A US political discussion.... [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

CaptainHaplo

01-25-09, 04:23 PM

caspofungin - thanks for the questions!

Since your mentioned your not a US Citizen - let me answer question #2 first as it has helps put the next answer in context.

The role of the US in the world SHOULD be much more hands off than what we are currently. At least in the short term. That does not mean abandoning our allies or turning our backs on serious problems, but it also means that we should not be running, guns drawn into every situation. I would by no means support isolationism, but the fact is that the next decade or so the US faces serious internal issues that must be addressed. Our engagment in every problem the rest of the world faces is simply not feasible for this country to continue to do. While we would stand with our allies and continue to be a leading voice for what is right, the US needs to get out of the business of "spreading freedom" and country building. While we do need to remain active in protecting our friends and insuring the safety of our interests, the facts are that past history has required our intervention due to our economic dependence on assets. For example - oil and the middle east. If the US were to focus on removing that dependence - we would be much more free with our ability to exert influence and leadership for the good of mankind - without there being a question as to the motive. We should no longer be the "world policeman" with force, but still be willing to step in when human dignity is thrown aside.

With that said - the Israel/Palestinian question is more than a simple nugget. But the fact is neither side has really had a need to sit down and make real progress. They sit, they talk, they agree, and then neither side follows through and points the finger at the other instead. No peace process is going to work until both sides WANT it to. Look, I am not going to give you some fairy foo foo answer - the fact is it isn't likely to get solved anytime soon. However - recent events really have presented an opportunity that is sadly likely to be missed. With the fracturing of the Palestinian governement between the PLO and Hamas, and the combat actions of Israel, real change could have been effected. The first problem is neither side trusts the other. Since Israel had planned on going in and seriously crippling Hamas, it was the time for the PLO to follow up - with ISRAELI support - to retake Gaza. That would have allowed both to have a common enemy that, upon withdrawel by Israel, they both could have worked together to continue to fight. After all, the PLO wouldn't want Hamas regrouping in the GS, so could work with Israel to stop it. Doing so would not only have devastated Hamas, but opened the door for both the PLO and Israel to begin to find a way to work together on settling the real stumbling block - Jerusalem. Unfortunately - this chance has apparently passed. However, I would look at the situation at the time to see if such opportunities presented themselves, and encouraged and facilitated both sides to find a common goal in which they could work together on - to develop that trust in stages. If any person tells you they could solve the Israel/Palestinian problem - run. What we should do however is show and encourage both sides to develop the trust, and the reasons - to work together to solve these issues. After all - once they can work together, they can begin to see how true peace would benefit them both.

As for the Middle East in general - we need to stop being namby pamby with states that sponsor terrorism. However, we would have to work within the framework of agreements already in place. For example - Lebanon is suffering greatly trying its best to get out from under the bootheel of Syria. While we have no agreements in place with Lebanon - offering to head a multinational contingent to assist them in securing their border with Syria so that it can no longer interfere - allowing Lebanon to govern itself, would be a reasonable act. If they don't accept - ok. But by showing support without taking a HOSTILE action - is the kind of role this country should have in helping to stabilize the Middle East. Such actions would be short term so that each country could establish themselves without interference.

This would also send a message - and yes - dare - sponsors of terrorism to act aggressively to protect their terror tendrils. Either they act and get seen as aggressors by the world, or the car bombings and such that kill innocents stop because there are no more explosives smuggled over and no more training of said terrorists.

This then ties to the answer of fighting global terror. Trying to stamp out or find every car bomb or terror cell isn't going to work. You have to cut off the supplies - let the "terror fruit" wither on the vine. Without the state sponsorship that they rely on, the terrorists have their ability to commit their acts crippled. We cannot be rid of terrorists as you can never know what goes on in the mind of another. But we can limit what resources they have to carry out their deeds. No - I am not saying invade Syria or Iran or anything - but by limiting their ability to export the tools and training of terror, you limit the problem. In addition, it puts those same states under even more internal pressure from their own citizenry since they can no longer trumpet about how many victories they scored based on how many Jews they killed or whatnot. *And yes - they do actually do this....* Not to mention the economic pressure and world view pressure that would accompany such action.

Its time the US stopped preaching from on high like a tv evangilist and started acting more like the old time prairie pastor - approachable and honest, willing to hold wrong up to the light of day.

Aramike

01-25-09, 04:29 PM

To Aramike - I do have clear ideas on the issues - but this is an opportunity for YOU to be as engaged as a voter. :up: I'm quite engaged as a voter, thanks.

CaptainHaplo

01-25-09, 04:36 PM

Torplexed

01-25-09, 04:38 PM

CaptainHaplo

01-25-09, 04:43 PM

ROFL Torplexed! Maybe so - but I did capitalize the YOU part so I can see where he might have taken it personal. Unlike those that criticized Bush for being unable to admit a mistake - I shouldn't have capitalized that. Oh well. Live and learn.

Now - Torplexed - throw out a topic or a response to one of the items above! This isn't meant to be only one sided - I hope folks will use this to debate their own ideas or perhaps even poke holes in my own.

Aramike

01-25-09, 05:03 PM

Fair enough - I wasn't trying to call you out personally - hope you understood that. I meant that in regards to everyone as I simply hope to get people involved. Twas not meant that you were not engaged as a voter.It's not so much that ... I'm kind of glib about this entire topic because, to be honest, positions aren't the first questions to ask anyone who seriously considers running for a public office.

So here are my questions:

Why do you think you'd be able to be the first successful modern Presidential Candidate without the backing of either political party?

How do you plan to be able to financially compete in a Presidential race?

What experiences do you have working with Congress?

How would you, as an independant, be able to work with Congress (specifics)?

What government leadership experience do you have?

Being POTUS (or any government head, for that matter) requires a lot more than ideas and positions (even good ones). Thousands of people call talk radio everyday with ideas. But transforming those ideas into public policy is something entirely different. And getting elected leader of a nation of hundreds of millions isn't something one can just jump right into, good ideas or not.

I can entertain the topic if it's about your political viewpoints, as I have and share many as well. But as a serious discussion about a bid for POTUS ... well, that's another thing entirely. And, to be honest, it certainly doesn't engage anyone as a voter anymore than any other political debate.

GoldenRivet

01-25-09, 05:14 PM

Capt haplo - its not worth it.

Historically speaking; there are four outcomes to a presidents time in office.

when you have served your term(s) and you are leaving office as president and the game is over for you.

either

1. You're a national hero who could do no wrong. (10% chance)

2. 4 years ago everyone was sure you were the new savior of America... now, you're a dumb SOB that everyone hates. (88% chance)

3. You've been impeached. (1% chance)

4. You've been assassinated *or died in office for some other reason. (1% chance)

But i will tell you this.

Even though i think Abraham Lincoln broke or raped as many laws as Bush could be accused of he nailed it when he said...

"You can make some of the people happy all the time... you can make all the people happy some of the time... but you cant make all the people happy all the time."

as for Yobama

I overheard some early twenties agers talking about how Yobama wants to make it so that any kid in a family which earns less than $60K per year will go to college for free and to top it off he is going to reduce taxes.

now im sorry, but im smarter than that... "there is no such thing as a free lunch" is a quote that comes to mind.

SOMEONE - SOMEWHERE is paying for that individual's college. :nope:

whenever a politician tells you that they will give you more stuff while taking away less money... you are having exorbitant amounts of smoke blown squarely up your ass.

America is shifting away from the mentality that "all men are created to equal" toward a mentality of "all men are subsidized into equality"

long live Harrison Bergeron :rock:

CaptainHaplo

01-25-09, 05:19 PM

Mikhayl - I understand what your saying - but neither of us can predict the future. Based on the situation as it stands now these are ways the US could effectively and reasonably approach issues in the middle east. Changes in the regions will require such policies to adapt as well.

Aramike

01-25-09, 05:19 PM

whenever a politician tells you that they will give you more stuff while taking away less money... you are having exorbitant amounts of smoke blown squarely up your ass.I agree with this. Politicians shouldn't be telling us that they can give us ANYTHING, because it's a flat lie.

Nothing is just "given".

CaptainHaplo

01-25-09, 05:35 PM

Aramike - This is where I have to give an answer that you probably won't like. You said "Being POTUS (or any government head, for that matter) requires a lot more than ideas and positions (even good ones)." - really? Why?

Why do you think you'd be able to be the first successful modern Presidential Candidate without the backing of either political party?

Who said I will be successful? But its time people who care did more than - as you say - call in radio shows and talk about ideas. Someone has to act - and if it stirs the pot and causes change - I call that a success. It beats sitting around whining about woulda/shoulda/coulda.

How do you plan to be able to financially compete in a Presidential race?

Did you read my above discussion of campaign finances? The fact is - the more people think about it, the more they want big money out of it. Give them an option that lets them "vote" with their money and time - and I am betting that it will be supported. I could be wrong - but again - doing is better than the alternative. Besides, the recent decade shows how powerful grass roots movements can be.

What experiences do you have working with Congress?

Ronald Reagan was not really versed in working with Congress - on the contrary - when Congress did things he didn't like, he didnt hold midnight burning oil sessions - he went to the people of the country and told em why what Congress was doing was wrong and let THEM speak out. Its empowering the people. He made it work. Not sure why I couldnt. So working with congress - its easy - they pass legislation that makes sense and furthers the best interest of this country and I will work with em fine. They act like knuckleheads and I will let them answer to the people. *Yes I know that Reagan had been a state governor prior to his run*

How would you, as an independant, be able to work with Congress (specifics)?

See above answer - I don't have to - I simply have to make sure they work FOR the people they represent.

What government leadership experience do you have?

I don't. However, I have leadership experience in another sector where I was directly responsible for millions of dollars worth of taxpayer equipment and the lives of multiple people. Nothing got lost and nobody got killed. That good enough for ya?

Aramike

01-25-09, 05:46 PM

Aramike - This is where I have to give an answer that you probably won't like. You said "Being POTUS (or any government head, for that matter) requires a lot more than ideas and positions (even good ones)." - really? Why? Because ideas don't get anything done. You need a plan and the ability to enact your ideas.Who said I will be successful? But its time people who care did more than - as you say - call in radio shows and talk about ideas. Someone has to act - and if it stirs the pot and causes change - I call that a success. It beats sitting around whining about woulda/shoulda/coulda. People are doing more than that all the time. That was just an example.

If you want to effect change and debate, there are other ways to start than running for president.Did you read my above discussion of campaign finances? The fact is - the more people think about it, the more they want big money out of it. Give them an option that lets them "vote" with their money and time - and I am betting that it will be supported. I could be wrong - but again - doing is better than the alternative. Besides, the recent decade shows how powerful grass roots movements can be.Okay, sounds great. So, how do you plan on reforming campaign finances in such a way that would help your run for President PRIOR to having any political office?

Your response does not answer my question. My question was how you plan to finance any campaign. Giving the position on campaign finance reform does nothing to finance anything under the current laws.Ronald Reagan was not really versed in working with Congress - on the contrary - when Congress did things he didn't like, he didnt hold midnight burning oil sessions - he went to the people of the country and told em why what Congress was doing was wrong and let THEM speak out. Its empowering the people. He made it work. Not sure why I couldnt. So working with congress - its easy - they pass legislation that makes sense and furthers the best interest of this country and I will work with em fine. They act like knuckleheads and I will let them answer to the people. *Yes I know that Reagan had been a state governor prior to his run*Reagan, however, WAS the governor of California and had worked with the legislative bodies there.See above answer - I don't have to - I simply have to make sure they work FOR the people they represent.Congress doesn't answer to POTUS. How do you plan on making them do anything?I don't. However, I have leadership experience in another sector where I was directly responsible for millions of dollars worth of taxpayer equipment and the lives of multiple people. Nothing got lost and nobody got killed. That good enough for ya?No, not even close.

CaptainHaplo

01-25-09, 05:51 PM

GoldenRivet - your dead on - though sometimes - as has been the case with our country - the payee is now going to be our kids and their kids unless we stop the bleeding now. Thats where we are. So many "entitlements" and no way to really pay for them ourselves. Where we are parallels the Roman Empire in so many ways its scary!

Which brings me to another chance to talk about issues. Entitlements. There are too many of them - doing to little and often in the wrong place. Everyone hears about social security. How many of the presidents talk about "fixing" it. Every fix gives it another decade before its broke again - and the taxpayer foots the bill. Another Washington practice that has to stop. You can't fix it.

Its an unpopular thing to say - but its got to go. It was a bad idea to start with - why is it the government's job to take care of you when your past a certain age? Why isn't YOUR job to plan for those later years? Why isn't it my job to plan for mine? Now - I'm not talking privatizing it or anything - I mean it needs to be GONE. There are ways to do it by phase that are fair and reasonable, with a heavy hit up front that can be mitigated over time. Its time we take some tough problems head on and stop leaving them for our kids. We can keep the promise to our elders as long as we ourselves are willing to stop the cycle of dependance on the government .

So many other programs need to be outside the scope of the federal government. Why is the federal government taking money from the states in taxes, only to redistribute it via the mess that is everything from road money to food stamps? It makes no sense - and its about time we got out house in order.

CaptainHaplo

01-25-09, 06:01 PM

Aramike - since my experience isnt good enough for you - I still hope you vote. If you were looking for a career politician - then I was never - and won't ever, be someone you would vote for. I can run for office and not be a politician - just a real person with some knowledge, skill and experience in situations that is willing to put himself out there to serve this great country and her people.

However - I feel that I can garner enough support from the people of this great country via my ideas by following the reforms I listed - holding myself by deeds to the standard I would like to see implimented. Its one thing to have an idea - its another to act on it. Doing so will allow the people to decide if they want to continue to fund the political machine as it stands - or show by their support they choose differently. Hopefully that answers your financial question.

As for congress - I recall when Congress kept sending legislation to Reagan with all kinds of other crap in it - funding for things that he would never otherwise agree to. Finally he had enough - and discussed the issue with the American people. Well , Congress got the message - they were not going to be able to backdoor stuff through him - and I will be the same way. They don't work for the PoTUS, they work for the American People - just as the PoTUS does. And if you have a real issue with your co-worker - you should take it to your boss. Usually works.

With that I am off here for a few hours. I hope there is more discussion both back and forth, and questions or input for me when I get a chance to get back later this eve.

Aramike

01-25-09, 06:13 PM

My point has been all along that I don't see this is a serious discussion of someone becoming president. Your ideas aren't neccessarily bad, but I don't think you have a grasp on what it takes to even run a campaign, not to mention simply getting one started.

If you REALLY wanted to help your country, you'd start somewhere more feesible - like local office. There you'd gather the experience neccessary for the next steps.

You say that it'd be good enough for you just to start the discussion. I contend that the discussion has been started, and has been waging for quite sometime. Just read this forum.

Again, if you want to discuss your ideas, I'm all for it. However, in the context of a serious run for president, well ...

breadcatcher101

01-25-09, 08:08 PM

You don't need to cloud yourself with valid issues, it's more of a horse and pony show today.

Get yourself a good slogan, learn the art of talking without saying anything, and above all promise everything to everybody.

Oh, and no bad hair days!

UnderseaLcpl

01-25-09, 08:22 PM

My point has been all along that I don't see this is a serious discussion of someone becoming president.

But the discussion can't hurt, right?

Back on topic, I like some of CH's platforms, especially on the role of the Constitution. However......

The most pressing issues right now? Boy - talk about a loaded question. But still - the domestic economy is the very top of the list. That has a lot of sub subjects like tax structure, debt and the world economy, immigration, etc. etc.

Ok, you haven't mentioned too much about what you would like to do with the economy. What changes would you like to make and how would you utilize presidential powers to effect those changes?

However - you do bring up an interesting point - and one I will take the opportunity to address. I have posted about it before - money in politics. I think we need a true reform there. So here goes - I would push for the following campaign finance reforms.

I like some of the suggestions you made, but I think that it's too easy to get around them. (fiat powers on passage, for expediency's sake)
For one thing, they won't really eliminate large-scale campaign funding. Lots of powerful interest groups can raise tremendous amounts of money simply by encouraging their members to raise money or donate on their own. And item #7 on your list would have to include some pretty unenforceable laws to prevent them from doing that.
In some ways, they might actually make campaign contributions more unfair by placing too much power in the hands of citizens' special interest groups. It would undoubtedly make the system more "democratic" in a sense, but that's part and parcel with "tyranny of the masses", something our founders deliberately tried to avoid.

You have to cut off the supplies - let the "terror fruit" wither on the vine. Without the state sponsorship that they rely on, the terrorists have their ability to commit their acts crippled.

That's a bold political step you're taking, and you'd be amazed at how insurgent organizations can thrive in the absence of state support.
I have no doubt that a lot of people would like that answer, but then you open up a whole new hornet's nest as well. Some nations may have only certain factions within them that support terror activities. How would you deal with that problem? Especially if their government is not inclined to allow direct intervention?
Are you advocating an unresticted war on terror and the all the nations involved, to whatever extent?

edit- Constitutionally the role of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and settle issues between the states. Boy its gone a bit beyond that hasn't it? It needs to get back to that role - though realistically it may never be solely that again.

It does what you mentioned, and other important things, but I don't think that it is too late to go back. Unlikely, in today's (and in many ways, any day's political climate) but it can be done, and there is some evidence of a reactionary trend towards unconstitutional policy that may manifest itself in a decade or so, assuming that the current administration doesn't perform too well.

Kapt Z

01-25-09, 08:29 PM

Have you held any public, elected office?

If not, I'd say start with mayor of your town and go from there.

August

01-25-09, 09:40 PM

Have you held any public, elected office?

If not, I'd say start with mayor of your town and go from there.

But then this thread would just be a discussion about elementary school funding or whether the monument in the town square has too much pidgeon crap on it. That wouldn't be much fun would it?

CaptainHaplo

01-25-09, 11:18 PM

UnderSea,

As far as campaign finance - the mechanisms and logistics are in place for checking and verification is in place right now. There is a court battle in CA regarding the prop about gay marriage - and how supporters of that prop wish to keep the donor list itself private. The Federal Election Commission checks the accounting of candidacies currently, so it would not be all that difficult to use those checks to keep tabs on, and audit suspect activity - of a campaign.

As for groups being powerful fund raising entities - sure they are - but if they cannot give the funds they have to a candidate or use them on behalf of a candidate - it doesn't do them any good. The second benefit of this system is that it keeps groups from using the money of individuals in the group from supporting a candidate they would not do so individually. For example - Unions tend to support one particular party over another - removing their ability to donate means they are not using a union member's funds to support something that the member may disagree with. Its all about letting the PEOPLE support those who speak to their ideals and values on an individual basis.

Now I will deal with the economic question in a moment, but since we have already been dealing with the war on terror - lets stay there first. Sure taking a hard stand is a "bold political move" - but who cares? The way I see it, we are up against people who are willing to blow themselves up - thats a pretty hard stand, and we have to be willing to take one for ourselves.

Now I am not suggesting unrestricted warfare. However, let's take Iran for example. The fact is that the Mullahs are spewing not just hate, but genocide against any civilization that does not follow their "path of righteousness". Granted - Israel and the West get more hate than others, but they spew it at any who do not follow their dogma. Then the government they run supports it, while trying to build a nuke on top of it. That's not something that is in the best interest of this country to stand idly by and watch. So what do we do about it short of invade or turn the country into a parking lot? Simple really. First you publicize and call them on the hate they spew. Play the Iranian president's speech on a the big screen where he calls Israel names and promises to wipe them off the map. Broadcasts the hate to the rest of the world - instead of sitting by and turning a blind eye to it. Show the world the hatred that is being bred and encouraged by these rogue regimes, while supporting the opposition to them. Recall the Iraqi's with the dyed finger/thumb when they had elections? People don't want to hate if they have hope. But they can't have hope when they are either repressed or in terror. So first off - use the power of the people, both here and abroad - to cause outrage and outcry against this hatemongering. This unites the world against such hate. With that unity, you can use everything from diplomatic and economic sanctions to export control to keep the SUPPORT for such hate and terror from ever getting outside the borders of these state sponsors. Thats the first few steps.

