The greatest threat to the U.S. ?

What is the Greatest threat to the U.S.?

  • International Terrorism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • WMD Proliferation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Global Climate Change

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Immigration/Culture Issues

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Domestic Policy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Police State

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Global/Regional War

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
What is the greatest threat to the U.S. and why?

International Terrorism
WMD Proliferation
Global Climate Change
Immigration and Culture Issues
Domestic Policy
Police State
Global/Regional War
Other




my response follows...
 
M

MID

Guest
#2
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." Samuel P. Huntington
Rarely have I heard a more correct statement, although it is worded in a way which could spark a considrable amount of debate.

The essence of this statement is that the West maintains its peace and freedom through the application of its military force. This is invariable, and is the way it has always been done in this world. Diplomacy has never insured freedom. It may stave off a potential threat, but when a threat is manifest, the military, the "application of organized violence", has always been the necessary tool to establish the peace and insure freedom.

That is why there is a military. This does indeed escape the minds of many in the West, but it most certainly doesn't escape the minds of those who would become threats to our sovereign freedom.

If anyone thinks the greatest threat that exists is not terroism as manifest by Islamic fascists, this reflects the idea that people in the West have indeed missed the profound truth of the purpose and use of military force as it's been defined in America. There is no place for diplomacy in this situation. It is a matter of allowing our military to do its job without tying its hands. There is no other solution to this threat, and it is a big one, than to destroy it.
 
M

Mecha

Guest
#3
Police State, Domestic Policy, and Culture Issues are all too close to be differentated in the answer to this question. Hence my Vote: Other.


There is a authoritarian/plutocratic movement behind the Republican party that in particular uses the evangelicals as loyal pawns to ursup the rule of law and social policy for their own gain. Ever since the lost election after Wilson for the Republicans, they started using religion to manipulate people politically. The Evangelical political movement is the culmination of this, as evidenced by the utterly irrational loyalty to their politicans. Ever wonder about that ~30% that still supports Bush no matter what? In addition, ever read about the very long running sociology study that shows most authoritarian leaning people join the Republican Party? No joke. Nixon, Reagan, Bush W. All have tried to usurp the rule of law, and are brain addled. Coincidence?

~Mecha
 
M

MID

Guest
#4
Police State, Domestic Policy, and Culture Issues are all too close to be differentated in the answer to this question. Hence my Vote: Other.


There is a authoritarian/plutocratic movement behind the Republican party that in particular uses the evangelicals as loyal pawns to ursup the rule of law and social policy for their own gain. Ever since the lost election after Wilson for the Republicans, they started using religion to manipulate people politically. The Evangelical political movement is the culmination of this, as evidenced by the utterly irrational loyalty to their politicans. Ever wonder about that ~30% that still supports Bush no matter what?

~Mecha
In my view, religion is not a factor in political matters. At least, it should not be. Of course, there is the "religious right", which can indeed be considered a political movement, but it is irrelevant to me.

I don't think they have as much power as some give them credit for, I do not think they have any particular sway over the President, and I do not think they have any effect on the rule of law and policy.
They may well manipulate certain people politically, but I see no evidence that the President is one of them.
Quite frankly, I think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have more political sway in Democratic circles, which I find highly disturbing.

What law is it that has been passed by Congress during President Bush's term(s) which "usurps the rule of law"?

I've seen the Supreme Court do that sort of thing in recent years, but not the President.
 
M

Mecha

Guest
#5
I don't think they have as much power as some give them credit for, I do not think they have any particular sway over the President, and I do not think they have any effect on the rule of law and policy.
A quick reference to the Rupublician Party's command structure in Congress in the last session, and in their party structure would correct your view.

As well as their bullshit legislation and nominees (judicial and administrative) that were allowed.

What law is it that has been passed by Congress during President Bush's term(s) which "usurps the rule of law"?
The one that comes to mind first is that one that attempts to retroactively legalize Bush's extralegal activities in the surveilance sector. Or suspends haebus corpus for "enemy combatants" (which, I've recently heard, was limited to non-US Citizens, but that is no relief as that and more happens anyway, ie with Padilla).

~Mecha
 
B

Bunny

Guest
#6
Er.... They said thirty years ago that WW3 was going to start in the Middle East.
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#7
To the world? Climate change, by far. But to the US in the very short term (two decades) police-state like authoritarian moves like chipping into privacy and restricting other freedoms will be the most dangerous thing to America.
 
A

Abraxas

Guest
#8
I think it will be ourselves...

The US has really fallen in terms of it's youth. I see them daily (I am one) and I fear for our future. I don't see doctors or lawyers or politicians or CEOs. I see kids disgusted with the adult world. Upset with war and politics. I see people tired of the mindless bickering that directs our country. I see people that won't even vote or hold a political opinion for fear of peer repercussions.

