AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Enemy of USA?

51 7475
dehtor
offline
dehtor
68 posts
Nomad

What would you say is more of a challenge to the United States: Communists (China, Vietnam, North Korea), or Terrorists (Al Quida, Taleban)?

  • 51 Replies
Yakooza99K
offline
Yakooza99K
588 posts
Nomad

MILITANT ISLAMIC COMMUNAZIS

Glencoe
offline
Glencoe
10 posts
Nomad

MILITANT ISLAMIC COMMUNAZIS


Lol, what they heck?!?

But, I think that he have a bigger threat to Terrorists. That is because they have already taken part in blowing up one of our buildings, also known as, 9/11. We should be more threatened by them because they have bombs, I am scared of bombs. They should be more likely to bomb us if you do not do what they say. Also, if they bomb us, it might kill thousands of people, which is not a good thing!
Legatus88
offline
Legatus88
451 posts
Peasant

I would say N. Korea may pose a threat to the US in the future if they ever manage to gain nuclear weapons, along with Iran. As far as terrorism goes, that will always e a threat to the US. As long as the United States, and US culture still exists there will be extremists who want to destroy it.

thelistman
offline
thelistman
1,416 posts
Shepherd

Right wing politicians (aka, pretty much every politician in the US) is our biggest problem. They oppress the poor and just boost the corporate elites.

pickleshack
offline
pickleshack
356 posts
Nomad

I would say N. Korea may pose a threat to the US in the future if they ever manage to gain nuclear weapons


North Korea has nuclear weapons. Having them doesn't make North Korea a threat, although, the possibility of someone else getting them from North Korea maybe. North Korea is all about posturing, but they understand if they ever launched a nuke at anyone their entire country would be wiped out just as soon as anyone realized their nuke was in the air.

I think if Iran gets nukes it is even less threatening than the fact that Pakistan already has them. Iran is a fairly stable country, not too many crazy militants threatening the government too often. Basically the government in Iran, i.e. the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has a great grip on things in his country, with a strong army and reasonable plans for economic development.

Pakistan on the other hand, who happens to be our ally, has nuclear weapons, a disjointed and weak government, a powerful military, the ISS, basically running things and strong-arming the president. They have Taliban in their tribal areas, and attack from India to worry about. Their economic situation is just terrible, and there is a large possibility that through this instability they could lose control of their weapons. Thus, it would seem our ally with nuclear weapons and less stability poses more of a threat than our supposed enemy Iran, even if they have nuclear weapons.

Although, I will grant that the U.S. has a special, secret program, with hundreds of millions of dollars dedicated to it to protect Pakistan's nukes, so eh.

Back to the original question. Communism is not a threat to the U.S. unless somehow Russia manages to gain a great deal of influence in the middle east...and we all know what happened the last time they did that. Russia could also possibly try and do the Soviet Union thing again but fortunately for the rest of the world, most countries that were a part of it, are no longer interested in being a part of it.

China is probably the biggest conventional threat. They have a booming economy, massive army, they are able to manipulate the value of their currency to their benefit on the world market. As well as an excellent technological sector that is getting better as they get richer.

Lastly, terrorists are the biggest current threat to the U.S., unless of course, you consider the way the U.S. has been being run by our leaders for the past...well ever since Reagan took over.
pickleshack
offline
pickleshack
356 posts
Nomad

Lastly, terrorists are the biggest current threat to the U.S., unless of course, you consider the way the U.S. has been being run by our leaders for the past...well ever since Reagan took over.


After I read this statement it confused me. I'm saying that the most threatening thing to the U.S. besides terrorists is what terrible things the U.S. leaders have done, to include Reagan, and everyone after him...this Obama guy has just started so he has some slack.
Legatus88
offline
Legatus88
451 posts
Peasant

North Korea has nuclear weapons. Having them doesn't make North Korea a threat, although, the possibility of someone else getting them from North Korea maybe.


It's not certain that N. Korea has nuclear weapons. They claim to have them, and the C.I.A. says they do have chemical weapons but it is not established that they have a working nuclear weapon, only speculated. Yes N. Korea tested several missles in in July of 2006 and a nuclear weapon in October of 2006, but they have yet to be able to put the two together.
DDX
offline
DDX
3,562 posts
Nomad

North Korea has nuclear weapons. Having them doesn't make North Korea a threat, although, the possibility of someone else getting them from North Korea maybe. North Korea is all about posturing, but they understand if they ever launched a nuke at anyone their entire country would be wiped out just as soon as anyone realized their nuke was in the air.

why dont people ever listen to pickle? he's got all his facts straight. Just because someone has nuclear weapons doesn't mean they are a threat. What about russia? they have nukes, why are we not afraid of them?
pickleshack
offline
pickleshack
356 posts
Nomad

Yes N. Korea tested several missles in in July of 2006 and a nuclear weapon


I think what you mean is, North Korea has nuclear weapons, but they don't have a system capable of delivering one.
TSL3_needed
offline
TSL3_needed
5,579 posts
Nomad

Right wing politicians (aka, pretty much every politician in the US) is our biggest problem. They oppress the poor and just boost the corporate elites.