Now - does this mean I would rule out force if it was required? No. But force should only be used when every reasonable means has been tried. However, I am a firm believer in the "payback" rule. The fact is that terrorists, specifically islamic whackjobs, really don't care much about their own lives. So as a country we need to make it clear to those SPONSORS of terrorism that they had best reign in their thugs and suicide bombers. Simply put, I would put forth the following proposal. If we are hit again by islamic terrorists - and since they don't care about their own lives, we will hit something that does have true meaning to them. Call it a cold war mentality - but the next US target that gets hit by islamic terrorists, the "holy city" of Mecca becomes a big hole in the ground.

I can hear the jaws dropping - how politically incorrect! How unstable and warmongering. No - but the fact is that we came through the cold war on the basis of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. We are in a war - and while I would regret the loss of innocent life to those who would be lost, the facts are simple.

#1 We cannot catch every terrorist before they strike.
#2 The Sponsors of Terrorism can limit and exert control on the terrorists.
#3 The peaceful followers of Islam would then have ample reason to finally stand up and be counted to act to protect the world from those that would pervert their religion instead of just giving lip service to denouncing them

Its not a pleasant, but in a true war, to win you must have a them or us mentality, and as President, I will be the first to set the tone for the country by choosing US over them.

Your right, terror cells can do some things without support - but if we stop the flow of money and explosives, along with making them unable to train more of extremists, then we still make great strides. Its alot easier to blow something up if getting explosives isn't hard to do.

I figure I just lost alot of possible votes there - but I answered as honestly as I can. Better the truth be known.

Now - a note on the office of President. The President doesn't make law. But as President what I would do is use the "bully pulpit" if you will, to truly educate the American people about the issues we face as a country and help push through policies and legislation that tackles those issues so that we insure the best future for our great country.

Now - lets talk about the economy.

The first thing that needs to be realized is what the real problem is. Its really simple - we are spending way more than we are bringing in. If we are unwilling to tighten our belts and "do without" some things, the problem won't get fixed long term. Now the economic question ties into so many things, I could write for 2 days and not cover it all, but I will touch on many things here and we can go further as people desire.

First lets talk trade. Free trade is like communism. Its a great idea - on paper. But it never works. We signed onto NAFTA for example - and guess what. Mexico and other signatories - still charge us tarrifs on goods that go into their country - while we do NOT charge equitable tarrifs on goods coming from there. When Ross Perot said listen for the sucking sound of all the jobs going away - he was right. We have to stop this free trade lunacy and instead move to FAIR trade - meaning you tax our stuff by x amount, then we will do the same. It keeps a business from moving just so its products are not taxed for import. This alone would cause a substantial shift in the trade equation.

Second - taxes. Now if I lost voters on my terrorism views, who knows whats going to happen now. How many here are business owners? Ask a business owner how much taxes he pays just to employ someone. The government gets tax money every way it can - and thats just because it has an insatiable appetite for it. Your employer is taxed because you work for him, your taxed because you work, the stuff you produce is taxed multiple times more than likely. For example - lets say you work in a furniture factory. Your wages are taxed, your employer is taxed via payroll tax. The wood he buys was taxed when the lumberjack sold it to the sawmill, then it was taxed when the sawmill sold it to the factory you work at, and then it will be taxed twice more, when your factory sells it to a distributor, and then when the distributor or showroom sells it to the consumer. How much does the government need???? Sheesh. If we simply got rid of all the bullcrap and junk in the tax code, it would leave more money in everyone's pocket.

I am a proponent of a consumption tax. Call it a "fair tax" or whatever you want, but the basics are food and other necessities are non-taxable, everything else that is purchased is taxed at the point of sale to the consumer. Get rid of federal payroll taxes, get rid of the federal income tax, etc. Things like state taxes are, again, up to the states. But get the government out of everyone's pocket!
Now - how to get that implimented? Simply - propose a simple change in the way government COLLECTS the existing taxes now. Stop automatic tax withholdings. Let every person have to write that tax payment out to the government - and watch how fast the American people realize how much DC has been ripping them off! You want to see "change" - help the people SEE how much the government has had its hand in their pocket - and you will see a real rapid one!

With these two changes alone, we could greatly affect the way government works. However, the fact is there are MANY things the government spends the Taxpayer's money on that it has no right to be doing. I touched on entitlements, and that is one big area that needs to be addressed. But its more than that. Its time the government had to do what we all do as individuals - and that is keep its checkbook balanced. Look, I feel for the Aids victims in Africa, really I do, but the President should be a better lookout for the American people than to say "We feel so sorry for you we are going to give you XXX Millions of dollars this year.". WHAT???? Bullcrap. Lets put that money to work HERE! I am a firm believer that "Charity begins at home". When we have homeless vets and mentally ill people on the streets because they have nowhere else to go and no help to be had, why are we throwing money at other countries for their problems? Its asinine.

Now, I am going to really make myself unpopular with this one - but the whole "Bailout" is a huge mistake. First off - $350 BILLION dollars has already been dispersed to "shore up" the financial sector. Guess what - the banks can't account for where most of it has gone. I don't know about you, but that makes me really wonder why the bloody hell we would give em any more tax money!!!! The fact is that astronomical amount has not done diddly squat to help the economy. Here is a better idea. Stop taxing the American People to death so they can pay their bills. If a company or bank made bad investments or bad products or whatever, let it FAIL! If the government would instead take all that tax money it collects and left it with you, me and every other Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane, alot more people would be buying goods, paying their mortgages, and keeping the economy humming - without doing it all on CREDIT. Instead of giving all this money to banks and car companies and airlines and whatever else business wants to get in on the deal, lets give that money BACK to the people of this country instead. And I don't mean everybody, I mean the people that actually PAID taxes, vs those that don't pay any but get a "tax refund" anyway. If you did that based of the number of taxpayers in 2005 (sorry I don't have the numbers for 2008) it would amount to $7008.xx to each taxpayer. Thats not even counting "Phase 2" of the bailout which is coming quick.

Government has simply proven that it cannot manage the money that it collects.
As for the concern that failing to bail out the banks and such would be catastrophic - wrong. Let them fail. Let the housing market "bubble" burst more. Let things return to their real value vs the inflated values now associated with them. Do you really think that a bank that holds the deed to a house that got forclosed on really has nothing? No - they have a house and the land it sits on. That has real value. However its not your or my fault that some bank overvalued the home, or made a bad loan on it. They are in a business they ran it badly - and now they want us to bail them out? The answer is no.

And for all the doom and gloomers out there - yes it would cause a depression. Guess what, if you understand anything about economics you know we are going to have one anyway. The longer we postpone it the worst its going to get. However, if we bite the bullet now - we can control the depths of it and enjoy the bounceback quickly - vs end up in a spiraling death dive with no way out. If we take our lumps now, we could see overall growth in 6-8 quarters, with the bottom of the depression being less than 1 quarter in length.

Yes - I said it - we have an ugly and uncomfortable road ahead. But with the proper understanding of where we are and how to get out of it - we can make the drive short.

That means we need to be positioning ourselves NOW for the recovery. That means cutting unnecesary spending, getting the government OUT of trying to run everone's life, and focusing on insuring that our long term needs are acquirable. This mainly applies to energy - and the fact is that energy is key to the recovery, both in regards to the short term impact if job creation, as well as the long term sustainability of our nation. I have no problem with a "green" energy policy as it is in our best interest, but it has to be pursued with reason, and not based of fearmongering thru environmental theories that are still not yet proven. I will address an energy policy in an future post.

Other keys to the economy - and you will have to forgive me for merely touching these, but I have children that I have to get to school tomorrow. They are immigration and border control, health care and education, military spending and military usage, the dollar and its value manipulation by other countries, and a few others. Perhaps I can delve deeper into those soon as well.

SteamWake

01-26-09, 12:11 AM

Grabbing popcorn and pondering the effort that went into that wall of text. :|\\

GoldenRivet

01-26-09, 01:10 AM

Captain Haplo

Im sorry to tell you this, but even though you seem to thus far have my vote... im afraid you will never be elected. :nope:

the reason?

simple.

you make way too much sense :yep:

A Very Super Market

01-26-09, 01:14 AM

My god, if only this were actually published. Y'know, instead of shared to a bunch of guys no president would consider an important demographic.

baggygreen

01-26-09, 02:10 AM

Until a couple of months ago, I woulda said you yanks are simply too apathetic to care about any of it.

now, I feel that if you were to try and run against big bad barry people would denounce you as some sort of criminal, and you'd be laughed out - no matter how much sense your policies and ideas make.

You'd have to be very careful - people were, for want of a better phrase, sucked in by barry's ideas for "change". Big Bad Bazza has already sailed on that boat! It would be very tough to complete on a platform that is essentially 2008 redux.

One thing I think you mightn't be accounting for, is those on thir entitlements. How many millions turned out to vote for bazza because he was promising tax cuts here and handouts there? And you want to take that away from them again? you lowlife!! They'll turnout in droves to try and keep their not-so-hard-earned cash.

I am enjoying reading the thread though, it is somewhat fascinating :)

Aramike

01-26-09, 02:13 AM

Okay, as far as policy goes, here are a couple points:Simple really. First you publicize and call them on the hate they spew. Play the Iranian president's speech on a the big screen where he calls Israel names and promises to wipe them off the map. Broadcasts the hate to the rest of the world - instead of sitting by and turning a blind eye to it. Show the world the hatred that is being bred and encouraged by these rogue regimes, while supporting the opposition to them. Recall the Iraqi's with the dyed finger/thumb when they had elections? People don't want to hate if they have hope. But they can't have hope when they are either repressed or in terror. So first off - use the power of the people, both here and abroad - to cause outrage and outcry against this hatemongering. This unites the world against such hate. With that unity, you can use everything from diplomatic and economic sanctions to export control to keep the SUPPORT for such hate and terror from ever getting outside the borders of these state sponsors. Thats the first few steps.I've noticed a pattern with the way you think. You seem to have this idea that if people just KNOW certain things, that will bring them around to sharing your viewpoint on them. I believe that in the era of the 24-hour newscycle and the Internet, it is hopelessly naive to think that simply informing people will make them agree with you.

Reagan was the "Great Communicator" not only due to the fact that he spoke directly to the people, but also because what he said rang true and was smart policy.
Call it a cold war mentality - but the next US target that gets hit by islamic terrorists, the "holy city" of Mecca becomes a big hole in the ground.

I can hear the jaws dropping - how politically incorrect! How unstable and warmongering. No - but the fact is that we came through the cold war on the basis of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. We are in a war - and while I would regret the loss of innocent life to those who would be lost, the facts are simple. This position idea is one of the more egregiously absurd ones I've come across. You can't destroy an entire city in response to actions made by extremists who do not control that city. Not to mention a city that's a religious icon to millions of Muslims WORLDWIDE who have nothing to do with the perpetuation of terrorist acts...

Let's say you actually did have to destroy the city? What then? You think that would cause terrorist acts to cease? Yeah, right. More likely, there would be a more open intensity of terrorism.

So, then what? Destroy another city? How about out-and-out genocide? I mean, there can't be Islamic terrorists if there aren't any Islamic people left, right?

Or, are you suggesting that you won't have to actually follow through on the threat because the Muslim world would just listen to your reasoning? What happens if you're called on your bluff when some terror cell bombs something because they either don't believe you or would see your response of destroying Mecca their means to inciting an all-out jihad?

I'm not sure you've thought this position all the way through.

Also, did you consider the world fallout from such an act? Personally, I don't care if the US is liked or hated, but I do understand the idea that we must do business with the rest of the world. All it would take is the PERCEPTION that the world will economically respond to such an action to practically bury US international trade.

And what do you think would be left holding, say, Russia back from selling their nuclear weaponry to Islamic nations for use against the US, as we'd have no favor from the world at that point. While the international community may not want a direct war with the US, they probably wouldn't object to someone helping one along.

Next, to even threaten such an action would be to legitimize the extreme, terrorist elements within Islam. In fact, it would probably unite Islamic nations into more direct conflict with the US. Who could blame them? YOU would be threatening THEIR interests DIRECTLY, and be doing so in response to something that they won't be able to completely control.

There are so many negative ramifications to such an action, I could write a fourty-page position piece on it (it's what I do for a living). There are far more tough, pragmatic approaches to the problem of terrorism than to inflame the entire world with the threat of the wholesale destruction of a foreign city.

I don't call that position politically incorrect. I call it politically irresponsible.Now - a note on the office of President. The President doesn't make law. But as President what I would do is use the "bully pulpit" if you will, to truly educate the American people about the issues we face as a country and help push through policies and legislation that tackles those issues so that we insure the best future for our great country. Again, you have this idea that all you'd have to do is "educate" Americans on your positions and they will agree with them. Yet you've already tried that in a limited scope (here) and this American does not only disagree, but believes that at least on one issue of foreign policy you're irresponsibly wrong.

I mean, you even said that you may have lost a lot of voters with your ideas. Isn't in contradictory to believe that your positions would cost you votes, but then, if elected, those people would come around if you just told them what was going on?

UnderseaLcpl

01-26-09, 09:45 AM

Thanks for taking the time for to respond to my last questions so thoroughly, CH.

So far, so good. I find some of your policies a little less lassiez-faire than I'd like, but also better than most curent policy, with the notable exception of your stance on the War on Terror, which would indubitably be ruthlessly exploited by an opponent for reasons Aramike has pointed out, among others.

But now some questions concerning traditional "hot-button" issues. I'm sure you're aware how radically they can divide opinion, so what would you tell voters about
your stance on abortion/gay rights/gun control/illegal immigration?

Another issue in that realm is environmental policy. What would your preferred policy be?

CaptainHaplo

01-26-09, 08:27 PM

Yes I am a little harsh on terror - but if your going to call it a war, you better make up your mind - them or us. Besides - sure it might piss of alot of muslims - but remember - they have more than one holy city - you don't have to START with Mecca (that was an illustration - perhaps not the best) - and once you follow through they will get the message. History shows the only thing middle easterners have respect for is strength above their own with the will to use it. Hard yes - but if it saves the lives of US citizens - I could sleep at night.

Now - on to some real button pushers.

Now let me preface this with a rather unheard of statement. I have very strong personal views on some of these, based on my own moral values. However, my PERSONAL views of social issues should not and would not ever be the basis for governmental policy.

Abortion and Gay Rights aren't issues. Well ok - they are issues - but not ones the federal government has any right being involved in. Those should be treated as the Constitution defined - as powers outside the scope of the authority expressely given to the federal government - meaning they are STATE issues. If New Jersey wants to let gays marry - thats within the scope of their rights. If California says no to gay marriage - then the answer there is no. Each state SHOULD have the role of defining its own stand on those issues. Personally - I see abortion as killing a child, and gay marriage as a horrible thing. But as President my DUTY would be to uphold the Constitution - and that means respecting the fact that its not the job of ANY of the three branches of the federal government to dictate to the states the "correct" answer on these issues.

As for gun rights, the Bill of Rights is clear. The citizenry of the US has the right to keep and bear arms. I would do all I could to preserve and strenghten that right within reason. I am a firm believer that gun control = one shot, one kill. However, I do believe that any REASONABLE citizen should be willing to undergo a background check so that we can do the best job possible on keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and convicted violent felons. One thing almost every mature gun owner was taught as a child was to have great care and respect for a firearm. To fail to protect our people from those who cannot or would not treat such a responsibility with the common sense it requires - would be criminal.

Illegal Immigration - oh one of the issues that really gets people stirred up. This idea we need to legislate this issue away is bull - we have laws on the books right now that would solve the problem - if we enforced them. A few might need minor modification. The first order of business is to address the economic side of this problem. Now I know some are going to scream "secure the border" - and that is part of it - but bear with me. First off - stop giving illegals welfare, food stamps, health care and free education for their kids, as well as a job where they get cash under the table. Hold the employers accountable and stop the handouts. You do that, and suddenly the economic reason these people are here is gone. Not to mention it has the significant effect of opening up jobs for American workers at a time when unemployment is nearing 10%. Not only would this stop the influx of illegals who continue to enter this country, it would actually be a motivator for them to leave as there would be no reason to stay. Especially considering part two is enforce current immigration law. You get caught, you sit in a jail cell until your deported. I say give people a 3 month moratorium on deportation enforcement once you remove the economic incentive - and let them return to their country of origin on their own. At that point we secure the borders - and I mean FULLY secure them. Anyone caught inside after that time period - you get deported. As often happens - they currently return. Now here is where the law needs some adjustment. I say if you return and get caught, you get to spend 2 years here as punishment - working in the prison system on things like our infrastructure. Road building, laying train tracks, digging ditches, all kinds of fun things that make you REGRET that you flaunted our laws without being cruel about it. That way - your at least paying for your food, drink and housing while your here, and there are lots of roads across the nation that could use some work. Not to mention - we would be rehabilitating them by teaching them a skill they could use when they finish their time and are deported again. Get caught again - guess you get to enjoy the same for 5 years. You get the picture. Again - I am not being "nice" - this country has to look after its own for once. Now of course people will say "What about the children" or some such. Well, why would a illegal bring his family here knowing he doesnt get a free ride anymore? He won't. The only ones that will be attempting to enter once the economic reasons are gone - are those that mean us harm - either via normal criminal acts, or acts grander in scale. Same for those that would stay when they can no longer have a job or feed their families. And to be honest, we don't want that type (those with a criminal intent) of people here.

On this issue - before someone hollers about "jobs Americans wont do" - last year a manufacturer very close to where I sit was raided - and more than 50 illegals were rounded up by ICE. Do you know that the radio reported the raid and there were American citizens lined up outside the office to apply for the open jobs BEFORE the ICE guys had even left the premises! Will an American do every job out there for what an employer wants to pay? I don't know - I doubt it. But we won't know till those Americans get a shot at it - and if they don't want it - then there is a PROCESS that the employer can use to get seasonal or migrant workers from outside this country as needed. But I think Americans deserve the choice, especially in today's economy.

Please note - these policies wouldn't require us deport the estimated 11-12 Million illegals here. On the contrary - it allows them to leave with some semblance of human dignity - and they can get in line to enter this country legally when they leave.

Aramike

01-26-09, 08:55 PM

CaptainHaplo

01-26-09, 09:48 PM

Aramike - my response was not to you - but to Undersea. I did not dodge a point as I was not responding to you. Thus there is no spin, other than what you choose to see. Thankfully, this great country of ours allows for free discussion - and in this one you and I simply disagree. I respect your opinion even if it is wrong. :rotfl:

Ultimately you have to choose a path when it comes to the war on terror. First choice - do nothing. That's not really going to be very effective now is it? Second choice is treat it as some fringe criminal behavior. The problem there is the criminals tend to already be gone by the time the dust settles as they seem to be part of what gets blown to bits. Kind of hard to hold a criminal trial when the defendants are being scraped off the walls isn't it? Ok - so its fair to say that approach isn't going to work. Then we can admit that this is not some fringe behavior, but rather a systemic problem inherent in the teachings not of religion - but of the perversive hate that is pushed under the guise of religion by certain factions in the world. The fact that these factions are sponsored by recognized governments in the middle east does not make them somehow "untouchable". On the contrary - you seem to ignore the fact that my proposed policy would take much action in exposing them for what they are - thugs and hatemongers. The fact that I would push to utilize world opinion - and the diplomatic and economic tools available to keep terror in check, seems to have escaped you.

However - allow me to be clear - no you cannot attack a religion - and that is not the intent of the policy I have outlined. What you can attack however are the things your enemy holds dear. The fact that it happens to be a religious icon to others is not a negative - but a positive in the fact that such a policy drastically encourages others who hold such things in high regard to finally step up and take action to protect what they hold dear by protecting those things, places or people from the reckless actions of the so called "fringe" within their own collective belief.

