...

other than that China, North Korea, and many
others...oh and Tony Blair the Poodle who enables
our Monkey (GWB)

and the very lowest foreign threat WAS Iraq !

[Jim Sagle]

66. Chickenshit bullshit.

[MariaS]

37. All Foreigners are a threat

That's because we are universally hated. So thanks to Chimpy we have no idea where the threat will come from.

[James T. Kirk]

38. I'll keep an eye on Bermuda and and Andorra.

:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wordout]

39. brown people, of course!

gee cap'n that was EASY!

[James T. Kirk]

46. I don't get it. Was that a joke of some kind?

[TheKingfish]

42. eh?

The US has diplomatic and intelligence resources?

[James T. Kirk]

49. Now that was funny!

B-)

[ermoore]

43. Immediate threat?

I would say Iran or North Korea for the next four years, because they (due to nuclear proliferation) are a more immediate threat. But over the long run, China is definitely the scariest MF on the board.

[hangloose]

45. I can't vote so I'll just say "Blowback"

[James T. Kirk]

86. OK. I'll say, "Backwash".

[Lizzie Borden]

53. It's US.

I know it's supposed to be foreign, but we are the overwhelming threat.

[JohnLocke]

54. Saudi Arabia (nt).

[sowat_if_imamuslim]

62. reply

can't be because the royal family is so shook of their own revolting that they need us troops.....

[Massacure]

55. I think it would go in the order of

Iran - They can mess up Iraq short-mid term, and nukes long term
North Korea - Nukes mid term
Al Qaeda - They will have their way
China - Can bankrupt the U.S.
Russia - Putin is a creep
Syria - Perhaps they can help Iraq. Perhaps.
Hamas - These guys are more worried about Israel than the United States.

[DireStrike]

56. There is no substantial threat from a nation, Al Qaeda is close but...

Nations don't fight each other anymore. The closest nation on the planet to posing a significant military/damage threat is North Korea, and neither of us wants to fight.

Al qaeda could be easily satisfied by a reformation of our foreign policies, especially our support of Israel. Support and sympathy for the group would quickly evaporate. The reality about terrorism is that any group with a set of goals that can be accomplished through terrorism are a threat. As OBL said in his latest tape, the policies have not changed and therefore there is motivation for a repeat. It makes no sense to fight these groups militarily. There can always be more of them. The only way to decrease the occurrence of these types of people is to promote open dialogue, diplomacy, and intelligence efforts.

Israel and Taiwan are "threats" in that we have sort of an obligation to protect them. If they act stupidly, we may have to pay for it.

We really only need a military for deterrence at this point. However, diplomacy and intelligence can and must be increased and focused on many potential threats, both the commonly known ones and others most people (like myself) are barely aware of.

[UpsideDownFlag]

57. Canada. nt

[James T. Kirk]

59. Unlikely. Canada is a US ally.

http://www.centcom.mil/Operations/Coalition/Coalition_pages/canada.htm

[nine23]

58. I can't vote but...

I'm curious as to why nobody has mentioned Pakistan. As the saying goes, they're one bullet away from becoming US enemy #1 should Musharraf be assassinated.

They have nukes; the have a modern, well-equipped standing army, they have a modern air force, and they've been "practicing" their military chops with India for the past few decades. And besides a scant handful, all 147,000,000 of 'em hate the US big time.

The US is currently buying Musharraf's loyalty with gross amounts of cash. OBL can't be had even for reward monies totaling 50-odd million bucks - a tidy sum to a brown guy in this neck of the woods - because money's worthless to them in this struggle.

Dead Musharraf + resultant power vacuum = serious freakin' problem.

Dare I say "changes everything"? I'd love to be wrong on this one...

That said, I'm still with others on this thread who say the US is it's own greatest threat. The clock simply ticking away bears this out.

[struggle4progress]

60. Extremists from Texas. eom

[James T. Kirk]

61. Texas is not foreign. Please hang up and try again.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

69. We are the greatest threat to the peace and security of the world

Terrorism is the reaction to our own terror, and our support of despotic regimes throughout the world.

[bemildred]

72. Other: Arnold Schwartzenegger. nt

[James T. Kirk]

73. He's now a U.S. citizen and is not foreign.

Thanks for playing! Better luck next time!

[Al-CIAda]

76. "OTHER"

These foriegners who want to throw away our bill of rights and constitution.

ie: The current administration.

[Martin Eden]

77. Pakistan

Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal and a large population of Islamic fundamentalists. Pakistan was the Taliban's closest ally, and the tribal region along the Afghan border continues to harbor al Qaeda.

Pervez Musharraf may have prudently decided to be "with" the United States rather than "against" in the "war on terror," but Pakistan is an assassin's bullet away from realignment with Islamic extremism.

If any nation-state might be complicit in slipping nukes to terrorists, the first candidate would be a post-Musharraf Pakistani regime.

However, I agree with others in this thread that the greatest threat comes from within than without. Bush policies are setting us up for a big fall. Threats other than military confront us -- huge budget and trade deficits are making our economy and the dollar increasingly vulnerable.

[gomezcat]

78. Yeah, Pakistan

Agreed that Pakistan is potentially a threat.I'd add Saudi Arabia (in terms of the funding of various groups, training camps etc), especially in the increasingly likely event of a coup. I'm not so sure that we should regard "Al Qaeda" the way we do. Bin Laden likes to paint himself as a major super villain. He is a terrorist but with nowhere near the support or money that is generally thought. The truth about terrorism is far worse. There are a bunch of disparate groups out there and we don't know who many of them are. Removing Bin Laden will not stop them. He is merely one of many and we have no idea which ones have the capability to use nukes.
In the longer term, keep an eye on China. They are increasing their defence budget by 25% A YEAR.

[leesa]

79. Bush

[smedwed]

80. France :D

[James T. Kirk]

83. Ha. No. France is an important ally.

http://www.nato.int/

[mulethree]

81. Mexico and South America?

A neglected neighbor
with civil strife
with massive poverty (40%)
with massive un/under-employment
with inequitable income distribution (GINI > 50)
with poor pollution, sanitation, environmental controls
with population and birthrates way over sustainable levels (105mm) +(2.3mm/year)


With free markets, democratic government, favorable trade and geographic relations to the U.S., abundant resources.

Certainly not a great example to the world of what befriending the U.S. and accepting capitalism, free markets, and democracy will bring you. If this is our 'sphere of influence' that we have developed, why should anyone listen to us?

[ngant17]

82. usa is the greatest foreign threat

Outside of US, the USA is the greatest threat in the world.

I'm not afraid of any county attacking us per se, most of the world hates the US government not the US people.

[On the Road]

88. None

I don't believe the US itself is threatened. Another terrorist attack is possible, which would suggest that "Al-Qaida and affiliates" should have the highest priority. But the terrorist

On a broader level, this country is NOT under threat. There is no country that is at all likely to attack us. That includes North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, or anyone else. Even the most clueless dictator knows how suicidal that would be.

US business interests or citizens traveling abroad may be threatened. But is important to change the meme: This country is NOT in danger of being attacked.