Question for the board

Interesting question. I would say from an immediate military harm, Iran. While they are apparently not yet at a direct military threat, they seem to be funding and driving the greatest threat.

Honestly though, we are the biggest threat to ourselves. Continuing to drive up massive debts while also being politically and culturally more divided each day, we are the worst enemies to ourselves.
 
We don't have one, we create one cause we always need a rival/enemy. China was supposed to overtake the world, but they've got too many problems to overcome. America will come out of this recession in the natural cycle of life, and all will be well and all this talk will stop. Until of course the next enemy is created.
 
I say keep an eye on Russia. They balk at almost anything we do whether it is Iran, North Korea or how long we are in Iraq, etc. They are getting cocky again, are downsized and adjusting to it. They just don't like us and though we sort of technically won the Cold War I expect them to not let it go.
 
My understanding of the word Geopoltical is the study of a certain type of government. So I am not sure what is meant by Geopoltical in this post. Looks like some people are taking as to who our next adversary is or was or will be.

With that thinking, I am going to say short term Iran, Long Term China(North Korea) and Russia.
 
China. There just are no rules really in how they conduct their business. There government is actively manipulating their currency to maintain their dominance in manufacturing. We have to figure out a way to stand up to that and their other tactics. .
 
IMO, China has the most capacity to do us harm but as another poster mentioned, they recognize that a super v. super is a no win for all.

they will likely take a long approach and we'll suffer a thousand cuts. whether we 'die' or not will depend on whether we get our stuff together.

their form of govt is much more consistent. If good choices are made they can get to the hole in 3, where as we are all over the course with slices and hooks. But if wrong choices are made, they are all in and can quickly go down the tubes.

Not advocating for their form, just saying it can be more efficient, if the 12-15 guys running it, make the right calls.

Despite some weakness, they have positioned themselves well to compete with us globally. I think they will try to 'Reagan' us (as a verb, I'm using this to describe the action of bleeding your economically weakened foe into BK thru an arms/other race.)
 
I don't know that I like the word "foe" in this very interesting question.

China seems like the biggest rival now. The rivals do seem to come and go. Germany and Japan were going to eat us up in 80s, then the united Europe was to be the new thing. Now comes China.

I'd have to say that our biggest problems are a political system that seems to be failing to seriously address, let alone solve, prominent issues during our election discourse. We give office holders mandates to allow/not allow gay marriage, starve/save the elderly, protect/attack the illusory "death tax" that most people think they will pay even though they won't, and many other issues that excite the heart and not the mind.

If I had to name this geopolitical foe, I'd call it Idiot World. It's influence pervades like a disease without consideration of party, religion, ethnicity, or, surprisingly, educational level. Idiot World has always been among us and in us all at one time or another, hopefully it only seems that its influence is peaking. It's the foe that could undo us.
 
Well, the reason that I ask is that Mitt Romney said that Russia is "without question our number one geoplitical foe."

My questions are:

1) Is this a true statement?

2) If you believe, as Romney does, that Russia is our number one geopolitical foe, is it a wise idea before you get elected to label them as such, publicly? I don't think so. It gains you nothing and causes the Russians to dig in their heals.


After watching the Republican debates and listening to both the tone and the content of some of Romney's subsequent statements ---- like this one ----- I'm concerned with what I view as unnecessary, and strategically stupid, bravado that borders on bellicosity. I know he's been reading "The Next 100 Years" and I'm concerned that he's going to let it influence him unduly.

He's not talking softly and carrying a big stick.
 
It's kind of hard to comment on that when you've basically dropped the statement in with no context. In fact it's ironic that you pose the question to us, and I assume expected an answer. If Romney was also posed that question, and chose to answer it honestly, now that's cause for "concern"?

In addition, did he make any qualifying remarks? In certain scenarios, for example, or in this particular context? Did he actually say "foe" or is that your word?
 
Too bad the OP had an agenda as this was a pretty good topic.

In 2012, it is ALL about money and resources.

China is really not a geopolitical threat to the US. China has massive human interest problems looming. Massive. There are just too many people there. They have invested/loaned the US trillions of dollars. What could possibly be thier incentive to harm us? Further, their economy is graetly dependent on trade with the US. Again, what possibly is their incentive to weaken America financially? There is none. China has a very different style of govt than the US but that does not make them an enemy, it just makes them different.

Russia is very similar. The ONLY reason that Russia is considered a geopolitical foe is because they frequently undermine our political manuevers in the world. The ONLY reason the do that is because our manuevers often cost them money. Russia trades with Iran. An embargo on Iran hurts Russia financially so they oppose it. it isnt really that hard to figure out.

I agree completely with whoever said our only foe is ourselves.
 
I have no opinion one way or another on whether Romney should call Russia a foe publicly. However there is certainly an argument to be made that they are in fact our greatest threat if not directly, indirectly.

Russia has persuaded us to stop European defense shield projects, they supply our other enemies with money, ammo, trade, and they continue to minimize the effects of our sanctions against countries like Iran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top