This is so similiar in ways to the question of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. Everyone has their view, and people even today debate whether the act was "right". However, I can assure you - that the governments of the middle east have no desire to see their cities and people flattened due to the actions of "extremists" - and when the state sponsors realize that trying to use these terrorists against the US comes at such a heavy price, they will - as Japan did in WW2, determine that the price is too high to justify continuing their current actions.

You can disagree with the policy - but I note you initially approached this as some attempt to "merely discuss" ideas - yet you have yet to discuss other than say "that won't work" or "your not serious". I would be a fool to think I have all the perfect answers - so throw out a better option - help shape the future with input - or continue to simply nay-say and be upset when I no longer respond.

I stand here - I would use every tool available to make terror attacks so costly to those that plan, support and encourage such acts that they become impossible for those parties to ever again contemplate such tactics. That is, historically, the only tactic that has proven to be effective in the long term - and while it could require steps that we all would find difficult and painful - ending the threat of terrorist attacks to insure the safety of our citizens should be paramount for a leader. Again - its them or us at some point in war. The buck stops here - and this President would chose us.

CaptainHaplo

01-26-09, 10:31 PM

Undersea - I missed the environmental question! Ach! Ok here goes.

The environment is important - we depend on it. No one will dispute that unless they are nuts. Now - are we in danger from global warming? Personally - I say that since top scientists disagree (though the media tells you otherwise) I think its foolish to say. However, I also think its foolish to not act responsibly when it comes to our stewardship of this planet. I don't think any person could drive through the smog of LA and say that the stuff is good for the environment. What is even more important than debating things like global warming is recognizing what we can all agree on and take reasonable steps to address.

The first thing an environmental policy for this country needs to do is realize that WE CANNOT FIX THE WORLD. We could argue about greenhouse gas, carbon emissions and how it all affects the world, or we could look at what WE do and how WE do it and ask - is there a better way? Placing restrictions on things just because they are "bad" is not the way your ever going to get this country to change its habits or actions. On the contrary - show why moving forward in an environmentally friendly way can and would benefit this country - not with some nebulous pie in the sky tree hugging spiel, but with something that every person can relate to. Again I will turn to economics. You want to convince Sally to not drive that gas guzzling Suburban? Don't tax her to death with road and gas tax, license fees and the like. Offer her a cheaper alternative that is reasonable.
Show how, for example - moving away from a petroleum economy to an electric one is cheaper as well as better for nature. Change our energy model to electric without petrol. Yes - hold onto your hats - that means lots and lots of nuclear plants. I have no objection to solar and wind as well if it ever becomes really feasible, though right now what it could do is a drop in the bucket. Clean coal - sorry - no such thing when you look at it from a big picture perspective. Sure its cleaner than current coal use - but is it clean? No.

Since I already broke the egg - lets make an omelet. Nuclear energy is safe - and it can be VERY clean if we would adapt and adopt technology available. The biggest beefs people have with nuclear is safety and waste. Well - if you look at both the designs and history of nuclear power in the US - both civilian and military - you will see it is EXTREMELY safe. Much safer overall than current sources of energy, such as coal. What about waste you ask? Simple - we need to recognize that we don't hold the rights to good ideas, and copy what has been developed in Europe with their new generation of nuclear reactors. Our current reactors produce waste that is stored underground and will be hazardous for centuries and more. Its also a danger as it can be used in the creation of weaponry - from "dirty bombs" to weapons grade material depending on the type of waste. Yet Europe has developed reactors that can use 99.9% of the energy in the reactants, while the half-life of the remaining waste is measured in a mere few YEARS and is so low grade as to present little danger as its totally unsuitable for conversion into weaponry. Why is there no discussion about solving the waste problem by working with our allies overseas and licensing the right to emulate this smart process? Because no one sees the benefit. We currently spend over 312 Million dollars on foreign oil - a DAY! Thats nearly 1.2 TRILLION dollars a year in oil imports alone.

We have the technology to send a robot to mars, have it run 6 months on batteries that get nothing but some charge from solar panels - and we can't make a decent electric car that will run longer than 2 hours at speed? Bullcrap. Just their hasn't been a push for it. But guess what - our current deficit is a bit over 10 Trillion dollars. Get us off oil - pay 1.2 Trillion to that debt and in 20 years this country would be debt free. *** This does not count the fact that the deficit in 4 years is likely going to be nearly 20 trillion due to the current proposed policy.***

Everyone can figure out that being in debt is bad. Everyone can see how being in the black would be good for each citizen. Add to it the idea that you could also get cleaner air - it becomes a win win situation.

Now I am smart enough to know that you can't just flip a switch to make a change like this. But just because it takes time doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. But it has to be done smart. Use what we can see and already know works. Add in what can be shown to be a good way to help. But things like "clean coal" and ethenol - need to be seen for the farces they are.

As for a specific energy policy - I would create a plan to cut through the red tape that is there currently and put forth benchmarks to where - within a 10 year span, the energy needs of this country could be met purely by internal resources of petroleum. This could be done by offering incentives *via the consumption tax :up: to people who move to electric vehicles, companies that move away from coal and other sources of "dirty energy", etc.

Instead of having an energy policy that "punishes" people for their actions of driving an SUV, we need an environmentally friendly energy policy that seeks to balance the needs of our nation and our people with reason.

As for other other environmental issues - if your asking about saving the spotted owl or the red cockheaded woodpecker - I think reason can be applied there. But on the other hand - I don't believe that progress for mankind should be held up because of a rare bug that only lives in like "here" and maybe a few thousand other places that no one wants to mention just because they dont want whatever is getting ready to be built there to be allowed.

August

01-26-09, 10:59 PM

Happy Times

01-26-09, 11:07 PM

Haplo, simply put, your threat to bomb Mecca would cost you the election. It doesn't matter what the rest of your campaign platform is, the nation would never elect a person who advocated such a heinous thing.

I still think it should be declared that if West is attacked by nuclear weapons,
Mecca will be a target of reprisal.
BTW, Pakistans nuclear weapons should be destroyed now, before it comes to this.

baggygreen

01-26-09, 11:11 PM

you'd want to be bloody certain who set it off though...:dead:

Aramike

01-26-09, 11:11 PM

Aramike - my response was not to you - but to Undersea. I did not dodge a point as I was not responding to you. Thus there is no spin, other than what you choose to see. Thankfully, this great country of ours allows for free discussion - and in this one you and I simply disagree. I respect your opinion even if it is wrong. I'm pretty sure my opinion isn't wrong, as it is based upon facts rather than flowery rhetoric.Ultimately you have to choose a path when it comes to the war on terror. First choice - do nothing. That's not really going to be very effective now is it? Second choice is treat it as some fringe criminal behavior. The problem there is the criminals tend to already be gone by the time the dust settles as they seem to be part of what gets blown to bits. Kind of hard to hold a criminal trial when the defendants are being scraped off the walls isn't it? Ok - so its fair to say that approach isn't going to work. I advocate neither of those approaches.Then we can admit that this is not some fringe behavior, but rather a systemic problem inherent in the teachings not of religion - but of the perversive hate that is pushed under the guise of religion by certain factions in the world. The fact that these factions are sponsored by recognized governments in the middle east does not make them somehow "untouchable". On the contrary - you seem to ignore the fact that my proposed policy would take much action in exposing them for what they are - thugs and hatemongers. So, if you were in charge of stopping the IRA in the 1980s, you'd advocate destroying Vatican City?The fact that I would push to utilize world opinion - and the diplomatic and economic tools available to keep terror in check, seems to have escaped you.That "fact" doesn't escape me as it is hardly a fact.

You keep making this incredible assumption that you'll be able to get world opinion on your side just by explaining things to them, all the while being unable to do so on the Subsim forum...What you can attack however are the things your enemy holds dear. The fact that it happens to be a religious icon to others is not a negative - but a positive in the fact that such a policy drastically encourages others who hold such things in high regard to finally step up and take action to protect what they hold dear by protecting those things, places or people from the reckless actions of the so called "fringe" within their own collective belief. So, again, you would advocate destroying the Vatican in an attempt to keep Catholic terrorists in line?You can disagree with the policy - but I note you initially approached this as some attempt to "merely discuss" ideas - yet you have yet to discuss other than say "that won't work" or "your not serious". I would be a fool to think I have all the perfect answers - so throw out a better option - help shape the future with input - or continue to simply nay-say and be upset when I no longer respond. Umm, I've asked very pointed questions which you have YET to answer. Read my initial post regarding this position.

My problem is not that your "answers" aren't perfect, but that they are dangerously irresponsible foreign policies, and I've SPECIFICALLY outlined why that would be so (although you choose to ignore those specifics).

Heck, you've even attempted to define such a tactic as Mutually Assured Destruction, such as in the Cold War era, when the principle is completely different!

What I do for a living helps shapes the future with input, by the way - posting on here just is for hobby.

If you can't handle a little heat on an anonymous message board, you'd have a hard time as a presidential candidate. :doh:

Here's another question for you: why do you think you'd be the best choice for leader of the free world (please answer with specifics regarding your qualifications and plans, and not just ideas)?

baggygreen

01-26-09, 11:15 PM

Just had a thought - anyone who "wants" to become the US president, or my PM or anything like that, is almost certainly no good for the role.

IMO, what we need across the board are people who have a brain, but who don't want the job. People who know how bad it is to sit there and watch what is going wrong, people who complain at pubs with their mates... people with brains who try to do the right thing by those they govern.

Any person who actively wants the top jobs are inherently no good for the role - they ultimately are self-interested. They do what it takes to retain power as long as possible.

Shame we can't really run this way though...;)

Aramike

01-26-09, 11:19 PM

Haplo, simply put, your threat to bomb Mecca would cost you the election. It doesn't matter what the rest of your campaign platform is, the nation would never elect a person who advocated such a heinous thing.Thanks, August. Just the threat itself is an outrage to me, and makes my skin crawl.

I HATE Islamic-extremists and terrorism. I believe we are in a war against Islamic-extremist and terrorists. I have no problems overtly fighting that war.

But I find it DISGUSTING to suggest that we wipe a city off the face of the planet just because Islamic-extremists choose to associate themselves with that city! Sure, it's a religious icon to them - as it is to millions of peaceful Muslims. To do so would make us no better than our enemies ... in fact, maybe even worse.

Haplo's idea seems, well, Stalinist to me. But just isn't the only issue. The other part is that it wouldn't work. He obviously doesn't understand that one of the objectives behind Islamic terrorists is to incite Jihad. I can think of no better way to get entire Islamic world behind this goal than to destroy their primary holy city, or even a threat to do so.

I'm sure he sees it as a threat he likely wouldn't have to carry out ... but to use that as a basis threatens all credibility the US has worldwide. I personally couldn't care less about international opinion as long as we have the moral high ground. His proposal is, well, indefensible, ineffective, and irresponsible.

Simply, it's wrong.

Happy Times

01-26-09, 11:27 PM

A Very Super Market

01-26-09, 11:37 PM

I'm sure you can find much less biased sources than the Israelis.

Happy Times

01-26-09, 11:38 PM

I'm sure you can find much less biased sources than the Israelis.

Id go with the best source.

Aramike

01-26-09, 11:43 PM

A Very Super Market

01-26-09, 11:46 PM

Best source? Why Israelis then? Israelis have hated Palestinians and vice versa for as long as there has been Israel. Why not nuke the rest of former-Yugoslavia from a single statement from a Serb? Or enacting a flat tax rate because Bill Gates wanted one?

Palestinians think similarily of Israelis, so why are the Israelis the only ones to be trusted? Your post make all Muslims seem like unbelievable monsters, when there has been horrible people throughout all cultures, and certainly through all time periods.

August

01-26-09, 11:48 PM

Happy Times

01-26-09, 11:53 PM

Happy Times

01-26-09, 11:55 PM

Aramike

01-27-09, 12:26 AM

Funny how some people still think you can negotiate with Islamists.
Go ask the Israelis, only way of controlling is by force, only way to defeat is annihilate.
This ofcourse brings many moral considerations for the western side.
While we ponder these, they continue what they have been doing for decades and centuries.Islamist and Islamic-extremists are two different things.

And I don't see anyone here suggesting negotiation other than you. We are suggesting that the wholesale destruction of a city is an inappropriate response.

There are many levels in between the two.

To a destruction of a another city? We disagree then.Dude, pay attention. ;) No one said that either. We are responding to this, from Haplo:If we are hit again by islamic terrorists - and since they don't care about their own lives, we will hit something that does have true meaning to them. Call it a cold war mentality - but the next US target that gets hit by islamic terrorists, the "holy city" of Mecca becomes a big hole in the ground.No where in there did he mention that the destruction of Mecca would be only in response to the destruction of a city.

Even so, I'd disagree with "preselecting" a city, in any case. That's silly and tactically/strategically inflexible.

Not to mention, would be a great way to invite further terrorism from normally benign sources...

Happy Times

01-27-09, 12:37 AM

Aramike

01-27-09, 12:43 AM

I still think it should be declared that if West is attacked by nuclear weapons,
Mecca will be a target of reprisal.
BTW, Pakistans nuclear weapons should be destroyed now, before it comes to this.

I tought you were responding to my post above.
If we would bomb Mecca after every carbomb the hole would be pretty big.I still disagree because, as I said, the idea of preselecting a city merely because of its religious influence is tactically, strategically, and politically inflexible and irresponsible.

Also, if you make that declaration you are unwittingly saying, "well, it's okay if you stick to conventional suicide bombers but if you go nuclear, it's on".

It's these types of things that makes the politics of the presidency too complicated for amateurs, even those with good ideas. Every single statement you make has to be looked at from 100s of perspectives.

UnderseaLcpl

01-27-09, 06:04 AM

Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions thoroughly, CH. Now I'd like to offer a little feedback, if that's ok.

You seem like you have a good head on your shoulders, and I more or less agree with most of your policies. I think pretty much everyone thus far has had a good opinion of most of them as well.
For starters, I like your outlook on the Constitution, and you'll find a lot of conservative support there. From a Libertarian standpoint, I'm a little concerned as to why you think drug policy should be one of the Federal government's roles, rather than being in the hands of the states. It's more a slippery-slope type of worry than anything else. Since the Constitution does not specifically grant power to the Fed to regulate drugs, the Fed isn't supposed to have it, imo. But I can live with that. It's a damn sight better than most recent candidates policies in my view.

I'll hand you the campaign finance reform bit. It's not my ideal solution and you didn't really answer my concerns (I was a bit too brief in outlining them) but it's not really an important issue to me anyway.

Stepping over the elephant in the room for a moment, I also like your economic stance. As a Libertarian, I tend to disagree with the "fair trade" policy somewhat, and NAFTA is a poor, poor example of "free trade". If you've ever read even a part of the NAFTA agreement, you'll see that it is actually very heavily regulated.
More or less, it's just a government-sanctioned (and sometimes funded) system of arranging trade rights and permits.
Furthermore, protectionist tariffs are not going to be attractive to any business and can't stop jobs from leaving the country unless they are extremely high. Labor is generally one of the highest expenditures on any company's budget, and import tariffs make materials (the other main expenditure) more expensive as well.
As an alternative, I would suggest eliminating corporate taxes entirely, and relaxing trade regulation and legal obligations to the minimum extent possible.
Many of the wealthiest countries in the world (per capita) are only so because of their freedom of economy, more than anything else. Even places like Singapore, with its' near-fascist political system, is wealthy all out of proportion to its' size because of free trade policy. Hong Kong is another good example, as are the Special Economic Zones of China, Switzerland, Belgium, Lichtenstein, etc.

Still, I'd be okay with the original policy as a whole, and I like the Consumer tax as a stand-in for the myriad of other taxes we have now. It's Constitutional and it might even limit the federal government's funding to a less harmful extent.

I also like your policy on gay marriage, although I do wonder why the government has anything to do with marriage in the first place. From a state standpoint, it's a religious institution at worst and a contractual civil agreement at best, and the state has no business regulating either outside the realm of the civil justice system.
You've got my vote on gun rights as well.
stop giving illegals welfare, food stamps, health care and free education for their kids
And on illegal immigration, for this alone. Which is not to say that states should have to do this, but the Fed has no business providing a budget for this crap.

I'm less than enthusiastic about your environmental and energy policies, simply because the approach is still a bit too hands-on for me.
I like the nuclear part, as I'm a longtime proponent of nuclear energy, and I generally share your view on environmental policy.
My only problem is that I'd like to see market forces determine those, or at least have the power for such decisions residing in the hands of the states. The Constitution does not provide the Federal government with these powers and it wouldn't even if it were written today. Thus, those powers are reserved to the States and the People, period.
I undestand that there is a strategic concern about oil dependency, which might allow energy policy for defense reasons under the Constitution, but given our ability to synthesize oil (albeit less efficiently), it's hardly a matter of immediate national concern.

The big issue everyone has seem to be your foreign policy regarding the War on Terror. Straight up, it would trash any chance you would ever have of being elected unless it was presented immediately following a particularly devestating terrorist attack. And I know where you're coming from, believe me. I've fought the war on terror, right on the front lines, and seen friends wounded and dead because of it. For a time, I was actually a proponent of what you are advocating now, except my stance was "if we even think that an attack was sponsored by (an Islamic nation) we will blow Mecca and Medina off the face of the goddamn planet!
So not only should they refrain from funding terrorists, they'd better make damn sure that they actively work to prevent terrorist activities!"
Ah, the heady days of youth.

Unfortunately, this policy will encourage violence on an epic scale. And the reasons are many. For one thing, this is not a Western society we are dealing with. The ramifications of that are too many to explain here, but the point is that perception radically differs.
In addition to the worldwide backlash that such a devestating strike would generate, it would only encourage more jihadist activity. Just look at how the destruction of the twin towers galvanized America. Now imagine that you lived in a theocracy and believed that they were holy objects that been desecrated as well as destroyed, to say nothing of the lives lost.

The type of warfare that you are advocating is total warfare, which against a Jihadist opponent, can only escalate until one side is destroyed. Even worse, it is very unlikely that an Islamic state will commit to a declaration of war upon the U.S., rather than simply relying on covert terrorist activities, which makes addressing the problem properly a political minefield.

Fortunately, we have a fairly easy way out. Many (if not most) American citizens, as well as the media, have made it abundantly clear that they are perfectly willing to overlook wars, genocides, and abuses of human rights in order to prevent the loss of any of our troops. So give them what they want.
We can extricate ourselves from Iraq with only a little difficulty by either declaring the Iraqi nation ready to stand on its' own a bit prematurely or by simply splitting the nation into three nations; Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni.
Naturally, the Kurds will probably be massacred in any kind of dispute, but they don't pose much of a threat in the way of terrorist reprisals in future years. Power struggles between the Shiites and Sunnis over the scraps should occupy most of their attention and may present a target for Iranian invasion. That's okay, because the majority of Muslims are Sunni, and they'll look favorably upon that outcome rather than directing any ire towaards us.
The next problem is Israel. Whatever posesses people to think that they can create nations out of thin air is utterly beyond me but I have yet to see a good example of such policy. We start by assuming a "pure mediation" stance in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This needs to be done slowly. We gradually withdraw military and financial support to Israel in the guise of "concessions" for Palestinian peace commitments. At a suitable point, (the most recent incursion of Israeli troops would have been a good one) we withdraw from our alliance with Israel in protest of their actions. Muslim nations will view this favorably and in all likelihood, a war will break out at some point between Israel and the Islamic nations.
Then we sit back and watch. Some European nations may intervene, thus drawing the focus to themselves for the next round of terrorist attacks, whatever the outcome of the war. The U.S. remains neutral.
It doesn't solve the terrorist problem, but it does make it someone else's problem.

Indubitably, there are better ways to go about it,( and I didn't go into detail about Afghanistan, either) but the goal should be a delicate withdrawl from our entagling alliances whilst maintaining trade relationships. Thomas Jefferson thought as much. War or no war, you're going to get criticism, but I've yet to see an example of U.S. non-interventionism causing more problems than going to war eventually did.

Perhaps you agree with some of the points I've made, or perhaps not, but your stance on terror is political suicide, one way or the other. I'm just trying to offer a little perspective for alternative solutions on that and the other issues.

