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

This thread is an initial thought process and is unproven, at best. Yet, I thought it was worth exploring it's possibilities to be debunked or confirmed
with input.

We have our known adversaries, manufactured, real or somewhere in between and are not part of this thread. That would include economic and militarily.

We also, tend to generalize, often accurately. NWO, Globalists, TPP, UN, WTO, NATO, on and on. Assuming the current administration is 'anti' these groups in varying degrees, then breaking down specific countries that support these groups 'could' be labelled as adversarial to the U.S.. ( At least on that level.)

I would add to the potential list those nations which, apparently, also do not support or are outside these apparent cabals. Likewise, could these nation be labelled as 'allies', also on that one facet.

I would start with nations generally accepted as part of the 'Western Civilization'.

Off the top, the U.K., first and foremost. Canada and Australia next in line. Ironically, the culturual connection go without saying. Economic as well. Militarily VERY tight amongst these three. Likely there are more, but these three are the easiest to name, at least for me. In the EU, Germany could be the signal example with the remaining 'Old Europe' in perhaps lesser and varying degrees. The newer eastern members not so much. Poland stands out as an exception in that group.

Those nations that seem to not be on board with many of these groups? Tougher to say. I'd place Iceland as likely. Japan and China? Possibly. Very complex nations that would change their positions if it was perceived to be in their own interest to do so.

Likely Russia. Again mixed signals as their actions and rhetoric often don't match. Israel? Some accuse them of being the source of many cabals. Yet, the very organizations listed above, or some of them, have been attacking Israel for a very long time. It seems a stretch to suggest that Israel controls the U.N., for example, that attacks them the most. A stretch? No, laughable.

I haven't posted this to imply these nations are enemies. Rather that in one area they 'seem' to be adversaries. It could come to pass that one or more ARE, in fact, outright enemies. Time will tell.

This also is not condemnation, rather an initial observation. If it proves out accurate then acknowledging the fact has merit. If thoroughly debunked, I will eat humble pie....again.

I haven't given specific reasons for putting these countries on the list as that is a long process. I would give my reasoning on a case by case basis, if requested.

Bottom line is if one is 'anti-globalist' then recognizing which countries support globalization has value, yes?

I prostate myself for the inevitable attacks from the 'world's laughing at you' crowd. Have at it.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Define globalist please..

I'm literally kinda lost on why it's a bad thing.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think it means that it sucks that everyone in the world will have to pay the same price for ammo and beer.
It just probably doesn't seem too fair or part of jesus's plan.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: nwtrucker

Define globalist please..

I'm literally kinda lost on why it's a bad thing.

I really haven't 'looked it up', so there's likely better definitions than I could state.

My belief of it is the concept that be it Corporate, world gov't, or worse, a merger of the two trumps national policy, purpose and choice.

Why it is bad? Again perception. I see it as bad due to a number of factors. Basic is gov't, sooner or later becomes more 'bad' than 'good'. In many cases far more so. The signal example would be wars. All of them. Gov'ts. Not we the people.

An American icon, his name escapes, once described gov't like a fire. Useful when kept small, dangerous when big. Representation becomes lip-service. Rules, regulations become arbitrary and oppressive. Individuality-diversity, if you will, becomes homogenized into a collective sameness.

Now magnify that trend to a world gov't level. One side sees an idyllic nirvana the other an oppressive hell.

The human race, being largely insane, requires a restricted role from it's gov't. The basic premise of the U.S. Constitution.

The irony of it is if we were sane enough to trust a world gov't, we wouldn't even need one. JMO, though.

A Globalist?

An idiot that wants to strengthen the weak by weakening the strong, as we used to say back in the corp.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You are an enemy when you go against the order.

Within the order you can be at war with other elements of the order.

The order will not go to war with itself ever again.

We only fight amongst ourselves.

We chase shadows and meaning behind the curtains.

Its all in plain sight. Like any family, there are differences.

Imagine a house with workers preparing a grounds for the summer.

Imagine the gardeners and pool boys fighting over the hose. They all work for the same house so they end up fighting the neighbors people for their hose.

The two neighbors never fight but consequently never have ugly and dirty gardens and pools.