I see laziness. People cutting corners to get a meaningless degree in buisness or arts (not that I am mitigating those that are persuing them) cause it was the only thing they felt like doing. I see people who hate history, education and preparing for the future.

I see a generation lost. I see laziness gripping at the heels of our kids... people without drive or motivation.

I see this isn't a choice on the poll... which means I can't vote. :sad:
 
M

MID

Guest
#9
The one that comes to mind first is that one that attempts to retroactively legalize Bush's extralegal activities in the surveilance sector. Or suspends haebus corpus for "enemy combatants" (which, I've recently heard, was limited to non-US Citizens, but that is no relief as that and more happens anyway, ie with Padilla).

~Mecha
Respectfully, there is a vast problem in recent years with people's ability to understand the Constitutional duties of the President of the United States.

The assumption of "extralegal", or that there is some attempt to "retroactively legalize" the President's actions vis-a-vis surveilance is illustrative of this.

The President is taking precedented action to intercept enemy communications utilizing necessarily secret monitoring of known enemy communications lines. This is part of his responsibility along the lines of protecting the citizens of the United States. It has been done before, by every president since Roosevelt.

If he wasn't doing this, and something happened as a result of this lack of proactivity in time of war, you can be assured that there'd be a huge public outcry against him...perhaps even a move to impeach, which in that case might well be justified, as opposed to the current insanity being spewed by far left wing Congressional people.

Frankly, the President is in a difficult situation here....he's damned if he does his duty, which he is, and would most assuredly be damned if he didn't.

The problem with this mis-interpretation is because people didn't generally know that these things were commonly done, in the interest of the safety and security of the American people...and of course, these confidential operations were leaked to the media, who frankly commited a crime by revealing them.

As to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, you are indeed correct in that this law does not apply to U.S. citizens. The suspension of Habeas Corpus became a huge issue among many people mostly because few people ever bother to actually read legislation (understandable) and they rely on the mainstream media to interpret things for them. Of course, they don't read the legislation either!

Case in point is that this law does not suspend Habeas Corpus for "enemy combatants". Not at all. It suspends it for "Illegal Alien Enemy Combatants". There is a profound difference between the two phrases.

The law only apllies to non-U.S. citizens, and only to non-U.S. citizens who are "illegal enemy combatants" (q.v.). This means Islamic terrorists.

The law has no bearing on any U.S. citizen, and cannot have any such bearing.

The controversy over this stuff is the result of a lack of research into the law, and a terrifically lazy reliance on the mainstream media for information.
 

CMK_Eagle

Registered Member
#10
IMO climate change is the greatest threat to the US. International terrorism, WMD proliferation, and global wars simply wouldn't do enough damage to cripple the US. The US has absorbed new cultures through immigration in the past without suffering any damage and will continue to do so in the future. It may be chic to sound the alarm about Bush turning the US into a police state, but realistically there's probably a greater chance of someone dying from a shark attack in Colorado.
Rarely have I heard a more correct statement, although it is worded in a way which could spark a considrable amount of debate.
Given what I've read about Huntington, I think he means it exactly as it comes across, which is mostly hogwash. I think Huntington would argue that ideals of individual rights and liberty have no greater inherent legitimacy or value than ideals of collectivization or ideals of slavish devotion to some supreme leader, a belief which is utterly rediculous in my book. However, there is some grain of truth to what he said in that these ideals are not directly responsible for the West's dominance. Instead, it's the organization of Western society around these ideals which is largely responsible for its more rapid development of technology, which in turn is responsible for its greater military capabilities.
There is a authoritarian/plutocratic movement behind the Republican party that in particular uses the evangelicals as loyal pawns to ursup the rule of law and social policy for their own gain.
No, the current dominance of the Republican Party by neoconservatives is the result of a combination of beliefs that 1) people would be happier if they lived according to traditional Judeo-Christian morality, and 2) that government is more capable of improving the lives of individuals than they are themselves. Therefore, it becomes the government's duty to pass legislation which encourages or demands this particular lifestyle because it will lead to a better society.
I personally disagree with this policy because I believe the second assumption to be invalid, but there's no credible evidence to suggest that the Republican Party is run by a Simpsons-esque cabal whose only goal is self-enrichment.
As well as their bullshit legislation and nominees (judicial and administrative) that were allowed.
Really? Such as?
The one that comes to mind first is that one that attempts to retroactively legalize Bush's extralegal activities in the surveilance sector.
To begin with, as far as I can tell the surveillance program hasn't violated the letter of any law and therefore does not need to be legalized. Secondly, if Congress were to explicitly authorize that program, then by definition it would not be a usurpation of the rule of law.
Or suspends haebus corpus for "enemy combatants" (which, I've recently heard, was limited to non-US Citizens, but that is no relief as that and more happens anyway, ie with Padilla).
This argument is about as convincing as saying that laws banning murder are no relief as people are still killed anyway.