All that being said (phew), I have one more question for you.
What is your stance on the War on Drugs? What would you do to make it more successful, if anything?

CaptainHaplo

01-27-09, 08:47 PM

UnderSea - a well written response - and feedback is always good.

Regarding political suicide - maybe - but I won't change a stance just because its politically uncomfortable.

Now - let me thank you for your service. Like so many here, myself included, service in our armed forces is something we undersand, both in its blessings and tribulations. I also have seen friends lost and while we all may disagree on many things, let us be truly thankful we have the freedom TO disagree - thanks to the sacrifices of such good men.

I have spent way too many days in sun and sand myself - so I do fully comprehend what your talking about regarding the difference in perspective. The culture we are dealing with when it comes to the middle east - and not just in Iraq/Afghanistan, but throughout the region, is drastically different than our own. It is these differences that make the problem of terror so difficult.

As for the policy you suggest, you said "It doesn't solve the terrorist problem, but it does make it someone else's problem.". Unfortunately, that isnt the case, as 9/11 showed. Do you think all of this hatred for the West is because of Israel? You have proven smarter than that. The fact is that the extremists hate our way of life - our freedom, our capitalistic market, our heathenism - literally - everything we stand for they stand against.

I asked a middle eastern man one day how it was that, though the population liked us personally, why they still looked at America and our way of life with a jaundiced eye. Here we were, helping them be safe, giving them an opportunity to taste at least a sliver of freedom - the likes of which they had never had - and were relishing - yet aside from an individual basis - there was great distrust and hostility toward our way of life. It made no sense to me. You know what he told me? He pointed to his little girl and said what basically amounted to "I don't want her to ever turn into a whore." There was ALOT more to it - but the fact is that what they knew of our way of life came from what we export most - and what we export most is seen by them on things like tv, movies, radio "news" about which celebrity is fornicating with the other, all the things that are MORALLY reprehensible to them as a society. Then he talked about how we were so high and mighty in our attitudes - thinking that just because they didn't have all the "modern" things and ideaas that we did they "must" backwards. As he talked, jealousy and dislike crept into his voice, as he was a father just like me, who wanted to give the best he could to his children, and here he was confronted with the fact that he had little chance, and yet had to see those that could do for their sons or daughters what he could not. Add in the fact that there was a feeling that we were all to "smug" for our own good - and you had a genuine undercurrent of hostility that you just can ... feel.

And yes my friend - those feelings make for some long patrols.

In some ways they do think different than us. Just as they don't understand that most of us could care less who is banging who because we live our lives day to day for our families just like they do. Sure, conditions are different, but they don't see the "everyday" American. The odest thing is - most of them think more like us than they would ever believe. They love their families, they want to have the chance to make life better, but they define better simply differently than we do. As that man told me - "We will take your freedom, but we don't want the corruption that comes from it".

The majority of middle easterners are more secular than they let on, but their moral base is not lost. Add in the limited opportunity and the pervasiveness of muslim theology in that part of the world, and one can see why terrorism has taken such a strong root.

But to think that the theocratic leadership of Islam would somehow be content to focus purely on the destruction of Israel (and your policy would lead to its destruction, rest assured), and then decide that they could sit inside the region content to not bother anyone - is dreaming. If you look at what even current muslim leaders have done - it has been call for pursuing Jihad worldwide until the world itself is united under the crescent of Allah. You can even look at the riots in northern europe, the bombings in France, the violence in South Africa and in South America , etc... to see that to simply turn a blind eye in the hope that they would somehow "turn nice" and "stay home" just isn't realistic. Heck - even Russia has struggled with Islamic terror - as the Chechen rebels have caused.

All your proposal would do is allow the Islamic extremists to consolidate their power and become stronger before they turn their concentrated power on us. Not to mention the policy would have use stand by while genocide takes place - which I would hope you and every other citizen of this country would find morally outrageous. Will you still stand by while they take Europe and the Far East as well? Are you willing to face the fact that ultimately it would be left to the US to stand alone in the future against the rest of a islamic world bent on eradicating our way of life?

I am sorry my friend - but your policy is appeasement. History has shown - whether it be muslims, a short french guy, a half-german with a bad mustache - or any other person or group, appeasement never works - it never gives enduring safety. If there is anything one must do when looking at how to deal with world events, is to look at history. For as is often said - you either learn from it - or are doomed to repeat it. Would you have this country follow the lead of Neville Chamberlain until the enemy is at the gates? Sorry - but I could not agree to such a thing.

Also - for some reason people seem to think I was talking nukes - I don't believe I ever indicated that.

I will speak to the other issues when I can - but for now I will close with the words of a few philosophers that should be contemplated when it comes to the war on terror.

Let them hate us as long as they fear us - Caligula
Pardon one offence and you encourage the commission of many - Publius Syrus
We make war so that we may live in peace - Aristotle
The cruelty of war makes for peace - Publius Syrus
A bad peace is even worse than war - Tacitus

August

01-27-09, 09:32 PM

Let them hate us as long as they fear us - Caligula
Pardon one offence and you encourage the commission of many - Publius Syrus
We make war so that we may live in peace - Aristotle
The cruelty of war makes for peace - Publius Syrus
A bad peace is even worse than war - Tacitus

Pax Romani eh? Sorry man but I think that the war, alone or with something else, has turned you into into a homegrown version of those we fight.

I would rather see my beloved country cast into the fires of revolution and secession than to see it turned into the abomination it would become under your presidency. Think about that.

Aramike

01-27-09, 11:51 PM

Regarding political suicide - maybe - but I won't change a stance just because its politically uncomfortable.This is scary. Not that you're seemingly unafraid of being politically uncomfortable but, rather that you're unwilling to change a position when confronted with facts and information that illustrates your position as untenable.

Stubborness is not a good quality in a leader.

You state that Undersea;s position which is opposite yours is "appeasement". There are, in fact, many other alternative positions that don't involve destroying cities due to the behaviors of extremists.Pax Romani eh? Sorry man but I think that the war, alone or with something else, has turned you into into a homegrown version of those we fight.

I would rather see my beloved country cast into the fires of revolution and secession than to see it turned into the abomination it would become under your presidency. Think about that.Good post, August. I agree with you 100%.

UnderseaLcpl

01-28-09, 12:48 AM

I would rather see my beloved country cast into the fires of revolution and secession than to see it turned into the abomination it would become under your presidency. Think about that.

That's a little harsh, don't you think?
Most of his policies aren't bad at all compared to what we're getting now, except for the foreign policy, and granted, it's a doozie.

CH- I guess we'll have to agree to disagree for the time being. I guess we've been speaking to some different Iraqis because the ones I knew generally liked the U.S., or at least they seemed to.
In any case, I doubt there is anything I can say to change your mind on the matter for now if it isn't already apparent that a key element of one's foreign policy cannot include the annihilation of cities that belong to a nation we are not at war with.
And as good as some of your other policies are, I couldn't vote for you just on the basis of that alone.

That being said, I can hardly criticize too much, because my idea is pretty heartless too. It's just a lot less overtly heartless.
I think you underestimate its' potential to turn the focus of Jihad elsewhere as well.
I'm a not so naive as to believe that it will make Islam "play nice" and I didn't imply that at all. In fact it will probably result in the destruction of the Kurdish and Israeli peoples if Europe doesn't intervene. Possibly some genocide of the Armenians, too.

Perhaps things will get so bad that people will demand invasion. I'd be against it, but it could happen in that instance. As long as America remains neutral, the Jihadists can hate us all they want because they are going to have bigger problems. And incidentally, U.S. alliance with Israel is petty high on their s*** list, as well as some other interventionist foreign policy we've had in the past.

The goal is not appeasement at all, but to ruin the Middle East with war. Right now, everyone is pissed at us for being there. So let's leave, and let the Jihadists piss everyone else off for a while. Once we do that, the inevitable war that has been festering for decades there will come much more quickly, and then maybe the world will decide that they want American intervention. Or maybe they'll do it themselves, which would be even better.

For the record, I'd be glad to be the Neville Chamberlain to you Winston Churchill in this case. I think Chamberlain had the right idea, as absurd as that may sound to the "common knowledge". Hitler stated quite clearly in Mein Kampf that his ambitions lay to the east and that he wanted to avoid war with France and England at all costs. His hope was for alliance with Poland(which was a dictatorship at the time) and several others in a war against the Soviet Union.
The world was plunged into war because Hitler wanted Danzig, which was a German city anyways, that wanted to be part of the Reich and Churchill said no.
What would have happened had Chamberlain been there and bowed to his wishes is mostly speculation, but it couldn't have been much worse than the bloodiest conflict in human history, the destruction of the British Empire, and leaving a dozen Eastern European states behind the Iron Curtain for half a century, including Poland, ironically. Not to mention the numerous wars spawned from the rise of the Soviet superpower.
Most likely, if Hitler had been given Danzig, what followed would have been a war between Fascist and Communist dictatorships where they bludgeoned themselves to death, leaving everyone else relatively intact, and that doesn't seem so bad to me.

That's a lot of speculation, of course, but what is not speculation is the fact that the U.S. would reap a lot of bad consequences from blowing up Mecca and Medina. That would definitely make us enemy number one, not only for Islam, but for a lot of other peoples as well.
You've got a lot of potential in your platforms but that one has got to go.

Sorry I don't have anything nicer to say about it.

Aramike

01-28-09, 02:03 AM

That's a little harsh, don't you think?
Most of his policies aren't bad at all compared to what we're getting now, except for the foreign policy, and granted, it's a doozie. I have to disagree. I don't believe it is harsh at all.

Yes, many of his policy ideas make sense (in the abstract as he hasn't posted any figures to back them up). However, such an extremist position on Muslims is not tolerable.

It's okay to have an extremely harsh position on terrorism - but his position isn't just about terrorism as it involves the Muslim world as a whole.

Again, it's as absurd as the idea of blowing up the Vatican in response to the IRA.

There's never been a president that I've agreed with 100%. But, there's also never been a president who's proposed such a dangerous and *INEFFECTIVE* foreign policy. His perspective is clearly muddled if not simply non-existant.

It's like playing chess with a person who doesn't look past his current move. Say you destroy Mecca ... then what? Do you honestly believe that would STOP Islamic terrorism? If so, why? So, what next? Genocide? Or would you then propose more moderated responses? And, if so, why not just start there?

Bottom line is this: his domestic policy ideas aren't all that bad, I agree (although they are hopelessly vague - if you intend upon really running for any office you'd better have real numbers). However, his foreign policy is more dangerous than any president in US history.

He would effectively make us terrorists.

UnderseaLcpl

01-28-09, 03:02 AM

Like I said; A bit harsh. I already said everything you just said, I just tried to be a lot nicer about it.:D

Aramike

01-28-09, 03:22 AM

Look, I understand Haplo wants to effect change by becoming the President. However, I also believe that it's a tad, well, odd to believe that one could launch a campaign within two years without a strong organization behind you. And to suggest doing so for the highest office in the land is a bit absurd. Just posting the idea here without any kind of backing other than that he thinks he has good ideas is enough to demonstrate to me that he's not pragmatic enough for the office in the first place.

Despite what Haplo clearly thinks, being POTUS isn't just about good philosophical ideas. It's one thing to say "NAFTA is bad" and then support your statement with blanket, broad claims. It's quite another to say that "NAFTA is bad because it costs us X number of jobs. Repealing it would gain us Y number of jobs."

So far, this has been essentially a discussion of a combination of talk radio talking points, lacking any real specifics. This has been mostly about recycled ideas (not necessarily bad), with the one exception being quite unacceptable. Sure, talk radio ideas aren't necessarily wrong, but a lot more goes into a plan than just the principle. And when confronted by specifics, Haplo has failed to directly address them.

The bottom line is that I believe it is repulsively egotistical to believe one can elevate oneself to the leader of the free world based solely upon ideas (which Haplo specifically indicated he believed was all that was needed). Everyone has ideas. Plans are certainly needed. Not just "I'll reform campaign finance" but HOW you'd do it. When asked, his answers seem to always be simply "I'll inform the people", which is hopelessly naive. One needs to know how to work the political system, even if one wishes to reform it.

Haplo even said that he could be president without being a politician. I'd suggest he looks up the word "politician". ;)

Experience in the political system is required to be president. If you're not pragmatic and practical enough to accept the fact that you won't even make it to the national stage without such experience, you have no business running for office anyway. If one really wants to make a difference, they'll work their way into trying for the office ... not just believe that they can arm themselves with ideas and become president.

Aramike

01-28-09, 03:31 AM

Like I said; A bit harsh. I already said everything you just said, I just tried to be a lot nicer about it.:DHeh, I just repeated everything I said 2 pages ago. I know I'm not one for being nice and sugarcoating, but that's my character flaw.

Besides, if someone is seriously believing they can skip local government, governorships, both Houses of Congress, etc. and become President, I think they've opened themselves up to it. :|\\

But again, his idea is truly that repulsive to me. I don't abide someone that would make my nation a terrorist.

UnderseaLcpl

01-28-09, 04:24 AM

Why so serious?:D

I can understand your appreciation for a discussion based upon quantified evidence and stuctured, logical points. I used to be a CX debater. And, I place great value upon pragmatism. In fact, if you'd ever care to discuss some of the issues oft-contested on the GT Forum with a little research and evidence thrown in for good measure, feel free to PM me. I always love discussions like that, and I love being proven wrong, as well.

I've read your posts in this thread and I do agree with you for the most part. But CH started the thread to answer questions and recieve feedback about his Presidential platforms. It's just an exchange of ideas. People go back and forth over controversial issues every day here and often claim to have the best solutions or the right answers. Hell, I've done it. But it's just the GT forum. It's like discussing politics with your friends over a coffee, except with more anonymity, and probably beer. But there's no reason we can't be civil.;)

edit- you ruined the congruity of my response with your post 64 now :p

August

01-28-09, 09:10 AM

Aramike

01-28-09, 01:43 PM

CaptainHaplo

01-28-09, 09:50 PM

Well give it to UnderSea - at least he had an alternative. Which BTW Undersea - one thing your policy does not seem to consider - is the fact that there are nuclear states in the middle east - Israel being one of them, so leaving her to fend for herself would do nothing more than insure that nuclear weapons were used. Not to mention you have Pakistan and India bothbeing nuclear powers, with Iran well on its way.

But I guess turning our back and a blind eye to the middle east so they can "fight amongst themselves" wouldn't cause a problem. Heck - at the least, all the nukes going off should at least stir up enough dust into the upper atmosphere to counteract whatever questionable global warming is going on.

Ok - granted I am taking a lighthearted jab at you here - but leaving nuclear states in a single region to blow each other up - especially when one has made it clear their domination plan is global and not merely regional, is way more dangerous long term to our security than what I have proposed.

Now - the one thing that I can't quite figure out here is how come no one seems to want to think about history and the definition of war. Undersea says "you do this and its jihad till one side or the other is destroyed". Well - last time I checked - war meant someone gets their ass kicked till they either give up or die. Right now they are willing to fight that fight to the death - as death is not something they seem to fear. Apparently the biggest problem with folks like Aramike is they want to fight back - but only in ill-defined, half measures.

Look - this is war. Sure it would be nice if you could identify the good people from the bad. But tell me - did Spaatz, Eaker, Doolittle, Mitchell, or Harris lose sleep when they ordered bombing raids on cities? They knew that many innocents would be killed - and not just GERMAN non-combatants. Much of the forced labor forces and their families were also killed. They also knew that many of the Germans killed were not hard line Nazi's or even combatants. *For the record - most average germans were alot like my own grandfather - when asked if he was a Nazi - with a gun at his head - he said yes.* But there wasn't a way to tell the good guys from the bad.

There isn't today in the trenches either. You can't look at a man and know by his clothes that he is a combatant. You can't see that 5 minutes before he was prepping an IED to kill you and your friends with. The difference is today we have weapons designed to take out that identified threat - but our enemy doesn't stand out. There is no big factory to blow up - no armored column to strike.

We bombed cities in WW2 to break the will of the enemy to fight. Under the views you all have expressed - such a tactic is the most dangerous to pursue. Let me explain clearly why its not. Unlike a country - your not facing a national presence. Your facing a people that can blend in. They are not afraid of death on their own terms. They are however afraid the people they hide behind will turn and point them out.

Bomb Najaf, Medina, Mecca or Karbala - and yes - muslims everywhere would unite. Ok - fine - what are they going to do? This policy is way deeper than you guys are seeing. First off - these people may be nuts - but they are no fools. They know they cannot stop us if we decided to wipe every holy place off the face of the earth. So if they want to go toe to toe - they stand to lose all they hold sacred. This does 2 things. It makes it impossible for the extremists to continue to carry out their attacks with anonymity because the "moderate" muslims are going to lose the will to fight when they stand to lose what they see as irreplacable. Would it take more than one city? Maybe. I don't know. But I can bet you it wouldn't take more than three. The "moderates" would finally stand up and rid themselves of the extremists in an effort to preserve their religious heritage.

Secondly - it would shatter the "extremists" power foundation. After all - they preach "Allah Ackbar" or "God is Great" - and promise 7 virgins to every martyr with how much credibility after the fools they want to use just saw one of their "holy cities" reduced to rubble. After all - kinda hard to believe that Allah can conjure up 7 virgins in the afterlife for ya if he can't even protect his own holy sites from the "infidels" and their explosives.

You take away the credibility of the extremists, you force the so called "moderates" to do whatever it takes to gain peace, which will be selling out the extremists and policing their own (for once) - and guess what - the world would be a darn site more secure.

My one regret here is - it seems that everyone that so far has responded doesn't want to prosecute a war on terror - they want a half war, a police action - whatever you want to term it - they want half measures - not a way to force the enemy to stop. Sure its cruel and heartless, sure its not nice and quick and easy - but if this could be solved that way - a few cruise missiles would have done it along time ago. If you cannot understand that they intend this as a war - they don't plan on stopping until OUR way of life is gone - then you don't understand the war on terror at all. UnderSea already said it - its until one side or the other is destroyed - or submits to the will of the other. They have the will to fight it like that. What this country needs is a leader who has the fortitude to fight a war the same way. Until then - we are like the confederacy - trying to defend everywhere without any hope of victory - merely trying to survive and stave off the inevitable defeat for another day. We either take the gloves off and fight, or we fight with our hands tied. One way we can win - the other - we are doomed to fall.

You take your pick.

As for me being a "homegrown terrorist" as a flip side to their coin - I guess the leaders of this country that made all those hard choices, from president to the leaders of the fighting men - all were nothing more than homegrown terrorists too. After all - they ordered actions that killed untold numbers in the pursuit of security for their country. Dropping the Bombs on Japan - the carpet bombings of both Germany and Japan, the sinking of merchants ships with innocent merchant mariners on them, nothing but despicable acts of terror by thugs in uniform or elected office in this country huh?

Previous generations were willing to stand up against evil and defeat it. It seems this one is more than willing to fall to it instead. A damned shame.

August

01-28-09, 10:34 PM

Dropping the Bombs on Japan - the carpet bombings of both Germany and Japan, the sinking of merchants ships with innocent merchant mariners on them, nothing but despicable acts of terror by thugs in uniform or elected office in this country huh?

Even the worst examples of all of that, including the atomic bombs, were launched against military targets. What you are advocating is the mass murder of innocent people just to teach a lesson to another group of people who:

A. May not give two craps about the ones you just incinerated.
B. See your action as a wonderful jihad recruiting tool and secretly hope you will carry out your threat.
C. Decide to push you until you give them that wonderful jihad recruiting tool.

The fact that you don't see this makes you totally unfit to lead our nation.

Previous generations were willing to stand up against evil and defeat it. It seems this one is more than willing to fall to it instead. A damned shame.

What you advocate is not standing up to evil, it is surrendering to it. It is becoming the evil that we fight. The American people won't stand for that.

