It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nations that are adversaries to the U.S. on an unexplored level

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
interesting concept.
I don't know enough about international affairs stuff to make much comment.
I do submit that some countries will want to stay close to the US if they have worrisome neighbors. Japan worries about China; South Korea worries about North K.
I wonder; if Russia goes downhill, maybe breaks up, will some of the rest of Europe grow more distant from the US? I wonder how much they agree with the US and how much they want backup in re: Putin.




posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: InceyWincey


I'd bet he'll show, unless something untoward occurs between now and then. It would be fairly radical, at a guess, for England to drive Trump away after the Queen gave her nod to his visit.
The UK won't go back on the formal invitation now, that would be the biggest political u-turn in recent history. The rumour is that Trump isn't really into the idea though because the whining leftist rabble have stated they will protest instead using their time to get a job.


At a guess your right that negotiations between the U.K. on trade will be tough for you. Trump would have the driver seat, so to speak, as the U.K. would need those agreements far more than the U.S..
He's got us by the balls that's for sure, all the more reason to keep him sweet. An example is GM food, we don't permit the sale of it in the UK for people, so I'm guessing that may be something we will be expecting on our store shelves after agreeing a trade deal. I imagine the only concession will be that it will be clearly labelled on the packaging etc.


100% agree on NATO. I'm disappointed Trump mellowed his position on NATO once they created the anti-terrorist unit.
Yes, I agree. Trump could have helped dismantle that archaic organisation but seems to have backed down. No need for NATO in the 21st century, especially when most of the members refuse to properly fund their defence forces. I'd kick out all those tightfisted nations, kick them out and call them out.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker


I'd like to see a leader of the U.K. organize a summit between 50 Muslim nations' leaders.

Thats was more Saudi Infleunce. Those ME wanted those shiny weapons.



originally posted by: nwtrucker
The one area that Obama can take credit for was NOT taking the point position on Egypt or Libya. That was British and French intervention. There's no escaping the British source of ME ills no matter your deflection.

And the USA took point with Iraq and Afgahnistan.....JOINT RESPONSIBILITY. Short memorys you americans have....




originally posted by: nwtrucker
In Trump's case, at least he's articulated no further desire to enforce cultural or political change in the ME. Something the French and Brits have yet to learn.

Brits have learned too, hence the opposition to Syrian interventions, a another ME war would be politcal sucide in the UK.


originally posted by: nwtrucker
P.S. Ironic that an ex-pat, living in the U.S. extolls the current situation in the U.K..
Who?



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElGoobero
interesting concept.
I don't know enough about international affairs stuff to make much comment.
I do submit that some countries will want to stay close to the US if they have worrisome neighbors. Japan worries about China; South Korea worries about North K.
I wonder; if Russia goes downhill, maybe breaks up, will some of the rest of Europe grow more distant from the US? I wonder how much they agree with the US and how much they want backup in re: Putin.


That's on another level, more in the military side of it. Valid in essence, yet I don't see Korea or China particularly pro-globalist. Possible though.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker


I'd like to see a leader of the U.K. organize a summit between 50 Muslim nations' leaders.

Thats was more Saudi Infleunce. Those ME wanted those shiny weapons.



originally posted by: nwtrucker
The one area that Obama can take credit for was NOT taking the point position on Egypt or Libya. That was British and French intervention. There's no escaping the British source of ME ills no matter your deflection.

And the USA took point with Iraq and Afgahnistan.....JOINT RESPONSIBILITY. Short memorys you americans have....




originally posted by: nwtrucker
In Trump's case, at least he's articulated no further desire to enforce cultural or political change in the ME. Something the French and Brits have yet to learn.

Brits have learned too, hence the opposition to Syrian interventions, a another ME war would be politcal sucide in the UK.


originally posted by: nwtrucker
P.S. Ironic that an ex-pat, living in the U.S. extolls the current situation in the U.K..
Who?


In any event, the thread is concerning globalization and those nations working for it vs those who oppose. I view the U.K., in general and politically, more the source and the home of the elitists who support the concept.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker
Are you classing NATO as a cabal? It is an alliance system originally based around the U.S. and the U.K.. so you can't really claim either that the U.S., is hostile to NATO, or that the U.K. is"not part of that cabal". How much have you thought this through?



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker


I'd like to see a leader of the U.K. organize a summit between 50 Muslim nations' leaders.

Thats was more Saudi Infleunce. Those ME wanted those shiny weapons.



originally posted by: nwtrucker
The one area that Obama can take credit for was NOT taking the point position on Egypt or Libya. That was British and French intervention. There's no escaping the British source of ME ills no matter your deflection.

And the USA took point with Iraq and Afgahnistan.....JOINT RESPONSIBILITY. Short memorys you americans have....




originally posted by: nwtrucker
In Trump's case, at least he's articulated no further desire to enforce cultural or political change in the ME. Something the French and Brits have yet to learn.

