It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Who makes Who the Enemy of the USA?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 06:50 PM
The after-effects of the Soviet Union are still rampant and Russia remains a risk.
A country that is independently an enemy of another country is a more powerful enemy than a nation that is only partially independent, or dependent on another nation's doctrines and policies.

Before a destructive event occurs, cut the source first and then cut the means. Only reconciliation with all sources can world peace be achieved. A significant amount of reconciliation has to be wholeheartedly crafted with Russia. I still dream of the USA and Russia becoming best friends.

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 12:04 AM
I think that the West needs to keep a close eye on Russia.
My concern is that ethenic and political differnces in Russia could lead to a civil war. If a civil war was to occur in Russia nukes could be used in the conflict or if the wrong leaders comes to power we could be facing a Nuclear winter.

A Russian civil war would provide the world with quite a few headaches.

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 12:22 AM
Having experienced half of the Cold War for myself, I am enclined to think that the only way America will have positive relations with Russia in the decades ahead will be through trade. When the Berlin wall came down, I fully expected to see the Bush 41 administration push for new trade missions to Moscow. I think we missed an opportunity there, and it will come back to haunt us.

I do agree with the assessment of other posts. russian can be dangerous to American interests in the future, if relations are mis-managed. Based on what I see now, the Russians are developing their own brand of capitolism that resembles the post Civil War environment in the United States. They are experiencing their own "robber baron" period. Carpet baggers, and all.

There seems to be s misconception among many of the Harvard types that I rub elbows with that the Russians can be "dealt with." Making deals can be done without influencing their outlook. Truth is, what's good for Russia is not always good for the U.S. Big money only cuts so much ice.

I don't actually see the Russians being on "our side" until much later in this century. For now, the people in charge who have access to money simply have too much to gain from playing off our enemies and flash points. The trade deals with Iran are just one example of the hot and heavy profit-making that will go on for the rest of this decade and on in to the next.

Without a re-alignment of our own, we may not be able to trade with Russia on the scale that they will want or respect.

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 10:39 PM
Civil War in Russia- it will not happen- no way possible. If you are thinking of Chechnya- it is a tiny separatist republic that has been anti-Russia for a very long time. Otherwise Russian nationalism is quickly rising, and if anything the country and its allies (Serbia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan) are uniting. If you are concerned with ethnic divide- this is nothing new. Russia has encompased dozens of ethnicities and many religions throughout history. One way or another they got along. Russia has over 60 unique ethnicities and regional divides. Russian politics are not very stable yet (its democracy is only 15 years old), but there is no threat about internal conflict. The worst thing that could happen, is an anti-US president gains power, and plays off Russian interests against those of US. A Cold War is far more likely with China anytime soon than with Russia.

About Russia and US being allies in the future- unlikely but not impossible. Friendship is possible if some worldwide event unites them behind a common cause. The War On Terrorism is based too much on improving US influence and gaining new strategic allies, than on actually destroying the supposed terrorists- so this won't work. Plus US is still denying Russia entry into the WTO. In turn Russia looks to new allies for trade relations.

Machiavelli stated that unless there is a common enemy, two strong powers should and could not be true allies. Each has far too much power and interest in improving their own influence, at the expense of the other.

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:39 PM
So, where does this leave the future of U.S. forign policy? Will we pull bck and try to be isolationsist? the implications of that decision might be the difference between thounds of war dead versus tens of thousands of war dead.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:47 AM
The title of this thread was misleading at least to me, in that I thought the question being asked in the title was essentially what person determines who is an enemy of the United States.

That person is the one individual whose responsibility it is to ultimately "identify and root out all enemies of the United States". (quotations are his words, not mine).

And that person is (drum roll please)...

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
I've seen him speak at various gatherings - talks with a sort of backwoods accent but is one helluva brilliant, well read guy, and a dynamic speaker.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:02 AM
it used to be that the most millionaires in any city was New York but today it is Moscow. Russian affluence is on the rise not just on the scale of the entrepreneur but also through corporate and government services such as the gas supply to much of the rest of Europe. The days of Russians relying on out of date unserviced kit are fading fast and individually and collectively they are enjoying the new wealth. There's not a holdiay resort in Europe now where Russians aren't prominent, despite any visa issues. Just as China and India are becoming a new force so is Russia and the world will have to deal with that.

There's no likelihood of a Russian civil war either. breakaway former satellite states is one thing but civil war is not even possible in the current climate.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:03 AM
Makes me wonder what he would have to say about the Israeli-Lebanonese cease-fire. A lot of things are going to come out in the wash, and I can't help but wonder if we're going to look bad for it. If the stories turn out to be true ,and Bush really did nudge Olmert in to the attack, we chould be seen as less-than-honorable in the eyes of many.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:25 AM
I'd say that Russia has the most national pride of any country on this planet, even more so than the US. Civil war, aint going to happen. Friends- not likely. The only times that I remember the US and Russia/USSR working together is against Hitler and then it went straight back to mortal enemies after WW2 ended. Can we both work together on common interests, sure but they will be few and far between. Because most of the time we'll prolly be fighting for it, rather than both working towards it.

India- I dont ever hear much about it except thats where at the call centers go to.

China- I figure a civil war will happen there before they posse much of a threat. It has a lot of national pride to but you cant have such a HUGE rift between the poor and the rich with so many being on the poor.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:28 AM
That's the thing about China though, the standard of living is now raising 'across the board' bringing up those standards for even the lower levels of society. This is why it's considered an emerging threat by some and an emerging market by others.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
...and Bush really did nudge Olmert in to the attack, we chould be seen as less-than-honorable in the eyes of many.

the US will be seen that way regardless - seems people will believe the most ridiculous conspiracy theory about the US - true or not - and it starts from within our very own borders.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 08:57 AM
well here is the BBC report saying exactly that I'm afraid

it seems it's not just a load of conspiracy nonsense after all Intelgurl

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:00 PM
Let's make no mistake here. This is serious business. the Syrians are keeping a wartchful eye on the Golan. they want it, and they're not bashful about being patient. If the wrong thing happens at the right moment, they will go for it. I'm not yet convinced that thos tanks are there for a mad dash, but it could be the case that it's what they plan to do.

Olmert is in trouble. The IDF is eager to de-mobilize. You'll note that they are ignoring the minor attempts to yank their chain. This crisis is not over yet.


log in