UnderseaLcpl

01-28-09, 10:54 PM

one thing your policy does not seem to consider - is the fact that there are nuclear states in the middle east - Israel being one of them, so leaving her to fend for herself would do nothing more than insure that nuclear weapons were used. Not to mention you have Pakistan and India bothbeing nuclear powers, with Iran well on its way.

Au contraire, my policy does consider that possibility, though I didn't come right out and say it, which is what a wise realpolitik policy is all about. Cover your bases.

A full reply is forthcoming, and will be edited into this space, but I have to go to work for now.

Aramike

01-29-09, 08:50 AM

Apparently the biggest problem with folks like Aramike is they want to fight back - but only in ill-defined, half measures.Huh? What? Did I miss something? Where on Earth did you get the idea that I want to fight terrorism with "ill-defined, half measures"?

Unless anything short of making Mecca a hole in the ground is considered an "ill-defined, half measure"... :roll:

August is exactly right with his really simple 3 point reason your plan is ill-conceived. Even though the response you advocate is extreme, doesn't mean it will actually work. In fact, it would fail miserably. Plus, it's cost internationally would be immense but, even more importantly, it would cost our nation the moral high ground from which to wage a war on terror in the first place.Previous generations were willing to stand up against evil and defeat it. It seems this one is more than willing to fall to it instead. A damned shame.Please tell me your ego isn't so immense that you honestly believe that any response that is NOT your plan would be "falling to evil"...

CaptainHaplo

01-29-09, 08:11 PM

No Aramike - a person can take a strong stand against terrorism and have a totally different idea than my own. I don't have a lock on all the good ideas. I understand kind of where UnderSea is coming from - I just disagree with him on the long term repercussions - while he is looking at it from the perspective (I think - and I could be wrong) - that if we leave em totally be they will just spend their time killing each other - I think that ultimately we would end up facing a united extremist front were we to follow his plan.

As for where I think you want half measures - allow me to point out that you have spent much of your posts talking about how my policy would make us lose international standing. Yet your own post in this thread - post 45 to be exact - you state "I personally couldn't care less about international opinion as long as we have the moral high ground." as well as "To do so would make us no better than our enemies ... in fact, maybe even worse.".

Well - in war your going to do things that others would normally consider as morally reprehensible. The prosecution of a war is not done in half measures. Either your willing to get your hands dirty, or your not going to clean up the mess. To feign indignance over what the "world attitude" would be - then say you really dont care as long as "our side" maintains the "high moral ground.", shows that deep down you just want the problem to be gone in a nice and tidy way. Sorry - but our enemy isn't so easily disposed of. If this were a conventional war - it would be a different question. Its not. You can't take out the bad guys without risking some innocents.

Regarding world opinion and the "moral high ground" - since when has the world as a collective group been on morally firm footing? I didn't see world outrage over moral issues such as human rights abuse in the middle east (Still dont unless you mean the "abuse" of us being there and freeing people from a sadist). You have yet to define the "moral high ground" other than its not taking the war to the enemy and only doing the things the world apparently agrees with. If thats your weather vane, then you don't want to see this war through. You want to sit idly by, watching things like the Taliban blow up ancient Buddhist monuments with no outcry, on the hope that if you sit quietly they wont come knocking on your door next. Oh but thats right - the entire world didn't condemn it. Musta been morally high ground then.

When your were invited to provide ideas/input - your reply was - and I am paraphrasing - "Your ideas suck and what I do in life does provides real input" - see post 43. Well - if your input has been so blasted good - why the heck is this a problem today? If your input and ideas were actually ones that would be successful and were "real input" - then we wouldn't be having this discussion because the problem would have already been solved.

Instead of discussing your own views (and kudos to Undersea for his courage to discuss his) you would rather jabber world opinion, then flip to you don't really care for what the world thinks anyway. You want stand on "moral ground" when fighting a war means that normal moral codes must be weighed against each other - the moral code of "turn the other cheek" vs the moral code of "Fight to protect your loved ones". Because for some reason you continue to refuse to look at history - and if you turn the other cheek - they will use the opportunity to slice your throat.

As for it being disgusting to you to bomb a city because it has civilians in it - and claiming that there is some vast difference between WW2 carpet bombing and taking out a "holy islamic city" - well - the fact is that these cities are often filled with people making a religious pilgrimage - and just so you feel better about it - I think its safe to say that at least a few of em that would perish would be of the extremist variety. There ya go - makes it a military target. Feel better now?

Of course not - because in spite of your indignation and sputterings about "stalinist" policies, the fact is your responses to date pretty much show that unless its a guy in a turban with a gun shooting at you - you don't want him taken out. Well, terror will always find more poor saps to shoot at you - so you wont ever win the war with that. I guess the biggest difference Aramike - your "willing to OVERTLY fight" the war against terror - I am willing to WIN it.

Your right - probably a bad thing for a leader to be willing to do isnt it? If your ultra right wing - an end to the war means an end to the government-military complex being the end all be all - if your a bleeding heart liberal - beating up the terrorists might hurt their self esteem.

I guess for the rest of us - and yes I speak for more than myself - its called the silent majority - we are simply sick of this and are ready to put an end to it - with overwhelming force if necessary.

However, I would hope that the diplomatic and economic pressures of the regional and world governments would affect change in a more peaceful way. But if not.....

CaptainHaplo

01-29-09, 08:49 PM

August - let me respond this way.

A. May not give two craps about the ones you just incinerated.

I don't expect them to give two craps about the people - its not the people I am out to cause damage and destruction to. Its the symbol and strength of what gives the terrorists purpose - their faith.

B. See your action as a wonderful jihad recruiting tool and secretly hope you will carry out your threat.

Sure they will - the first time - but not when they - and the rest of the muslims that don't hold the "extremist" views they do - see what they have to lose. Not the people - the foundations of their theology.

C. Decide to push you until you give them that wonderful jihad recruiting tool.

See answer for B - shake their beliefs to the core. Can't have a Jihad if the foundation behind it is gone.

joegrundman

01-29-09, 09:07 PM

For a self-professed man-of-faith, Haplo, you really are quite the thing

baggygreen

01-29-09, 09:58 PM

Haplo - I been watching but not really commenting yet.

I agree about striking harder in the war, but not the way you wish to go about it.

Bombing (not nuking, i know) Medina, Mecca, or any other site, is going to create all sorts of repercussions with the more liberal of nations - read, the whole world. It was an "acceptable" tactic in ww2, but not really now.

Another key thing to remember is that those you fight are not interested in civilian casualties on their side, except for making use of the propaganda it brings. Buildings, people, holy sites - they're all viewed as expendable in the war against the great satan. Unfortunately, the reasoning you hope to apply (the destruction of their most holy sites) can't apply here, because they're happy to see you do it if there is the slightest chance it will work against you.

I'd venture to propose you adjust the tough policy to relax rules of engagement. Accountability is essential, you can't have the troops shooting willy nilly into completely civvy crowds, however go after the enemy and go hard A contradiction? No. take leaders and their entourages out as best as possible when they're away from apartment buildings - and accept that collaterals, civvy deaths, are unavoidable in these urban environments. HUMINT, the demise of which I feel has cost your country's intelligence services greatly, will help tracking them down. Heavy duty SF operations with overwhelming firepower (just in case anyone tried picking a fight) to capture people.

The CIA is not allowed to assassinate heads of govt. Fortunately, the enemy is not a nation with a govt, therefore perfectly legitimate targets. When you succeed, make it known. begin to make the enemy fear you, and your resolve.

It is difficult, I know. it exposes more troops to fire, which I know is not something which is popular. In a conventional conflict, your troops are the safest around. But in a non-conventional conflict they need to be out and about, not sitting in fortified bases, heavy tanks or APCs.

I think that this would have more of a chance of succeeding than dropping bombs on cities.

Other than that policy, I think the majority of your ideas make sense - implementing them may prove difficult, but I fell it would probably be for the best

CaptainHaplo

01-29-09, 11:12 PM

Joe - thank you. Though I don't know what my own faith has to do with this. If we were battling a nation I would be advocating the same foundational strategy - bring them to their knees by whatever means necessary.

Baggy - unfortunately going after the leadership has proven difficult because of that lack of human intel. Israel has tried that tactic with Hezbollah and Hamas - and nowadays all that happens is new leaders are named - but they just don't announce who they are. Meanwhile they honor the fallen as Martyrs. Now one could say that they would do the same regarding civilian casualties. Perhaps.

My purpose isnt to hurt innocents - its to destroy the myth that Allah is blessing the Jihad and extremists movements. By striking at their holiest places, by showing that their "god" is not "with them" - you demonstrate that he has removed his watch from those that have - as many "moderate" muslims state - perverted his religion.

Still - I will say Baggy - your view definitely has potential - and I would like to see it used even today. Would not hurt to try. After all - I am not sitting here typing this with any kind of sick glee at the prospect of what my policy could cause, and escalitaing pressure across various facets of this issue would be a wise choice. Thank you for the input.

Aramike

01-30-09, 01:56 AM

Okay, Haplo - I'm going to give you a point-by-point breakdown of your response and I hope any rebuttal you make will be in kind. Here goes:No Aramike - a person can take a strong stand against terrorism and have a totally different idea than my own. I don't have a lock on all the good ideas. I understand kind of where UnderSea is coming from - I just disagree with him on the long term repercussions - while he is looking at it from the perspective (I think - and I could be wrong) - that if we leave em totally be they will just spend their time killing each other - I think that ultimately we would end up facing a united extremist front were we to follow his plan. That's odd you say that because you said that I advocate half-measures although I haven't put forth any recommendations - this thread is supposed to be about YOUR ideas, not mine. I just gave detailed, specific reasons your plan would NOT work.As for where I think you want half measures - allow me to point out that you have spent much of your posts talking about how my policy would make us lose international standing. Yet your own post in this thread - post 45 to be exact - you state "I personally couldn't care less about international opinion as long as we have the moral high ground." as well as "To do so would make us no better than our enemies ... in fact, maybe even worse.".And how are those two statements mutually exclusive???

When I say I don't really care about international opinion of us, I mean exactly that. When I speak of the "moral highground", I'm referring to OUR OWN opinions of OURSELVES.

When it comes to international standing, what nations FEEL isn't all that important. What IS important is whether or not those feelings will impact their dealings with us. Judging by the last 8 years, clearly it's nothing more than populace-rhetoric. The destruction of a foreign city, BASED UPON RELIGION ALONE, would no doubt exhert political pressure upon world governments and citizens to take more direct action AGAINST us.

Yet, I could live with that - IF we were MORALLY right. Your plan is nothing more than an attempt to fight limited terrorist elements with terrorism on a national level. It is shortsighted, not well thought out, and based upon assumption after assumption.Well - in war your going to do things that others would normally consider as morally reprehensible. The prosecution of a war is not done in half measures. Either your willing to get your hands dirty, or your not going to clean up the mess. The key here isn't about what OTHERS think. It's about what WE think.

You keep taking positions as though the War on Terror is like World War II. Well, you're wrong. It isn't. There are no defined boundaries. I completely understand and accept the concept of collateral damage. But what you're proposing is NOT collatoral damage - it is intentional.

Even if you DID manage to subjugate the general Arab population, what makes you believe that would have any effect upon the EXTREMISTS, who ALREADY have shown a propensity to not follow mainstream views? You said as much as that you believe terrorists would have no quarter among the general population, as you believe that population would turn them in under your pressure. Do you honestly think terrorists are wearing t-shirts saying "I'm A Terrorist"?

The VAST majority of terrorists are spending as much - if not more - time hiding from their own governments as they are hiding from us. You start bombing religious cities as a response to an extreme minority, all of a sudden the general population and their GOVERNMENTS finds themselves in the situation as the terrorists.

Congrats, Mr. President - you just made the entire middle east a unified terrorist nation. Good work.

Hmm, now terrorists have REAL money behind them. Iran is directly supporting them. Russia is indirectly supporting them - perhaps with nuclear weapons for sale under the auspices of protection for the nations YOU started a war with. You think anyone other than us would care about that? Nope.

You just put the US in a morally indefensible position.

Thanks.To feign indignance over what the "world attitude" would be - then say you really dont care as long as "our side" maintains the "high moral ground.", shows that deep down you just want the problem to be gone in a nice and tidy way. See? This is yet another assumption along the lines that it is either your way or a half-measure.

I believe we can wage an effective War on Terror without sacrificing our moral justification for doing so.

But that isn't even the entire problem with your proposal. The fact is, what you want to happen would MAKE THINGS WORSE.

I mean, you even said that it would take "no more than 3" cities destroyed to make the Muslim world come around. What, exactly, do you base this estimate on? Wishful thinking? Just guessing? Hoping?

Populations have been inflamed much worse than that on a per-capita basis and have not surrendered. You keep mentioning World War II ... remember the USSR? Did they give in after three cities were destroyed? How many MILLIONS did they sacrifice against a war of aggression - WITHOUT a religious motivation?

And why in the HELL do you think the Muslim world would be any different, especially after you've intentionally incited them?Sorry - but our enemy isn't so easily disposed of.You said it. Our enemy is NOT so easily disposed of.

Yet, Mr. President, you are proposing an easy "solution". It's not hard for our military to level cities.If this were a conventional war - it would be a different question. Its not. You can't take out the bad guys without risking some innocents.You're not talking about "risking some innocents". You're talking about TARGETTING innocents. That's what we all see as morally repugnant.

That's terrorism, buddy.Regarding world opinion and the "moral high ground" - since when has the world as a collective group been on morally firm footing? I didn't see world outrage over moral issues such as human rights abuse in the middle east (Still dont unless you mean the "abuse" of us being there and freeing people from a sadist). You have yet to define the "moral high ground" other than its not taking the war to the enemy and only doing the things the world apparently agrees with. If thats your weather vane, then you don't want to see this war through. You want to sit idly by, watching things like the Taliban blow up ancient Buddhist monuments with no outcry, on the hope that if you sit quietly they wont come knocking on your door next. Oh but thats right - the entire world didn't condemn it. Musta been morally high ground then. I've already addressed this. It's not how the world feels about our actions. It's about how WE feel about them.

If you can hold your head up high, at the end of a day of destroying thousands of innocent lives intentionally, in order to achieve a political end, well - good for you, President Osama bin Laden.

But bad for America, and the world.When your were invited to provide ideas/input - your reply was - and I am paraphrasing - "Your ideas suck and what I do in life does provides real input" - see post 43. Why paraphrase and, as such, spin it? Why not just quote what I actually said?

Odd...Well - if your input has been so blasted good - why the heck is this a problem today?Erm, having input and making decisions are two distinctly different things.

However, what I wrote was in response to your implication that discussing these things with YOU would impact the government policy. Personally, judging by the way you've handled just this thread I question whether or not you'd be able to run a good campaign for mayor of a small town.

I don't necessarily disagree with all of your positions, mind you. But your position on this is terribly wrong. Furthermore, your entire justification of it is nothing more than philosophical ideologies and heavy assumptions.

That's certainly not presidential. I don't even think it's talk radio.Instead of discussing your own views (and kudos to Undersea for his courage to discuss his) you would rather jabber world opinion, then flip to you don't really care for what the world thinks anyway. You want stand on "moral ground" when fighting a war means that normal moral codes must be weighed against each other - the moral code of "turn the other cheek" vs the moral code of "Fight to protect your loved ones". Because for some reason you continue to refuse to look at history - and if you turn the other cheek - they will use the opportunity to slice your throat. Actually, I AM looking at history. Very specifically, actually. Not just broadly, as you like to do.

I mean, your "no more than 3" comment is historically based, how?

Next, you KEEP INSISTING that I am against fighting a WAR on terror. I'm not. Seriously, the only way you seem to be able to defend your views is by assigning ME the position you feel defaults against your own. That is specifically why I have NOT shared my position - I was seeing if you could justify YOUR position on its own merits.

You CLEARLY can't. That's why you seem to, again and again, suggest that not following your idea would be to advocate doing nothing.

In other words, you shouldn't need to know where I stand to be able to justify where you stand.As for it being disgusting to you to bomb a city because it has civilians in it - and claiming that there is some vast difference between WW2 carpet bombing and taking out a "holy islamic city" - well - the fact is that these cities are often filled with people making a religious pilgrimage - and just so you feel better about it - I think its safe to say that at least a few of em that would perish would be of the extremist variety. There ya go - makes it a military target. Feel better now? You can't be serious. A "few of em" is good enough for you to target?

In World War II (your favorite choice for an analogy, oddly), when the Allies carpet bombed Germany, there were SEVERAL reasons. One was to destroy industrial capacity. One was to break the will of the people of the NATION THEY WERE AT WAR WITH. NEITHERof those reasons are analogous with what you're proposing.

And, Mr. Historical Perspective, did the carpet bombing of England (the Battle of Britain) break the will of the people? Did the carpet bombing of Germany break their will?

Bombing alone has NEVER, EVER won a war. On your High Horse of historical perspective, you'd think you would know that, Mr. President. :doh:

Your own words say that the solution isn't easy. Why then are you proposing an easy "solution?"Of course not - because in spite of your indignation and sputterings about "stalinist" policies, the fact is your responses to date pretty much show that unless its a guy in a turban with a gun shooting at you - you don't want him taken out. Again, baseless assumption. Also completely wrong. It's odd how assumptions turn out that way, isn't it?Well, terror will always find more poor saps to shoot at you - so you wont ever win the war with that. I guess the biggest difference Aramike - your "willing to OVERTLY fight" the war against terror - I am willing to WIN it.Dude, you clearly don't get it - you CAN NOT WIN the War on Terror! It CAN be fought effectively, but it can't be won. The very nature of terrorism is such that it cannot be eradicated. A nation must be eternally vigilant against the threat (another item unlike WWII).

What, you think there's some Nation of Terrorists that will come to the table and sign an agreement to surrender?

But just to entertain the idea, what, EXACTLY, are your parameters for "victory"?

Next.Your right - probably a bad thing for a leader to be willing to do isnt it?No. Just a bad thing for an international leader to delude himself into thinking he can do.If your ultra right wing - an end to the war means an end to the government-military complex being the end all be all - if your a bleeding heart liberal - beating up the terrorists might hurt their self esteem. Again, your odd concept of an "end to the war" rears it's head.

So, you're saying that you'll find a way to end all violent extremism in the world (another way of saying terrorism)?

I find it odd enough that you believe (without basis) that it would take no more than the destruction of 3 Muslim cities to win the war.

Let's entertain this for a moment and assume that you commit genocide and end all Islamic terrorism ... did it occur to you that doing so would only pave the way for other types of terrorism?I guess for the rest of us - and yes I speak for more than myself - its called the silent majority - we are simply sick of this and are ready to put an end to it - with overwhelming force if necessary.Well, the one thing that can be said about your "majority" is that it is indeed silent ...

... even though it seems to be a result of it not existing...However, I would hope that the diplomatic and economic pressures of the regional and world governments would affect change in a more peaceful way. But if not.....If not, and if you're president, you should be able to design RESPONSIBLE, EFFECTIVE positions and plans. You, clearly, are either unwilling or unable to do so.

PS: I've noticed how you've tried to distance yourself from the idea of nuclear weapons. To that I ask, what's the difference if you use 1000 bombs to kill over 1.7 million people (the permanant population of Mecca, not including visitors), or 1 bomb?

I personally doubt your name will ever see a Presidential ballot. Thank God...

XabbaRus

01-30-09, 12:00 PM

Well I see little of substance here beyond what I have heard on talk radio.

Oh I'm not a US citizen.

Yes your domestic policies make sense and are similar to what I have heard sitting round a pub table. But are they practicle and workable.

You can sound very convincing, as can the guy on talk radio who says the same things, but it won't get people to agree with you. They'll nod their heads agree, but go home thinking, "in a perfect world yes..."

Also to me your whole tone comes over as condescending and patronising to people who agree with you and those who don't. Kind of like a salesmen who has asked a question to an audience and someone has come back with the right answer, paraphrasing what the salesman has been talking about.

Your last statements about bombing and justifying shows me you are in cloud cuckoo land.

joegrundman

01-31-09, 12:19 AM

August

01-31-09, 12:22 AM

I wouldn't say this once your on the campaign trail

No foolin'! He just keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper.