Brits have learned too, hence the opposition to Syrian interventions, a another ME war would be politcal sucide in the UK.


originally posted by: nwtrucker
P.S. Ironic that an ex-pat, living in the U.S. extolls the current situation in the U.K..
Who?


In any event, the thread is concerning globalization and those nations working for it vs those who oppose. I view the U.K., in general and politically, more the source and the home of the elitists who support the concept.


Well i think you should be more concerned with your own globalists.


Ok I think Trump is a giant baffoon and a intellectual midget.

BUT

He does have some good ideas. I like his anti globalist ideas.
But your own congress, GOP AND Democrats are sabotageing him.

You guys have your own battles with your own globalists, we have ours. Call each other the enemy wont help.
Especially since the UK government is one of the very very few who haven't insulted or mocked Trump, only its people.

Its just a shame Rand Paul didnt get the white house.
edit on 15-6-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: nwtrucker
Are you classing NATO as a cabal? It is an alliance system originally based around the U.S. and the U.K.. so you can't really claim either that the U.S., is hostile to NATO, or that the U.K. is"not part of that cabal". How much have you thought this through?







No I don't think of NATO as a cabal, more a tool of cabals. It is completely outdated, well replaced by bi-lateral defense agreements without relying on a preponderance of U.S. funding. The EU is more than capable, funding-wise and militarily, to protect itself within it's own 'agreements' without the U.S..

The internal adversaries to Trump's agenda are well covered in other threads. As well as Globalist supporters within the U.S..Concur on the Democrats and Republicans. The thread was to address specific nations that, in fact, support, advance those agendas. Pointing them out, or at least, clarifying which is which...or not, hasn't been addressed that I'm aware of.

They do exist, yes? It would be interesting to which fall into that camp and those that oppose that movement, as well.

No it isn't well thought out. More of a opening look at them, open to changing views one way or the other depending on data. posts and general viewpoints on the subject.
edit on 15-6-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker


I'd like to see a leader of the U.K. organize a summit between 50 Muslim nations' leaders.

Thats was more Saudi Infleunce. Those ME wanted those shiny weapons.



originally posted by: nwtrucker
The one area that Obama can take credit for was NOT taking the point position on Egypt or Libya. That was British and French intervention. There's no escaping the British source of ME ills no matter your deflection.

And the USA took point with Iraq and Afgahnistan.....JOINT RESPONSIBILITY. Short memorys you americans have....




originally posted by: nwtrucker
In Trump's case, at least he's articulated no further desire to enforce cultural or political change in the ME. Something the French and Brits have yet to learn.

Brits have learned too, hence the opposition to Syrian interventions, a another ME war would be politcal sucide in the UK.


originally posted by: nwtrucker
P.S. Ironic that an ex-pat, living in the U.S. extolls the current situation in the U.K..
Who?


In any event, the thread is concerning globalization and those nations working for it vs those who oppose. I view the U.K., in general and politically, more the source and the home of the elitists who support the concept.


Well i think you should be more concerned with your own globalists.


Ok I think Trump is a giant baffoon and a intellectual midget.

BUT

He does have some good ideas. I like his anti globalist ideas.
But your own congress, GOP AND Democrats are sabotageing him.

You guys have your own battles with your own globalists, we have ours. Call each other the enemy wont help.
Especially since the UK government is one of the very very few who haven't insulted or mocked Trump, only its people.

Its just a shame Rand Paul didnt get the white house.


I am concerned with our own globalists. That has been well covered on ATS. This is more in the direction of individual nations. Another dot to connect from a different aspect. (With more thought, I'd add Mexico to that list.)

I'm sure that British citizens are 'learning' as well. The advantage I see with the U.S. is a built-in aversion in the collective DNA distrusting gov't. We also have Trump, your opinions not withstanding. In all probability, despite the pushback from your citizenry, I'd guess the elitists are dug in deepest in the U.K.. So, so much originates there.

That's largely why I put the U.K. on the top of the list of nations. Rightly or not.

Lastly, I think Paul would be run over by TPTB with little difficulty.

More lastly...
I would know which nations would be against the U.S.-and others- in this fight. It is, after-all, the biggest and toughest test of all the issues.
edit on 15-6-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Once China is out of the the picture, there won't be any adversaries with all the US military bases around the world. Russia has been sanctioned to death. Russia is only a military adversary for the most part to maintain balance.
Technically, Canada is actually an adversary to US. The Gov doesn't follow America, nor do most of their companies. They try to stay away. Smart enough to not be dragged into survival mode once US some how collapse. South America though, not too smart. Too aligned with US. Except Cuba though. We have Brazil trying to get out, now Mexico following suite.

Dunno about UK though. UK keeps joining in with America in wars and is in NATO. Same with Poland. Though Poland is trying to get out through trade lately, but still stuck under NATO.
www.nouvelle-europe.eu...

Every European country stuck in NATO with US isn't really an adversary.

Though I say France is a bloody joke. They can't even prevent terrorist attacks and loads of spies go into that country causing major spy war. France is not smart enough to deal with infiltration since WW1.