These tasks never faulter because everyone is frantic trying to get them done.

The neighbors probably have an understanding between them and as members of the same community they will never oppose eachother in eachothers respective house maintenance issues.

LOL.

Now, back to work.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Poland stands out as an exception in that group.

We are in agreement about Poland. They are one of the few EU nations paying 2% of their budget on defence as members of NATO. In WW11 they formed a number of regiments on UK soil to continue the fight against fascism. Poland has had close solidarity with the UK for many years and around a million Poles are hardworking residents in Britain today.

Recent news:
Washington Post

Poland’s president on Tuesday moved next month’s summit of central and eastern European nations to Warsaw, from southwestern Poland, because U.S. President Donald Trump is attending it.

They have a border with Russia. Poland will always ally with the US, they haven't forgotten the crimes of Russia.

Interesting thread

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: nwtrucker

You are an enemy when you go against the order.

Within the order you can be at war with other elements of the order.

The order will not go to war with itself ever again.

When did it ever?

We only fight amongst ourselves.

Sorry, I disagree,

We chase shadows and meaning behind the curtains.

Its all in plain sight. Like any family, there are differences.

We are losing those differences.

Imagine a house with workers preparing a grounds for the summer.

Imagine the gardeners and pool boys fighting over the hose. They all work for the same house so they end up fighting the neighbors people for their hose.

The two neighbors never fight but consequently never have ugly and dirty gardens and pools.

These tasks never faulter because everyone is frantic trying to get them done.

The neighbors probably have an understanding between them and as members of the same community they will never oppose eachother in eachothers respective house maintenance issues.

LOL.

Now, back to work.

a reply to: InceyWincey


They haven't forgotten the crimes of Germany either, I'd bet.

P.S. it must seem like the old days to them Germany on one side, Russia on the other....

a reply to: Maverick1

Me Tarzan, me kill you if I don't like your looks. Well, yeah, strong sentiment there but it reflects your style.

That word always seems to be viewed in a bad light on ATS. Yet by its very nature it certainly seems to suggest the less of a incidence of global war and suggest more cooperation between countries to settle their differences. Basically, the growing calls for globalization/New World Order would tend to isolate those not bent on that cooperation. The crux of it, I suppose, would depend upon the philosophy behind that drive for the unity of a NWO. That is difficult to answer in political terms but we can ask is it good or bad for basic human rights across the world. The reverse, of course, is Tarzan still swinging vine to vine in his jungle. Aren't we better than that?

a reply to: nwtrucker
That is for sure, and they are angry with Germany for Merkel's recent disastrous decisions:
Reuters

Poland's ruling party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski again criticized the European Union's relocation scheme for refugees on Saturday, blaming Germany's Angela Merkel for causing the bloc's migration problems.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Maverick1

Me Tarzan, me kill you if I don't like your looks. Well, yeah, strong sentiment there but it reflects your style.

That word always seems to be viewed in a bad light on ATS. Yet by its very nature it certainly seems to suggest the less of a incidence of global war and suggest more cooperation between countries to settle their differences. Basically, the growing calls for globalization/New World Order would tend to isolate those not bent on that cooperation. The crux of it, I suppose, would depend upon the philosophy behind that drive for the unity of a NWO. That is difficult to answer in political terms but we can ask is it good or bad for basic human rights across the world. The reverse, of course, is Tarzan still swinging vine to vine in his jungle. Aren't we better than that?

Interesting positioning on your part. Tarzan. Actually, I'd trust him more than the crowd he left behind in Britain....

P.S. International co-operation can and has been achieved bi-laterally since the beginning of international trade. It doesn't require a mechanism that trumps national interests via a monster sized coalition that can enforce it's policies on those 'not interested'.

Therefore, not sufficient reasoning to create such an entity. JMO, though.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Your butt hurt the US allies think Trump is a laughing stock so your trying to find enemy’s in long term friends

The fact the UK told the EU to # off shows how much you know about how Pro Globalist we are.

Stamp your feet, make your accusations and threaten to be our enemy’s.....but we will still think the sitting president a joke hahahahaha

originally posted by: nwtrucker
International co-operation can and has been achieved bi-laterally since the beginning of international trade. It doesn't require a mechanism that trumps national interests via a monster sized coalition that can enforce it's policies on those 'not interested'.