Aramike

01-31-09, 02:29 AM

I wouldn't say this once your on the campaign trail

No foolin'! He just keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper.Indeed.

There's something to be said for people who let stubborness trump reason...

XabbaRus

01-31-09, 03:30 AM

I have a couple of JCBs if you need help...:)

Aramike

01-31-09, 03:53 AM

I have a couple of JCBs if you need help...:)I had to Google JCB to figure out what the hell you were talking about...:O:

XabbaRus

01-31-09, 05:37 AM

One of the few British things still going....

CaptainHaplo

01-31-09, 11:32 AM

While some here seem to find my blunt views, bluntly stated as "dangerous" - I stated this at the beginning - this is intended to create some discussion. So far - 2 people other than myself have put forth options regarding the war on terror. While I disagreed with one, and discussed my reasoning, the other I admitted was a wise PIECE of the puzzle, and should be pursued - even today under the current administration. *Should have been in place from the beginning to be honest.*

The rest seem to want to ridicule or try and negate ideas - without proposing answers themselves. To date, it has been intimated that I am egotistical and condescending - yet how am I supposed to refine policy views without discussion. After all - were I to be POTUS, its still my job to not only help educate and lead, but also to listen. So far - other than a few individuals, it seems everyone else wants to simply be negative. I personally can easily take insinuations, after all - if I do run for POTUS I am going to take much harsher ones that anyone on this board can dish out.

However, it seems to show the attitude of the US voter today, that the only ones who speak approach everything with a negative view, and want only for someone to come up with the "perfect answer" that they like that will solve everything. Instead of taking the opportunity to become involved in constructive discussion of ideas, instead the responses go from merely *Thats a stupid answer* to *I do give input and ideas - just not uhm... here*.....

Look at how the current president got elected. He said little of substance, avoided issues, made promises that any sane person could see were not logically possible, and basically made himself out to seem like he has all those perfect answers so no one has to get off their duff and do anything, just trust him to make it all better. And that is what the majority of voters in this country did. Now - in 4 years, when the federal deficit has nearly doubled from 10 Trillion to almost 20 Trillion, those same voters whose level of involvement was putting out campaign signs will be sitting around like some here - grousing about how bad ideas are and why doesn't anyone have any good ones. When there is still no peace in the Middle East, when there is an increased threat of terrorists acts here because no firm action was taken to stop it, they still will be waiting on their "perfect answer" and "perfect candidate" to come along and make it all better.

Sure my policy regarding the war on terror is "outside the box". Where exactly has inside the box thinking gotten us? I said in my initial posts we must learn from our history. For three presidents we have tried "moderate" responses to terror. Has the threat been eliminated. We have spent a decade at least combatting this threat. From blowing up an "aspirin factory" for the attack on the Cole (boy that really hurt the terrorists didn't it?) to removing them from government in Afghanistan, the level of force has escalated, but still remained very limited. Now, 10+ years later, the sources of power behind terror - the sponsors, still are doing their own thing. The lead terrorists themselves are somehow untouchable, while they continue to take the hopeless and downtrodden, strap them with bombs and promise them everlasting glory if they just go blow themselves up and take some heathens with them.

The statement has been made that this is a war that cannot be won. Well -if you can't ever win a war, your doomed to either go down fighting it anyway, or being forced to surrender. Because in war there is always a winner and a loser. The comment that we cannot win it- means we are forced in some way to lose it. That is a position I cannot ever agree with. I love my country too much to throw up my hands and give her up like that. That attitude is the definition of defeatism.

We have tried "measured" responses. We have tried "moderate" responses. *Note I do not see the Iraq war as initially a part of the war on terror - it is however a conflict that has BECOME part of the war on terror. I don't think anyone can say they think the current President is going to be harder on the terrorists than his predecessors (though we will see). So after 14 years of fighting - can anyone say that all the strategies that have been used won the war? Doubtful.

Think about it - 14 years of war. 14 years of death and destruction, with no end in sight. How many dead will it be by then, between the combatants and innocents? How much infrastructure across the world will be destroyed. How much fear will people still be in of terror attacks?

Some here say that the strategy would unite the muslim world against us. Ok - after 10 years of fighting - all you hear of by the pundits in the media is that our presence anywhere in the middle east is making recruits flock to the terrorists. Our mere support of Israel does it even if every soldier were to leave today. No matter what we do it seems, these people will find those willing to commit these acts of terror for the promise of glory in the afterlife. Well - maybe it isn't politically correct to say it - but lets shake the foundations of that belief. Lets make those poor saps who are taught hate from the time they start 'school" see that an attack on OUR WAY OF LIFE is going to result in an attack on THEIR WAY OF LIFE.

Thats what so many people don't get - Terrorism is out to destroy our way of life. They seek to disrupt our society and force us to change the foundations of our way of life. Look at how Sharia law is being forced upon certain areas of Europe - and by those wonderful "MODERATE" muslims. If your fool enough to think this is just about our foreign policy, your blind beyond my help.

This IS a religious war. Its a war in which the followers of Islam - in all its "moderate" AND "extremist" factions, are out to change the world and how the rest of us live. Its not just the extremists that act to undermine the freedoms the rest of civilization enjoys. The moderates just don't use terror tactics. They don't strap bombs on people or set up IED's on the road. Instead they use our system of religious freedom to blair out arabic calls to prayer from the city square every few hours,violating the rights of non-muslims to be free from religion. And yes - that is right here in the US. ***** See Hamtramck, MI***** There are other examples across this country that are similiar.

Look, I believe in the constitutional right of freedom of religion. In fact - I think the framers would have been wise to also note the right of freedom FROM religion (on an individual basis) should a person choose it. However, that freedom - among many others we have here in the US - is under attack - by a religion whose followers are demonstrating, both at home (moderates) and abroad (extremists) that they are not willing to practice their religious beliefs while respecting ours. Just as they do not respect the rest of the way of life we lead.

So am I willing to shake the foundations of a world religion that has now become a manifest threat to our freedoms and way of life. Again it comes down to the question of war - them or us. Again - I choose us. So the answer is yes. I would.

I look at this with a sad heart, much like I expect leaders in wars past have done when tough decisions had to be made. Scream about the humanitarian cost of bombing a major city that is recognized by Islam as holy. Go ahead. But before you do, weigh that against the loss of life that has occured over a decade of war, with another 4 to go, and still no end in sight. Weigh it against death, destruction, terror and fear - leading ultimately to a change in our lives that will result in a theocratic despotism to all of our people, with all the killing and horror that goes along with it. If your willing to stand on "high moral ground" thinking it will save you - go ahead. I am fighting to make sure there is some high moral ground somewhere in the world in the future. Hard to stand on what doesn't exist - and without a harse, unbending will to remove the threat of Islam taking over this world - via terror and not, there will come a day when "high moral ground" only exists by the words of some islamic leader that you will have to answer to.

Regardless of whether or not I run for Potus, I can promise this - I will not stand silent while the foundations of MY country are torn down to be replaced by religious dogma - Islamic or otherwise. I swore many years ago to protect this country from "enemies both foreign and domestic" - and for any who have said that same oath, I will remind you - there was no time limit on the oath itself. I served my time in both green and brown suits - but my dedication to uphold the pillars of this great country will end when I release my last breath.

The war cannot be won? Bullcrap. But you can't win the war if your not willing to hurt the enemy. And you can't hurt the enemy unless you can truly see him for what he is. Politically incorrect? Absolutely. In case you haven't noticed - the country needs a large dose of that.

In closing - before anyone starts hollering that I am "anti-islamic" - yes - I am - but only to the point that they are "anti-American". When they figure out they can worship whatever they want, as they want - but they are not going to tell you or me or anyone else that WE have to abide by islamic law and theological beliefs, all will be well. If that makes me "intolerant" - well it makes them the same. I simply am that way only as far as it is needed to protect my nation and our way of life. Harsh huh? At the least - it is an "out of the box" stand.

Rockstar

01-31-09, 11:32 AM

My purpose isnt to hurt innocents - its to destroy the myth that Allah is blessing the Jihad and extremists movements. By striking at their holiest places, by showing that their "god" is not "with them" - you demonstrate that he has removed his watch from those that have - as many "moderate" muslims state - perverted his religion.
now this is a revealing comment. I wouldn't say this once you're on the campaign trail

I understand the point CaptainHaplo is trying to make. If it came to hitting Mecca I suspect terrible things will have already come against us already. But the threat from Islam is real. They will keep coming at you and the more you sit thinking if you don't do anything they will eventually live in peace with me you are dead wrong. You are weak in their eyes and they will hit again and again until they have conquered. As I said before Islam is a peaceful religion. BUT there can be no peace until all (meaning you) have submitted to Islam.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.073ba2ee2f1f00668848a4655420fed c.411&show_article=1

Aramike

01-31-09, 01:51 PM

I just have to quickly point out a glaring flaw, because explaining to you the specifics of why your policy is dangerous is getting a bit tedious:The statement has been made that this is a war that cannot be won. Well -if you can't ever win a war, your doomed to either go down fighting it anyway, or being forced to surrender. Because in war there is always a winner and a loser. The comment that we cannot win it- means we are forced in some way to lose it. That is a position I cannot ever agree with. I love my country too much to throw up my hands and give her up like that. That attitude is the definition of defeatism. What you CLEARLY don't understand is the concept of the War on Terror. That fact that you cannot grasp that there are no battle lines and no specific parameters for victory makes you wholly unfit to lead.

The War on Terror is going to have to be fought continously and diligently - and just because that's something we must do, doesn't mean that we will somehow lose the war as you imply.

Dude, this IS NOT WORLD WAR II. :damn:

Oh, and in wars, there are NOT always winners and losers, as you've said. Many wars throughout history have been fought to statemates.

But, again, the War on Terror is not a "war" in the traditional sense. The fact that you don't get that is disconcerting.

CaptainHaplo

01-31-09, 03:17 PM

Aramike - just accept that we see this differently.

I am fully aware that this is not a war in the conventional sense. As I pointed out - there are no armored columns to attack, no well defined "front line". To say I don't "get it" when I have pointed out the same thing - and agreed with you on that point, is to try to discredit me with untruths. I would have hoped any debate could have at least dealt with facts and views, versus attempts to discredit with falsehoods. I have to say, I see a rather leftist approach - if you can't convince your opponent to accept your point of view - you discredit him by lying about him.

I also have to laugh - because you do this - while calling my views "stalinist". Seems to be a bit of irony there.:har:

Now - I will thank you for one thing though. You clarified an important point - and that is that you see no clearly defined parameters for Victory. No wonder you say the war cannot be won - because you wouldn't recognize victory even if you had it. Now do not take that personally - it is not meant that way. But in your view, its obvious that victory is unreachable because it cannot exist. This is where we have our biggest disagreement. I CAN define what victory in the war on terror is very simply. Allow me to do so.

Victory against terror requires the following two conditions are met:

#1 Those that would use violence against innocent civilians to force any group to conform to their will under the batter of religious dogma are no longer able to find succor and support or haven by any nation or group.

#2 Those that would commit such atrocities under the guise of religious ferver are shunned instead of allowed to hide and multiply. Where their acts of hatred are held to the light, and they cannot cowardly hide from the repercussions of their own actions.

With these two conditions met, terrorism as we know it today - and by that I am speaking purely of the violent physical kind (though there other types), would pretty much cease to exist.

Now - let me be clear - I am not naive enough to think my policy would wipe terrorism off the face of the earth. You will always have some wacko out there. But the idea here is to make the world - and yes that includes those "moderate" muslims - realize that continuing to allow these elements to exist - hiding among the everyday people - comes at too high of a cost.

George Bush tried it one way - by offering some level of hope to people with the thought that they would reject extremism. That attempt has been, at best, marginally effective. He believed that people - given a taste of freedom - would not allow it to be taken. Some have held strong with a willingness to fight for their freedom. Others have given in to the fear of retribution by extremists. All in all - not an overwhelming success. Plus, speaking on what is best for the US - we should not be in the business of "nation building" or giving the citizenry of another nation jobs and hope when so many here lack the same. Ultimately, his thought was to give them something they could not abide to lose to extremism - that something being freedom.

Sun Tzu once offered a pearl of wisdom regarding war. It is not always in the striking of the enemy that one wins, but it striking that which the enemy cannot lose that brings them to surrender.

By refusing to see the enemy as Islam in its current incarnation - bent on a worldwide theocracy - you cannot fight your enemy with any hope of success. By seeing the enemy - we can see what they cannot lose - and that is the foundations of their beliefs. Can we try other measures - of course - I have advocated that - but if it ever is a push comes to shove situation - I will make a target out of that which my enemy cannot lose. By doing so I can force them to take a different path of action. One that forces them to police their own so that they do not lose what they hold closest to their heart.

Take what your enemy cannot lose, and you will have the path to victory.

And you cannot honestly think that the majority of "moderate" muslims in the world would sit quietly by while the extremists among them perform more acts of terror - when they know that those acts will cause retaliation that they - the moderates - will lose so much from. They would not. Now - the question is - where would they fall? Sure - the first time they will be against us - but when you hold hostage 3 other holy sites that they cannot defend - they will be forced to act to stop those whose acts would cause retaliation. Will they be happy about it? No of course not. So they are pissed. I can stand being disliked if we are safe. Beats the other option of being alternatively tolerated and blown up.

CaptainHaplo

01-31-09, 03:54 PM

Mikhayl - it was offered from a US perspective - and sorry - but one cannot say the people of Iraq had any type of freedom prior to the invasion and overthrow of Saddam. I didn't say he was right - I simply noted what his stated thoughts on the whole process has been.

As for his dancing with "the most backward' Islamic regime there is - your either talking Iran or Pakistan. Since he hasn't done much dancing with Iran - I assume your speaking of Pakistan. The fact is regarding them - no matter who is president they will have to deal with the fact that Pakistan has nukes and that makes dealing with them (and India as well for that matter) rather delicate. Though to call Pakistan more backward than Iran - is to show a lack of knowledge.

Though by all means - blast Bush - but as I said at the outset - don't use the failings of a government run by someone else to somehow intimate that I agreed with that policy. At no time have I stated that I do. But again - its easier for some to try and discredit with fallacy than it is to make your own points.

Finally - for those who want to blast me - how many of you have been to most of the countries in the Middle East? I have. I have been in many of them. To claim I lack an understanding when I have l spent time there, is also untrue. There is a difference between disagreeing with YOUR view and a lack of understanding. No one here - myself included - can claim to "know it all" - and to try and disparage another view as "lacking knowledge or understanding" simply because you disagree is rather immature.
Its easy to type "you don't know squat" - why not throw out specific points that demonstrate your superior knowledge or understanding? Why not offer up idease? Again - its easier to tear down than it is to offer up constructive thought of your own. Well, maybe when someone gives you all the "perfect" answer you will throw it out here - apparently thinking and speaking your own views seems to be to much "work".

And people wonder why nothing gets better... sheesh.

Aramike

01-31-09, 03:55 PM

Aramike - just accept that we see this differently.We all seem to see it differently from you.I am fully aware that this is not a war in the conventional sense. As I pointed out - there are no armored columns to attack, no well defined "front line". To say I don't "get it" when I have pointed out the same thing - and agreed with you on that point, is to try to discredit me with untruths. What were the untruths, exactly?

What I explicitely stated was that you don't get it as you keep trying to draw parallels with WWII.

How is that an untruth, exactly?I would have hoped any debate could have at least dealt with facts and views, versus attempts to discredit with falsehoods. I have to say, I see a rather leftist approach - if you can't convince your opponent to accept your point of view - you discredit him by lying about him.Getting a little desperate, there? I responded, POINT BY POINT, specifically to what you said (a favor your certainly haven't returned).

Now you're whining about "lies"? No lies, here. Did you happen to notice how unpopular your position on the War on Terror is? Why you'd think anyone would need to lie in order to debate it is beyond me.

You don't have to accept my point of view. Doesn't mean I have to shut up about it. Freedom of speech goes both ways. also have to laugh - because you do this - while calling my views "stalinist". Seems to be a bit of irony there.That isn't even remotely ironic. I suggest you look the word up.

I'm not trying to shut you up - I'm merely refutting your points. Obviously that is disturbing to you, and you'd prefer I'd shut up, but oh well.Now - I will thank you for one thing though. You clarified an important point - and that is that you see no clearly defined parameters for Victory. No wonder you say the war cannot be won - because you wouldn't recognize victory even if you had it.Garbage rhertoric.

The nature of the War on Terror is that it cannot be won.Victory against terror requires the following two conditions are met:

#1 Those that would use violence against innocent civilians to force any group to conform to their will under the batter of religious dogma are no longer able to find succor and support or haven by any nation or group.Impossible to attain. Terrorism can breed in basements as well as open encampments. It is completely impossible to prevent terrorism from merely adapting to those circumstances.#2 Those that would commit such atrocities under the guise of religious ferver are shunned instead of allowed to hide and multiply. Where their acts of hatred are held to the light, and they cannot cowardly hide from the repercussions of their own actions. You can't be serious. "...acts of hatred are held to the light..."?

I know you keep repeating this fantasy of simply informing the world and having them fall into line, but their acts of hatred are already well-illuminated, thank you.

Oh, and the very nature of "hiding" has nothing to do with being "allowed" to do so.With these two conditions met, terrorism as we know it today - and by that I am speaking purely of the violent physical kind (though there other types), would pretty much cease to exist. And what precedence do you base that conclusion upon? Me thinks its pretty pie-in-the-sky.Now - let me be clear - I am not naive enough to think my policy would wipe terrorism off the face of the earth. You will always have some wacko out there. But the idea here is to make the world - and yes that includes those "moderate" muslims - realize that continuing to allow these elements to exist - hiding among the everyday people - comes at too high of a cost. You have not researched the Muslim world at all, have you? They believe that the Masjid al-Haram, the most sacred place in the Muslim world which is located in Mecca, has been destroyed and rebuilt again and again. If someone were to be so stupid to destroy it in response to extremist terrorist elements, you'd ally the ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD in OPEN WAR against us. They call that "jihad".

Good job, Mr. President. The terrorists win. That's their whole damned goal.

I'm not going to go over the rest of your justifications because there is no need. Everyone here seems to get it (conservatives and liberals) - except you.

CaptainHaplo

01-31-09, 05:32 PM

OK Aramike - I will do you this courtesy - though it is a pain in the arse as it makes my writing more difficult. I also don't know how to do the little boxes - so I will simply quote you directly. Just remember - you asked for this.

************************************************** ************
"We all seem to see it differently from you."

Not true - at least 2 people have voted for me on the little straw poll going (I am abstaining) - so "We all" is untrue. There have been a number of people viewing and reading that havent seemed to be all offended nearly as bad by my views as you have. The mere fact they havent posted means they may agree or disagree - and neither of us would know. Rockstar at least seems to be in agreement. Goldenrivet (post #31) as well. But once again I guess demonstratable facts again don't really matter though do they? Seems you, Mikhayl and August are all in agreement and that probably is all anyone should care about right? Glad we cleared that up.

************************************************** ************

"What were the untruths, exactly? What I explicitely stated was that you don't get it as you keep trying to draw parallels with WWII. How is that an untruth, exactly?"

Boy - you can't even keep your story straight. Allow me to quote your words regarding me not getting it. This is the quote.

"What you CLEARLY don't understand is the concept of the War on Terror. That fact that you cannot grasp that there are no battle lines and no specific parameters for victory makes you wholly unfit to lead."

What you EXPLICITLY STATED here was that I don't understand there are no clear battle lines - and I had already stated that earlier. To say I didn't understand that fact - is a direct untruth - and now your backtracking trying to say you said something else. Seems like your the one "digging the hole" son. You might wanna stop while your can.