Two sentences for France. French Foreign Legion. Learn the different language and use them.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 05:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: makemap
Once China is out of the the picture, there won't be any adversaries with all the US military bases around the world. Russia has been sanctioned to death. Russia is only a military adversary for the most part to maintain balance.
Technically, Canada is actually an adversary to US. The Gov doesn't follow America, nor do most of their companies. They try to stay away. Smart enough to not be dragged into survival mode once US some how collapse. South America though, not too smart. Too aligned with US. Except Cuba though. We have Brazil trying to get out, now Mexico following suite.

Dunno about UK though. UK keeps joining in with America in wars and is in NATO. Same with Poland. Though Poland is trying to get out through trade lately, but still stuck under NATO.
www.nouvelle-europe.eu...

Every European country stuck in NATO with US isn't really an adversary.

Though I say France is a bloody joke. They can't even prevent terrorist attacks and loads of spies go into that country causing major spy war. France is not smart enough to deal with infiltration since WW1.

Two sentences for France. French Foreign Legion. Learn the different language and use them.



Your frame of reference seems more on the military side and separating the military/war aspect from globalism IS difficult, to be sure.

Yet take Canada, for example, yes and no. LOL. Canada totally depends on the U.S. market for it's resource exports. Sure, it's Asian markets have grown and will continue to do so.

There is no 'survival' for Canada if the U.S. collapses. As I posted in the OP, the relationship between the two, militarily, is huge. I see PPCLI units from Canada regularly transiting to Yakima, Wash. for training. The French do touch and goes with their fighters off of U.S. Carriers on a regular basis.

As with most nations, the 'connections' are multi-faceted, from what I can see. Some levels adversarial, others, buddy buddies.

Overall though, I see Canada as following the Globalist agenda far earlier than the U.S. elements that support it. Multi-culturalism, social programs, World Court compliance, U.N., in general. Huge connections between eastern Canadian Elitists and the Ivy league crowd in the U.S.. JMO, though.

In Russia's case, I'm frustrated, actually. Putin's actions haven't made Trump's choices any easier, IMO.

I see Russia's only viable 'out' as a coalition WITH the U.S....and perhaps China added in. I'm hoping-and betting- that Putin, the 'chess-player', is waiting to see if Trump, 'the juggler', survives the internal fight before reaching out in reconciliation to Trump. (As is most of the world's leaders, for that matter.) Most of the leaders could be described as pragmatic/self-serving.

Therefore, if my logic has any basis for accuracy, Trump is the key to any anti-globalist battle. It hinges on Trump actually being who he says he is and intends what he says. Almost as important is his surviving the current U.S. battles.

If he does survive, and so far he has done well, IMO, then the numbers of nations joining any fray against globalism will increase steadily, IMO.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

You have it directly opposite.
Globalism is of the west and done by the west.
Globalism agenda is done by US mostly.
We have EU which is now breaking apart.
US under NATO influence is military globalism.

They tried to open up borders with Canada and Mexico under NAFTA. Now we have TPP. Have you read 1984? Oceania? Entire continent of America controlled by white gov.

US was trying to get the dollar under every country it controls. China was smart enough to do exactly opposite. US using the dollar to make every other money cost less and eventually become slave nation under US.

Go travel to other countries. They praise the USD because it cost more than their own current Currency. Their back up agenda was EU which is why Euro is higher than USD. Every other country like Greece or Spain is poor as hell.

If their country doesn't follow suite. They get invaded by US military just like South America. You don't see China doing things through force.


edit on 16-6-2017 by makemap because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: makemap
a reply to: nwtrucker

You have it directly opposite.
Globalism is of the west and done by the west.
Globalism agenda is done by US mostly.
We have EU which is now breaking apart.
US under NATO influence is military globalism.

They tried to open up borders with Canada and Mexico under NAFTA. Now we have TPP. Have you read 1984? Oceania? Entire continent of America controlled by white gov.

US was trying to get the dollar under every country it controls. China was smart enough to do exactly opposite. US using the dollar to make every other money cost less and eventually become slave nation under US.

Go travel to other countries. They praise the USD because it cost more than their own current Currency. Their back up agenda was EU which is why Euro is higher than USD. Every other country like Greece or Spain is poor as hell.

If their country doesn't follow suite. They get invaded by US military just like South America. You don't see China doing things through force.



Then by implication, you view Trump as part of it and duping his grass-root supporters. I both disagree and hope otherwise is true. If not, then when that grass root movement realizes they've been 'duped', the consequences likely will be terrible to behold.

I also disagree that the U.S. is the source of Globalism and frankly find labelling the U.S. in such a wise as to be a deliberate 'misdirect' on your part. There's flat out too much information out there point back to Europe, U.S. participation notwithstanding, for me to find that even remotely credible.

While I would agree that the last few Presidents have been 'sympathetic' to Globalism and allowed our military to be used as a tool by TPTB, the current Administration-that is what this thread is based on-has shown no indication of following that route and was elected, partially, not to.

We shall have to agree to disagree. Not that it really matters where the head of the snake lives. It needs to be chopped off.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join