Therefore, not sufficient reasoning to create such an entity. JMO, though.

That is exactly what the UK is hoping for after exiting the bloated European Union. No need to be in a political union, no need at all. We can all still trade with each other and allow bi-lateral agreements on travel etc. The EU is of course threatening us regularly, but it's all hot air. German car manufacturers still want us to buy their vehicles, and they are more powerful than Merkel perhaps realises.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nwtrucker

Your butt hurt the US allies think Trump is a laughing stock so your trying to find enemys in long term friends

The fact the UK told the EU to # off shows how much you know about how Pro Globalist we are.

I'd have expected better from you. It suggests some desperation on your part.

As far as grass roots go, there is pushback from your citizens. I acknowledge it and would have if your post had any sense of British propriety. Then there's the portion that heavily supports the EU, your banking industry, your 'blue bloods' inbred with Europe's 'finest'. Your creation of the ME mess, in the first place AND the fast sinking of the culture that tied the U.S. and the U.K. together all these years.

I can envision, not that far in the future, where the friendship wans between the two, unless those that chose to stay home can reverse the nation's course, that is....

a reply to: InceyWincey


Exactly. That's Trump's view of it, from what I can see. Those bi-lateral agreements could apply to mutual defense if desired, as well.

a reply to: nwtrucker

In other words bend our knee and kiss trumps orange arse.

Sorry but UK bends the knee to none, especially a crass imbecil.
We form relations on mutual respect and partnership. If Trump treats its allies like dirt we will walk away. If Trump spouts stupid things we will point and laugh.
And we caused the ME mess? USA is EQUALLY responsible for that mess too.

Sinking of UK culture? Its doing just fine thanks.

If the special relationship ends then so be it. But Trump will be out in 4 or at most 8 years and likely you will have a president capable of basic diplomacy. And that’s the thing. Your allies don’t dislike the USA, they just dislike the current idiot sitting in the Whitehouse. A election fixes that.

Hell you idiot in chief is starting twitter flame wars with foreign politicians…..how stupid is that? Cause your Allies wont respect him if he does # like that.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nwtrucker

In other words bend our knee and kiss trumps orange arse.

Sorry but UK bends the knee to none, especially a crass imbecil.
We form relations on mutual respect and partnership. If Trump treats its allies like dirt we will walk away. If Trump spouts stupid things we will point and laugh.
And we caused the ME mess? USA is EQUALLY responsible for that mess too.

Sinking of UK culture? Its doing just fine thanks.

If the special relationship ends then so be it. But Trump will be out in 4 or at most 8 years and likely you will have a president capable of basic diplomacy. And that’s the thing. Your allies don’t dislike the USA, they just dislike the current idiot sitting in the Whitehouse. A election fixes that.

Hell you idiot in chief is starting twitter flame wars with foreign politicians…..how stupid is that? Cause your Allies wont respect him if he does # like that.

I'd like to see a leader of the U.K. organize a summit between 50 Muslim nations' leaders. You can hold your breath on that one. 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.

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.

P.S. Ironic that an ex-pat, living in the U.S. extolls the current situation in the U.K..

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: InceyWincey


Exactly. That's Trump's view of it, from what I can see. Those bi-lateral agreements could apply to mutual defense if desired, as well.

That goes without saying to be fair. I don't even see a need for NATO in the 21st century, Britain gets itself involved in illegal wars anyway so will always be expected to help defend an ally under attack.

The trade deals with Trump will be interesting, he's a hard nosed businessman so I wonder what our trade tariff arrangements will be when we leave the EU. Our current Prime Minister is damn right to keep a healthy relationship with the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. Only a fool wouldn't.

I'm also wondering if he will attend that state visit later this year, there will be mass protests by the unwashed leftist bleeding hearts in London, that is certain. Shame on them, they do not represent me. Trump is your elected leader and deserves the respect as such. I can't wait to read his tweets about that...if it happens.
#MAGA

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.


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..


100% agree on NATO. I'm disappointed Trump mellowed his position on NATO once they created the anti-terrorist unit.