************************************************** ************

"Getting a little desperate, there? I responded, POINT BY POINT, specifically to what you said (a favor your certainly haven't returned). Now you're whining about "lies"? No lies, here. Did you happen to notice how unpopular your position on the War on Terror is? Why you'd think anyone would need to lie in order to debate it is beyond me. You don't have to accept my point of view. Doesn't mean I have to shut up about it. Freedom of speech goes both ways. "

No desperation - on the contrary - I have tried to keep this as civil as possible while discussing something that we obviously both feel strongly about. However - I have pointed out the untruth above - it is what it is. Sorry you don't like being called to account for your statement. I have stood up on mine. Regarding mine being "unpopular" - I am not doing this for a popularity contest. As for you shutting up about it - I have repeatedly encouraged you to share your own ideas. You have chosen not to do so and instead want to simply tear down the ideas you don't agree with. While that is your right - it doesn't really help move things forward does it? Freedom of speech going both ways? Absolutely - just don't think that I will stand by while you disparage and misrepresent me or my statements without calling you on the carpet for it. As for not having to accept your point of view - right you are there - as I said - we will just have to accept that we disagree.

************************************************** ************

"That isn't even remotely ironic. I suggest you look the word up. I'm not trying to shut you up - I'm merely refutting your points. Obviously that is disturbing to you, and you'd prefer I'd shut up, but oh well."

I am not trying to shut you up either. However, when you say something untrue about my stance and understanding - I am not going to let it pass. My take on it is that way to often people are silenced not with death - but by falsehood. I showed above where your statement was not true - and I took at as a direct attempt to discredit me falsely. After you called my views "stalinistic" - I do find it ironic you would try to discredit me thusly.

************************************************** ************
"Garbage rhertoric. The nature of the War on Terror is that it cannot be won."

Again - you disagree with me so my view must be "garbage". Have you noticed I have not called you names or belittled your view? While we may disagree - you put out a statement like this on its own - and call my reasoning "rhetoric"? Yea ok.

************************************************** ***********

"Impossible to attain. Terrorism can breed in basements as well as open encampments. It is completely impossible to prevent terrorism from merely adapting to those circumstances."

While I agree that it is impossible to stop every wacko - and said as much (just so you don't try to say I "don't get it" again) - it is not impossible to make sure that the VAST MAJORITY of basements and hideyholes are off limits to those that would plot and plan terror. After all - right now - there are still alot of terrorists hiding in caves in the hills of Afghanistan - because they can't see the light of day. If they did - they would be captured and held accountable. Thats why they are not hiding in everyone's basements there. Most people would rat them out. So events and situations in today's world PROVES it is not impossible. Very difficult - absolutely. But just because its hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

************************************************** ************

"You can't be serious. "...acts of hatred are held to the light..."? I know you keep repeating this fantasy of simply informing the world and having them fall into line, but their acts of hatred are already well-illuminated, thank you.Oh, and the very nature of "hiding" has nothing to do with being "allowed" to do so."

Again - in this case - we are talking about the condition BEING met - not how to get there. Kindly keep your arguments in the same time and situation as what is being discussed. The point being discussed is that once this is done - then the terrorists wont have a place to hide. I was DEFINING victory conditions at that point. Again I guess trying to confuse the issue is the best way of keeping from actually discussing the answers.

Regarding people hiding in basements - well someone has to know they are hiding in the basement - and allowing it - or in the case of #2 being met - not allowing it and instead making sure the basement dwelling wacko gets outed and taken care of. Wow - one less terror attack and a holy city still safe. Horrible ideas huh?

************************************************** ************

"And what precedence do you base that conclusion upon? "

Gee - lets see - its not precendence - its called logic. Basement dwelling wacko above has no place to go to hide and plot his dastardly deeds. He has no government or support group providing him with intel, explosives or even a friendly ear for his religious rants against all things heathen. No rockets for Hamas or Hezbollah to launch, no arms shipments from Iran or Syria - no bullets to be had. Said wacko and all his buddies have a VERY limited ability to now carry out terror attacks with no resources. I call it a better world.

************************************************** ************

"You have not researched the Muslim world at all, have you? They believe that the Masjid al-Haram, the most sacred place in the Muslim world which is located in Mecca, has been destroyed and rebuilt again and again. If someone were to be so stupid to destroy it in response to extremist terrorist elements, you'd ally the ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD in OPEN WAR against us. They call that "jihad". Good job, Mr. President. The terrorists win. That's their whole damned goal."

Yes I have. Your statement however appears to be designed to be DELIBERATELY MISLEADING - big suprise there at this point given your record on being forthright. The Masjid al-Haram HAS been destroyed and rebuilt - but your wording makes it sound as if that had been done by external forces hostile to islam. Such is not the case. There has not ever been a documented case of a foreign national armed force striking the Sacred Mosque - much less destroying it. It has been destroyed by fire and flood, as well as partially deconstructed and rebuilt and expanded many times - BY MUSLIMS. The closest there has been to an armed attack on the Sacred Mosque was its seizure by dissidents in 1979. That was not a NATION attacking or destroying it. While they were armed - it hardly is comparable. Not to mention that seizure - though short lived - shook the entire Muslim world to its foundation. Thus precedence shows that the Sacred Mosque would be a HIGHLY effective target, as would the other holy cities.

As far as your view that it would unite all of Islam against us in Jihad - where is YOUR precedent for that statement? Seems to me that they might just go "Oh sh*t, Medina is a hole in the ground - maybe we NEED to act to preserve our most holy place!" And before you bring up the crusade/jihad history lesson - remember - we are not TAKING it from them - they can have whatever is left there. We are not OCCUPYING the land (why would we want a big crater?) which the Jihads to Jerusalem were designed to do, just as the Crusades were.

************************************************** ************
"I'm not going to go over the rest of your justifications because there is no need."

Guess not - after all - you have continually shown you have little desire to debate or offer ideas, since your view is "if you dont agree with me your opinion is garbage". You have shown you are unwilling to offer options, instead talking about some nebulous "high ground" of morals all the while speaking with a forked tongue.

************************************************** ************
Yes - here is your POINT BY POINT response Aramike - and I am sure you won't like it one bit. Oh well. One thing the American people deserve is a leader who calls it like he sees it - right or wrong. I have done so here - as I have throughout this discussion. I have made a point to be civil - and ask for ideas. I applaud folks like Undersea - who though I disagree with him so far on this issue - has been willing to offer up his views to be looked at. My views could be improved I am sure - and I hope that others will be willing to bring their ideas - on all issues - to the table to help do so. BaggyGreen did so - and I agreed with him - he had some ideas that should already be put into place. While you call me egotistical, stalinistic and whatever else - I am willing to have a mature and HONEST discussion even with those that I may not see eye to eye on. Guess I am horrible for that. Should I just adopt your view and say anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant and has a view that is worth nothing more than garbage? I don't think so. I'll let you keep that path.

UnderseaLcpl

01-31-09, 06:09 PM

CH

I'd like to take some time to defend my alternative to your strategy, and point out a few other things as well.

Now, you've mentioned that you don't consider it feasible that the Middle East, and the Islamic extremists thereof, would not be content to fight amongst themselves should the U.S. pusue an isolationist policy. No doubt you are correct to some extent. However, I will point to a tremendous amount of empirical evidence that suggests that the very first thing they will do is begin fighting amongst themselves, or at least fighting Israel.

A cursory glance at the history of the Middle East reveals that it has spent most of its' time fighting either (a) itself or (b) Europe. And don't forget the Iran-Iraq war, the ashes of which still smolder. If the U.S. were to withdraw from Iraq in the manner I prescribed, what makes you think they would do anything differently?
I mentioned splitting Iraq into 3 parts, one for each major demographic. Why wouldn't the Muslims pursue a war against the Kurds if U.S. intervention was not a threat? Why would the Shiites not engage the Sunnis? Why would Iran not invade Iraq? Why would the Islamic Middle East not make war upon Israel?
History indicates that they would.

Even then, there is a significant possibility of European intervention in the case of an Islamic invasion of Israel. Britian is certainly a champion of Israel, they created the state to begin with. And there are many Eastern European nations that have a very real reason to fear an Islamic hegemony. In all probability, they would rise to defend Israel. And let us not forget about Russia, which might play a part as well. I suspect that the memory of the Afghan war remains fresh in the minds of her leaders and people. Perhaps she will choose to abstain from conflict in Afghanistan should a militant Islamic government rise again. Or perhaps she will elect to "nip the probelm in the bud" so to speak.
In any case, there is little reason to believe that the jihadists would not have a more pressing problem than the U.S. in the event that they decide to become militaristic against Israel or any other nation. I hardly think that we are going to invoke their wrath by abandoning Israel, and certainly not by withdrawing from Iraq.

Now, assuming that you believe even a fraction of what I just said, our policies would diverge here, I'd prefer to remain Isolationist. I believe that Islam will not act out against a state that does not interfere in their affairs significantly, and I believe that our remote location affords us some protection from their misguided intentions. History would agree (minus a couple of incidents, certainly on a much smaller scale than 98/11), and I think we should follow what history has taught us.

However, instead of advocating a zero-tolerance policy against terrorism that involves the destruction of two Saudi Arabian cities (which has been mentioned)
perhaps you would consider allowing the extremists to massacre the Kurds or invade Israel or whatever they end up doing. Surely we stand to lose nothing by their infighting, and we gain supreme justification for war, perhaps even in the form the measures you have advocated.

I also believe that is highly unlikely that the U.S. will be the victim of another major strike, should you choose to endorse my policy. Jihadists have failed to strike another devestating blow (or any blow, really, despite a few pathetic attempts) against the U.S. in the past 7 years, despite the fact that millions of tons of illegal drugs arrive here every year. Either they lack the means, or they lack the intelligence, but they certainly aren't going to fare any better if they are fighting with themselves, Israel, or Europe.

To be completely honest with you I, myself, have a distrust of Islam. I've met a lot of nice Muslims, who seem to be tired of their oppressive theocrats, but I've also read most of the Koran, and I didn't like what I saw. Perhaps it is inevitable that the West will again go to war with the East, as it has for millenia, but I do not think that yours is the proper method. Not only will it fail to garner popular support, but it will make the U.S. an imperialist agressor nation in the eyes of everyone, not just Islam. And in the end, that could destroy us. Take a lesson from the British Empire, or the Holy Roman Empire, or Imperial Rome, or the Persian Empire, or any empire that has ever exsisted. All were destroyed from within before being destroyed from without. Your policy is the worst of both worlds. Just look at the anti-war sentiment that exsists today, and the prevailing view of the U.S. in international politics. Not only are we seen as belligerent, we are also seen as incompetent. And you would risk exacerbating this state of affairs on the hope that destroying the most holy cities of Islam will end the war on terror? Remember that Jerusalem is a holy city in the Islamic faith as well.

You will not bring about some kind of Pax Americana by these actions, you will destroy the country. Evidently, you have never read the Koran or studied its' principles. The destruction of Mecca and Medina will do nothing but guarantee a worldwide Jihad against the U.S. These are people who are fighting in the belief that that their actions will reserve them a place in paradise. And worse, they are usually uneducated people who actually believe that.
Also, in case you have forgotten, we can't even afford our own domestic policies at this juncture, let alone a war, let alone an anti-terrorist war against every willing Islamic nation in the world. How will you pay for it? You'll destroy the currency through inflation alone. Not to mention the depletion of oil supplies, which this nation is in no shape to whether at the moment.

Why not let history repeat itself? Withdraw America as gracefully as possible. Let Islam do what it has always done. Then you can either take advantage of the situation or remain isolationist until the situation warrants intervention. That way, you would have a justification for your policy. Or, depending on how it turns out, you could remain isolationist. In my ideal scenario, the Middle East ends up under Europe's thumb once again, which, historically, is the only time it will not cause trouble.

You've already voiced concerns about "appeasement". This is not appeasement. We'd just be wating for a fovourable situation to develop. Maybe it works out, and maybe ot doesn't, but in either case we get some economic recovery from your other policies and don't waste money or incur the wrath of the rest of the world while we wait.

The U.S. has always prospered by staying out of foreign wars (or showing up late, at least). Would you refute Jefferson's advice to stay out of entangling alliances and foreign wars, whilst concentrating on trade? In our first century and-a-half, the U.S. followed this policy, and it made us a superpower. When we did not, it devestated us. Even our own Constitution was written to keep us out of wars, requiring the approval of Congress before hostilities could be declared.

So I ask you, in the event that you should ever be elected to public office, remember what lessons history has taught us, and remember the advice of our greatest founders. The U.S. is supposed to be a land of opportunity, not one of imperialist aggression. Do not make us a target for the ire of other nations, and if you have to do so, at least make sure that we dominate them economically.

August

01-31-09, 06:32 PM

Seems you, Mikhayl and August are all in agreement and that probably is all anyone should care about right? Glad we cleared that up.

Talk about totally missing the point. Ask yourself just how few people there might actually be in your "silent majority" if people such as us, with disparate backgrounds and viewpoints have the same opinion of your foreign policy flaws.

As for providing better alternatives to your proposals, that is a cop out. We're not the ones running here,it's you. We're the people you have to convince to support you if you want to be elected, and as my straw poll shows you are just not doing it.

There's about 8 days left of the poll. Change some minds and do better on the next one or declare an end to your candidacy.

CaptainHaplo

01-31-09, 11:47 PM

CaptainHaplo

02-01-09, 12:06 AM

Aramike

02-01-09, 03:28 AM

*Cracking knuckles*OK Aramike - I will do you this courtesy - though it is a pain in the arse as it makes my writing more difficult. I also don't know how to do the little boxes - so I will simply quote you directly. Just remember - you asked for this.I do remember that I asked for you to do this. You say that as though you think you're bringing down some hammer - having read your replies, I believe your evaluation to be wrong.Not true - at least 2 people have voted for me on the little straw poll going (I am abstaining) - so "We all" is untrue. There have been a number of people viewing and reading that havent seemed to be all offended nearly as bad by my views as you have. The mere fact they havent posted means they may agree or disagree - and neither of us would know. Rockstar at least seems to be in agreement. Goldenrivet (post #31) as well. But once again I guess demonstratable facts again don't really matter though do they? Seems you, Mikhayl and August are all in agreement and that probably is all anyone should care about right? Glad we cleared that up.I was making a generalization. I'm willing to bet you're the only one who couldn't figure that out, which seems to lead to the conclusion that you're grasping at straws in an absurd attempt to discredit me.

Made me chuckle, thanks.What you EXPLICITLY STATED here was that I don't understand there are no clear battle lines - and I had already stated that earlier. To say I didn't understand that fact - is a direct untruth - and now your backtracking trying to say you said something else. Seems like your the one "digging the hole" son. You might wanna stop while your can.KNOWING that there are no clear battle lines and UNDERSTANDING that there are no clear battle lines are two different things.

The majority of your rhetoric (especially your innane attempts to morally equate your "Terrorist Option" with WWII) supports the assertion that you do not understand.

Oh, and "stop while I can"? What an ARROGANT statement! What exactly does that mean?

As for you, I'd say "quit while you're ahead" but we passed that point a long time ago...

PS: I'm not your son. *sarcasm*But it's clear that you have the demeanor to be president. *sarcasm off*No desperation - on the contrary - I have tried to keep this as civil as possible while discussing something that we obviously both feel strongly about.Your (failed) attempts at picking apart my verbiage says otherwise. If you weren't desperate, you'd be able to stick to the point rather than making an attempt to make me out to be some liar.

Definitely desperation.However - I have pointed out the untruth above - it is what it is.And yet there was no untruth... heh.Sorry you don't like being called to account for your statement.This is the kind of statement that makes people perceive you as "arrogant". You didn't call me to account for anything except the ghosts you've made up to make yourself feel better. But, more importantly, how would you know my attitude in response to being "called to account" if I hadn't even responded yet?

Extremely arrogant...

Here, let me explain it to you in different terms. If I were, say, planning a war (we'll stay on theme here) and said that I knew the enemy had massive air and ground forces, but focused my planning solely upon the ground forces, one could draw the conclusion that I don't understand the air threat.

It would be a silly defense for me to say "but I said that I know the enemy has airforces".

Yet, that's the very logic you're using in an attempt to discredit me. Ultimately you only further discredit yourself.I have stood up on mine. Regarding mine being "unpopular" - I am not doing this for a popularity contest.This made me laugh. Loudly.

What, exactly, do you think an election is? One cannot expect to successfully campaign for POTUS on the "Unpopular Candidate" platform... :doh: As for you shutting up about it - I have repeatedly encouraged you to share your own ideas. You have chosen not to do so and instead want to simply tear down the ideas you don't agree with. I'm not the one saying I want to be President, or that I would be even qualified for the job.

However, I do have many ideas and a plan - trust me, it's a lot more complicated and difficult than "Destroy Mecca". But that plan doesn't mitigate the outrage that most of us (I'd better not generalize or you'll throw a fit) have over your plan, and you're the one that matters here.

As far as my plan goes, it's irrelevent to yours so why bring it up?While that is your right - it doesn't really help move things forward does it? Freedom of speech going both ways? Absolutely - just don't think that I will stand by while you disparage and misrepresent me or my statements without calling you on the carpet for it. Well, we've seen how well your calling me to the carpet has worked, haven't we? :know:

I haven't misrepresented a thing.As for not having to accept your point of view - right you are there - as I said - we will just have to accept that we disagree.I'm fine with that. Yet you're the one stating you wish to run for president, and your policy on terrorism is revolting to me. As such, you'd better get used to people not simply shrugging things off as a disagreement.I am not trying to shut you up either. However, when you say something untrue about my stance and understanding - I am not going to let it pass. *YAWN*. This is the fourth time you've made this very inaccurate statement.My take on it is that way to often people are silenced not with death - but by falsehood. I showed above where your statement was not true - and I took at as a direct attempt to discredit me falsely. No, you showed me what you perceived to be an untrue statement. And I've showed you in this very reply how my words were 100% accurate from my perspective which is drawn from your supporting statements.

But what I find peculiar here is how much you're focusing on this "untrue" statement when it is merely a minor part of my point. Could it be that the rest of the argument hit home and you would rather divert attention to something so minute? Hmm.After you called my views "stalinistic" - I do find it ironic you would try to discredit me thusly.Actually, that's kind of what you're doing. I'm not attempting to discredit you - I'm attempting to illustrate the extreme flaws in your view on terror.

You, on the other hand, have turned this into a "you lied" type of thread. No, I didn't. You just didn't think hard enough about my statement.Again - you disagree with me so my view must be "garbage".I didn't say your view was "garbage". I said that your statement that I wouldn't recognize victory was garbage. That's why I use the "Quote" feature - to make sure it's easy to keep my replies in context. Obviously context isn't important to you.

Either that, or you fell of your high horse and are deliberately attempting to use untruths to discredit me. In any case, here's a good time for the term "ironic".Have you noticed I have not called you names or belittled your view? Perhaps, but I have noticed that you have a very arrogant tone.

I'm not calling you names either, btw. So what's your point?While we may disagree - you put out a statement like this on its own - and call my reasoning "rhetoric"? Yea ok. I'm starting to worry that your grasp of the English language is somewhat lacking. Every post you've made in this thread has been composed mostly of rhetoric.

Look the word "rhetoric" up. There are plenty of online dictionaries.

Oh, and to put things back into context - what I referred to as "garbage rhetoric" was your assertion that I wouldn't recognize victory. It was and still is garbage rhetoric.

Next.While I agree that it is impossible to stop every wacko - and said as much (just so you don't try to say I "don't get it" again) - it is not impossible to make sure that the VAST MAJORITY of basements and hideyholes are off limits to those that would plot and plan terror. This is where I believe you do NOT understand terrorism. "Vast majority" doesn't matter. Did Timothy McVeigh have the "vast majority" of basements open to him?

A terrorist doesn't need the "vast majority" - he only needs one.

But in any case, should you destroy Mecca or any other city, people who sympathize will be coming out of the woodwork. You'd be making terrorism EASIER.