WHAT!?! How do we oppress the poor? By giving them jobs and kicking them off of welfare? How is that oppression? By trying to make gangbangers into responsible adults out of the projects and not selling drugs or killing each other? That's real oppresion I tell you. Oh, and get your political figures right. LIBERALS have the upper hand. Getting on that, liberals are the greatest threat. Closing Git Mo, increasing taxes and making government the top priority, NOT the people or they're so called 'Middle Class.' They say they take from the rich to fill they're already filthy rich pockets. Has anyone ever seen Ice Age? Remember the squirrel and the giant snowball going down hill? Same concept. If you take from the rich, the rich can't pay the supervisors and managers who pay the factory floor workers. You lose an entire branch right they're, and 500 people can't afford to feed they're families so that's 2000 people directly affected. Remember the Romans, it takes one leader to destroy a country.

Now of the two you listed, I'd say terrorists. Rogue states don't have borders and are therefore impossible to scare with nukes.
Legatus88
offline
Legatus88
451 posts
Peasant

I think what you mean is, North Korea has nuclear weapons, but they don't have a system capable of delivering one.


No I mean just plain missles, missles without any nuclear weapons attached. The nuclear test I was talking about in 2006 had an estimated explosive force of less than one kiloton, with some radioactive output being detected. N. Korea admitted it was smaller than excpeted, basically a dud, which is in no way a nucear weapon
thelistman
offline
thelistman
1,416 posts
Shepherd

If you take from the rich, the rich can't pay the supervisors and managers who pay the factory floor workers.

They have enough money. We should be taxing the hell out of corporate moguls. They are the scum of the earth. They set up sweat shops all over the world, pay workers dirt, and can get away with it in the name of "free trade." There's nothing free about it. Line up every corporate executive in front of me, and I'd have no problem executing every last one of them for crimes against humanity.

TSL3_needed
offline
TSL3_needed
5,579 posts
Nomad

They have enough money. We should be taxing the hell out of corporate moguls. They are the scum of the earth. They set up sweat shops all over the world, pay workers dirt, and can get away with it in the name of "free trade." There's nothing free about it. Line up every corporate executive in front of me, and I'd have no problem executing every last one of them for crimes against humanity.


And you'll be out of a job. Tell me why people on car factory lines are getting paid 30, 40 even 50 dollars an hour to drill in a bolt. They may set up sweat shops but those are more often than not quite shady business people. In the end your nobody, so am I, and so is everybody else. All we do is work. We get paid to work. But we don't pay people to work for us. Without these 'corporate moguls' you speak of, help more people than they hurt. Without them, the modern world would go bye bye. I'd reckon some of them even give billions of dollars to charity. And remember, the lives they lead are some of the most stressful on earth. They make they're money like everybody else, and it took alot of work to get where they are today. Every executive on earth was once a little guy on the factory floor.
XavierWolfe
offline
XavierWolfe
31 posts
Nomad

The government.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a government, I just think that they take far too much from the hard working citizens who actually earn their money. Rich people don't just grow out of the ground with their millions. They don't inherit it, either. They have to earn it. The inheritance tax makes it impossible to have your fortune made for you.

Rich people earn money. They shouldn't have to just turn around and hand all that money to dip-dunk bureaucrats whose salaries they pay, so it can be handed over to failures at life.

I talk only of government financial failures, and only a small portion of those. The screw-ups don't stop there, either. They reach into every inch of government-controlled territory. From military, to public education, to environmental standards. The free market economy's growth is fostered not by government meddling, but by freedom to grow and move as it will.

Obama isn't the one to help this country, we've already seen that. But the question remains as to who is...

Yakooza99K
offline
Yakooza99K
588 posts
Nomad

The government.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a government, I just think that they take far too much from the hard working citizens who actually earn their money. Rich people don't just grow out of the ground with their millions. They don't inherit it, either. They have to earn it. The inheritance tax makes it impossible to have your fortune made for you.

Rich people earn money. They shouldn't have to just turn around and hand all that money to dip-dunk bureaucrats whose salaries they pay, so it can be handed over to failures at life.

I talk only of government financial failures, and only a small portion of those. The screw-ups don't stop there, either. They reach into every inch of government-controlled territory. From military, to public education, to environmental standards. The free market economy's growth is fostered not by government meddling, but by freedom to grow and move as it will.

Obama isn't the one to help this country, we've already seen that. But the question remains as to who is...


YOUR ARGUMENT IS FLAWED, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT YOU NEED TO REALIZE THAT YOU ARE NOT A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER, AND YOU ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN AN IDEOLOGY WHICH YOU BARELY UNDERSTAND AND SEEM TO HAVE MADE UP BY CROSSING THE LIBERTARIAN, REPUBLICAN, AND HYPOCRISY.
Showing 1-15 of 51