What you propose ultimately makes being a mainstream Muslim more difficult and being a terrorist a lot easier.After all - right now - there are still alot of terrorists hiding in caves in the hills of Afghanistan - because they can't see the light of day. If they did - they would be captured and held accountable. Thats why they are not hiding in everyone's basements there. Most people would rat them out. So events and situations in today's world PROVES it is not impossible. Very difficult - absolutely. But just because its hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try.Are you serious? That doesn't prove anything.

Terrorists in a cave does NOT prove that terrorists are NOT in basements. That's preposterous. And then to extrapolate that somehow it is somehow proof that your tactic would work is even more absurd.

As usual you're passing off your assumptions as proof.Again - in this case - we are talking about the condition BEING met - not how to get there. Kindly keep your arguments in the same time and situation as what is being discussed. The point being discussed is that once this is done - then the terrorists wont have a place to hide. I was DEFINING victory conditions at that point. Again I guess trying to confuse the issue is the best way of keeping from actually discussing the answers.Yes, you were defining "victory conditions". And I was pointing out how your "condition" was impossible (my point all along). Therefore, it was irrelevent.

I didn't confuse the issue - I was specifically addressing your "victory conditions". You, on the other hand, chose to confuse it. Hmm...Regarding people hiding in basements - well someone has to know they are hiding in the basement - and allowing it - or in the case of #2 being met - not allowing it and instead making sure the basement dwelling wacko gets outed and taken care of. Wow - one less terror attack and a holy city still safe. Horrible ideas huh?Entirely based upon the assumptions that:

Someone would know.
That someone would understand what they are seeing.
That someone would be aware of the threat posed by not reporting it.
That someone would care about that threat.
The terrorists are unable to hide their intentions.I could go on and on, but there's no point. Your entire plan is based upon assumptions.Gee - lets see - its not precendence - its called logic.Your logic is flawed as it is based upon assumptions.

That's why good leaders use logic AND precedence.Basement dwelling wacko above has no place to go to hide and plot his dastardly deeds. He has no government or support group providing him with intel, explosives or even a friendly ear for his religious rants against all things heathen. No rockets for Hamas or Hezbollah to launch, no arms shipments from Iran or Syria - no bullets to be had. Said wacko and all his buddies have a VERY limited ability to now carry out terror attacks with no resources. I call it a better world.It's a big world. REAL logic would assume that people would be able to find a place to hide.

As for your resource argument - did Timothy McVeigh have HAMAS funding him?

Did he need it?

You do NOT understand the nature of terrorism. Period.Yes I have. Your statement however appears to be designed to be DELIBERATELY MISLEADING - big suprise there at this point given your record on being forthright. The Masjid al-Haram HAS been destroyed and rebuilt - but your wording makes it sound as if that had been done by external forces hostile to islam. My wording? Excuse me?

My wording was precise and accurate. YOU chose to make it mean something else.There has not ever been a documented case of a foreign national armed force striking the Sacred Mosque - much less destroying it. It has been destroyed by fire and flood, as well as partially deconstructed and rebuilt and expanded many times - BY MUSLIMS. The closest there has been to an armed attack on the Sacred Mosque was its seizure by dissidents in 1979. That was not a NATION attacking or destroying it. While they were armed - it hardly is comparable. Not to mention that seizure - though short lived - shook the entire Muslim world to its foundation. Thus precedence shows that the Sacred Mosque would be a HIGHLY effective target, as would the other holy cities.A "shaken" Muslim world does not indicate the target would be effective at all. That's an assumption you're making, suspiciously absent a definition for "effective".As far as your view that it would unite all of Islam against us in Jihad - where is YOUR precedent for that statement? The Six Day War - for starters.Seems to me that they might just go "Oh sh*t, Medina is a hole in the ground - maybe we NEED to act to preserve our most holy place!" And before you bring up the crusade/jihad history lesson - remember - we are not TAKING it from them - they can have whatever is left there. We are not OCCUPYING the land (why would we want a big crater?) which the Jihads to Jerusalem were designed to do, just as the Crusades were. Let's just say I'd rather have president who doesn't arbitrarily throw away human lives based upon how things "seem" to him...Guess not - after all - you have continually shown you have little desire to debate or offer ideas, since your view is "if you dont agree with me your opinion is garbage". Not at all. Yet another example of your contextual struggles...You have shown you are unwilling to offer options, instead talking about some nebulous "high ground" of morals all the while speaking with a forked tongue.How Presidential. :salute:

In any case, why do you need my alternatives? They are irrelevent to the debate on YOUR plan.Yes - here is your POINT BY POINT response Aramike - and I am sure you won't like it one bit. Oh well. Won't like it? HAH!

Just wondering how long it took, after you wrote it, before you were done being supremely satisfied with yourself... :har: One thing the American people deserve is a leader who calls it like he sees it - right or wrong. I have done so here - as I have throughout this discussion. That's silly. The American people need a leader who knows HOW to see it but knows how to control his response to how he sees it. The job of the President isn't to "call it like he sees it", it's to make policy decisions on how he sees it.Should I just adopt your view and say anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant and has a view that is worth nothing more than garbage? I don't think so. I'll let you keep that path.Again, more contextual flaws.

:yawn:

Aramike

02-01-09, 03:37 AM

By my count August, seems I have 2 people at least that are in agreement. 2 plus myself seems to be 3 - same as you, Mikhayl and Aramike make 3. Sorry but I don't see your little "click" being somehow much more numerous than those that agree with me. At least - last time I checked 3 was equal to 3.

"There's about 8 days left of the poll. Change some minds and do better on the next one or declare an end to your candidacy."

You will forgive me if I don't put much stock in YOUR poll. Then again - maybe you won't - but I won't lose sleep either way. As for "declaring an end to my candidacy" - exactly who do you think you are to make such a demand? Fact is - 17% for a candidate without major backing and a D or an R beside his name is - in a political sense - a major victory. In most states - that amount is enough to guarantee him a place on the ballot. Hmm... maybe I should consider your poll after all? :har:Maybe you should check your count.

People who said or clearly implied they disagree with Haplo:

Aramike
August
Mikhayl
UnderseaLcpl
AngusJS
baggygreen
Kapt Z
joegrundman
XabbaRusIt's odd that you say you have 3 people in agreement and PICK three people from the other side to equate it to...

Oh, and 17% here sure doesn't represent your "silent majority". I'm betting the 83% is more likely to do so. And, if you know anything about how political polling works (which you should, considering), your 17% is probably equal to about .1%.

You know, if you were actually as willing to listen to other people as you claim, the outrage at your idea would have forced you to back off the plan by now. Personally, I'm starting to think it's all just grandstanding - no serious candidate for president would feel out a campaign on a bulletin board.

UnderseaLcpl

02-01-09, 04:02 AM

UnderSea - I am not going to respond directly to that yet - mainly because I think there are alot of good points in there that I really need to spend some thought on before I try to answer. I have to admit - there are some views and reasonings that - at least at first glance - seem very reasonable. Let me chew on it for a day or so and I will give you some feedback.

This is the stuff I had hoped for - things that make me - and hopefully everyone else - sit back and THINK. Thanks! :yeah:

I'm glad that it made you think, and please understand that it may not be the perfect policy to pursue. Even if you choose to endorse it, please remember that you can't come right out and say that it is your policy. It needs to be presented in politically correct steps, as I outlined before.
There are probably better policies out there, devised by minds much greater than my own (which really doesn't fall into the category of "great"), but allow me a little poetic license) , but my only goal here was to get you to step back and think about the ramifications of your actions.

Perhaps you will decide in favor of my plan, or perhaps not, but more than anything, I would urge you to think along the same lines that our founding fathers did. They were not perfect men, but they had great foresight, and they wrote a Constitution upon which this nation could stand. Should you ever obtain the office of President, I would hope that you would weigh their advice and ideals heavily before commiting to a policy. Admittedly, some of their writings leave some room for interpretation, but outright belligerence is not among those.

There is a lot of potential in your policies and platforms, and they may well see you into office someday, assuming you can deliver your intentions to the people and the special interests in a suitable manner. And I would hope that should you do so, you would keep faith with Constitutional law.

Of course, everything I have said thus far has been my opinion. But I am glad that it has given you pause to think. Even if you do not agree that my policy is the wisest, or even if you retain the assertion that yours is best, the important thing is that you have really spent some time considering other options.

Aramike

02-01-09, 04:13 AM

Dammit, Undersea, why must you be so much more diplomatic than I am??? :haha:

CaptainHaplo

02-01-09, 11:44 AM

Aramike and Mikhayl - I said in the first post of this thread - "I fully expect to learn quite a bit as I hope you all do as well." By that I made it obvious I was looking for other views to also consider. I have invited each person - you two specifically - to put out some of your own ideas. When I have done so, your response has been basically "well our ideas don't matter - your the one considering running for office.". I was under the impression that we follow the US Constitution, and thus have a representative form of government. I cannot know every idea. Once again your statements to the effect of "you are running - you should know it all" show your simply sitting back and waiting for someone to just come and make it all better for you. Sorry - life - and government - just doesn't work that way.

So far the both of you have either called me, or intimated that I am, arrogant. If I had the attitude that I had all the perfect answers, then I would be as arrogant as you charge me with. Rather I have come to a very small segment of people that I may one day choose to explore representing, to get feedback and discussion on various issues. There have been a couple of people that have thrown out ideas that - while not "in line" with my own - are worthy of great exploration and consideration. Apparently because I disagree with YOU - I am somehow arrogant. Because I am willing to put the security of this country above the views of other segments of the world - I am arrogant. Its one thing to disagree with the policy - and obviously you do. But the accusations and rebuttals are a waste of time - mine at least.

If you want to bring a fresh option for discussion - please do so. I will be more than happy to discuss them after I have a chance to consider them. If you want to simply repeat incessantly why you think my view is wrong - then understand that I accept you see it differently, but am no longer going to waste my time on responding to repetative posts. Neither of us is going to convince the other, so it is better to simply agree to disagree.

Having read Undersea's ideas - I have to say there are some things in there that may alter my position - at least slightly. This is what a good debate and communication does - it refines existing ideas, and incorporates new ones to make them more workable and acceptable to all. You have asked about my ability to work with Congress. Gentleman - this is a perfect example of how you accomplish things - you listen to the IDEAS of others and weigh them in regards to the intended outcome. You avoid repetative - and non-constructive - "discussions" with those that refuse to help move the process forward.

Maybe that is arrogant. Simply is the way I go about things. I have tried to get you to see it the way I do. You don't. I respect that. I still don't really know how YOU see the way the future would go - because neither of you is willing to share those thoughts. That is your right as well. But gentleman - if your waiting till someone has the "perfect" answer for you - without helping to shape it (as it seems you are refusing to do here) - just be prepared for a long wait.

I have no ill will toward either of you, and hope that you choose to help smooth all the rough edges of the policies I may promote. That choice is yours. If so, I will look forward to considering additional ideas and views. If not, I simply wish you both well, and God bless you both.

Aramike

02-01-09, 02:34 PM

The arrogance remark was in response to specific comments you made:Seems like your the one "digging the hole" son. You might wanna stop while your can. Sorry you don't like being called to account for your statement.

Those are just a couple of examples. It's clearly not just because you disagree with us, as you claim.

In any case, I have demonstrated, point-by-point, how your position is made up almost purely of assumptions. Your position is repulsive to many of us because you would throw away millions of lives based nothing more on your "logic" driven by your assumptions and complete misunderstanding of the nature of terrorism. What you don't get is that it only takes one guy to blow up a building - to hold an entire religion responsible for every practicioner in the very least invites totalitarianism - more realistically it is unfeesible.

A complete plan for controlling terrorism would be based upon the fact that the war cannot be won due to its nature. Therefore it would include economic, military, diplomatic, and legal components - far more complicated than a threat to blow up Mecca and hope the Muslim world falls in line.

CaptainHaplo

02-05-09, 06:19 PM

Ok Undersea - I will give you a response this weekend. With the kids and work, my time has been limited on the pc - and its going to take some time to type out a full response. Bear with me.

Mikhayl - I will also respond and answer your question. Actually the two responses dovetail together nicely.

I suspect it should be saturday.

UnderseaLcpl

02-05-09, 09:08 PM

Looking forward to hearing it.:up:

CaptainHaplo

02-08-09, 05:53 PM

Ok - ran a bit late but heck - life happens.

Undersea, you have some great ideas that probably should have been followed along time ago. Thanks again for making me really think things through.

Here is my take on the ideas, and foreign policy as a whole. Our foreign policy is a mess right now - and that is because we have so many ECONOMIC interests in the world at large. We allow other countries to become dependant on us, as we become dependant on them. Most of our interest in the middle east is due to the fact we have, and will for the forseeable future, a petroleum dependant economy.

Right now, we buy more oil from south america than we do the middle east, but the countries we buy it from - their GOVERNMENTS are rather unfriendly to us. So we are forced to keep countries like the Saudi's supported and on friendly terms - so that we can met our minimum requirements should something down south happen.

Until our economy does not depend on outside sources of oil - be it domestic production, or an entire shift in our energy production, we cannot responsibly divest ourself of the middle east.

Add to that the fact you have 3 nuclear capable countries in the region, as well as 2 countries that have demonstrated that they aspire to attain nuclear capabilities, the attitude of just close the doors and windows and stay home and let the rest of the world be, isn't possible. 2 of those countries have been, and tend to stay at, a nearly at war state - Pakistan and India - while the third, Israel - is the pariah that most of the region would love to take out.

When you include Syria and Iran - who have repeatedly been shown to be pursuing nuclear weapons ability, and both being overtly hostile to Israel - and not exactly fond of us, do we really want to just let the region be? If we were to do so, the nuclear proliferation problem would become a nightmare. Or do you think that Iran or Syria would take every step possible to keep those weapons out of the hands of terrorists that would otherwise use them on us? Remember - with terrorists, they don't need a missile that can hit us.......

Had we never become involved in the region economically - thus pumping at least tens of trillions of dollars into it over time, the region wouldn't be even as "advanced" as it is. We wouldn't be facing the issues we do now. Unfortunately, we did, and now we are tied to it. Following an isolationist course now would only create an opportunity for some to cripple us (further) economically while not solving any security concerns long term. 50 years ago - I think it would have been a wise course. Now - its not.

So that leaves us with - what do we do now? We have busted the eggs - we better make an omelet. First lets define the situation - we have 3 sets of people/ countries we are dealing with. I will group them by relation - those that like us - those that don't - and those that are ambivilant. The third really lean one way or the other.

The countries that like us - are not an issue. They seek a relatively stable region as well, and can work with other countries in the region to accomplish this. For example, the recent Egypt -Israeli co-operation against Hamas. These states understand that rogue elements respect no border, and thus work together when opportunity presents itself.

Then you have the ones that don't like us - and they seem to have no respect for anyone - their own people, their neighbors, etc. Again we will use Syria and Iran as examples - both are even now doing all they can to destabilize their neighbors so they can gain more power. They are overtly hostile to anyone - or any government, that does not turn a blind eye. They are willing to severely repress their own people in an effort to continue to solidify and strengthen their grip on their own country - as well as expand that reach to the region.

Then you have countries that are "on the fence". Turkey comes to mind - as they are an "ally" - but often refuse to work with other entities to help build stability. Pakistan is another good example. India tends to do the same, though their current economic health is tied more directly to us and thus they tend to work toward mutual goals a bit more readily. Most of these countries have internal power struggles that keep them from getting off the fence.

To fix this - we have to stop coddling the "powerful" of these nations. We supported Musharref and he did what - took aid from us - and tried to solidify his grip on power. Instead of throwing support behind "leaders" - we need to support IDEAS - with accountability. Instead of a monetary aid package - we work with fairly elected leaders to open up economic possibilities. Like - "You offer reasonable working conditions in making x/y/z product at a specified quality - and you can see a certain $ amount of it to American consumers with no tarriff.". You do this - and you create an economic incentive that helps both sides. You help them build wealth and opportunity. On the other hand - you get a country that doesn't want to play ball - you close trade, or make it really expensive. This can go all the way to sanctions - working with those countries in the region to throttle non-cooperative nations. True, most will turn to Russia as an outlet - but it will still hurt deeply.

I have to close since I have a drive I have to make - but I will post again this evening regarding the diplomatic side of this (though I touched on it) - and will also not how this affects the war on terror as well.

CaptainHaplo

02-08-09, 10:21 PM

Alright, lets continue.

As you can see - my foreign policy would consider the economic facets of this country's stance and actions. But foreign policy is not just about economics.

Diplomacy is the fine art of getting someone (or in this case a country or group) to do what you want - at an acceptable "cost". Its all about give and take - understanding what the person on the other side can accept and what they can't. We can't approach diplomacy purely through the carrot or stick of economics. We also have to accept that there are some things that diplomacy can accomplish much easier than other ways. Yet we also must realize that there are also things that we cannot accomplish purely through diplomacy.

Now I know my usage of verbs - things like "what we want" - sounds very imperialistic - that is purely my way of speaking - so don't go looking too deep.

When it comes to countries that are "on the fence" or those that actively dislike us - we need to show them the following:

#1 - Our word is good. This is something that we have failed at for decades.
#2 - We accept differences in culture and religion with respect and tolerance, but not to the level where we will condone things such as human rights abuses.
#3 - We have no imperialistic goals in the region.
#4 - We will support leadership that works to better its own countrymen through freedom and respect.
#5 - We will NOT work with or support - but rather will work to isolate - those that choose to disrespect their neighbor states and other sovereign nations via enticing, encouraging or supporting acts of hate or terrorism under the guise of religion, nationalism or any other basis.
#6 - Continuation of the acts listed above in #5 - if they result in the deaths of American citizens - can be considered acts of war and dealt with accordingly.
#7 - We support the current nationalistic boundaries as they are currently recognized in the region, and will offer aid in maintaining those borders as they stand - or support a change should one come about via negotiation and reasonable agreement of the parties involved.
#8 - Countries and parties will find an OBJECTIVE resource in assisting to resolve existing border disputes should they turn to us to assist in mediating talks.

Yes - that does mean not always taking Israel's side - as has been done in the past. It means offering Pakistan and India a place to sit and talk with someone at the table that holds both as allies. It means understanding that rattling a sword is how some regimes operate - but that we cannot respond in the same way. A diplomatic discussion is more than just throwing bloody swords on the table and seeing who blinks first. But it does mean that any agreements we make must be clear in what our response is should they be broken.

Let me give an example by using Iran. Right now, we have no irrefutable evidence of what their nuclear program is up to. Granted - there is no doubt in my mind - but irrefutable proof - we don't have. We do know they are supporting insurgent activities in their neighbor, Iraq. Ok - so how do we get them to cooperate with the world community regarding their nuclear program, as well as cease their support for terrorism in their neighbors?

Look at what their needs are - look at what their CULTURAL requirements are, and tailor offers that meet what those conditions. For instance - the government of Iran claims that the nuclear program is for energy production only. Instead of making them a pariah over it - lets offer to work with them - and their ally Russia - to implement the necessary safeguards - with independant AND UN verification - and waste removal (so there is no enrichable material unaccounted for) so that they cannot claim an INDEPENDANT nuclear program is necessary - and we meet the cultural condition of allowing them an "out" by working through their ally - instead of only and directly with the "evil west".

Now - sure it would probably never be accepted - but would it hurt to try? If it is - great - one thing solved. If not - then whatever the future holds - at least an honest and good faith effort was made. As Aramike likes to say - we would hold the Moral High Ground.

As for support for terrorism in a neighbor state - sit down with them and be clear - we can - and will - catch you at it. We will paint you as a threat - not just to your neighbors - but to all states in the region and the world. All the nice words to your friends in Russia are great - but make no mistake - THEY UNDERSTAND the threat that terrorists pose. They have been victimized enough by it. They also know that your goals in the long run - are not in their best interest. Same with all the states in the region. You think Egypt wants to see you funding cells in their borders? All we need is the proof of what your doing - sure everyone KNOWS it now - but the governments are able to turn a blind eye because its not put in front of them and their people. Even if they don't all turn on you at that point - WE WILL - because it is your IED's - your training - your support - that is costing the lives of our people. That - as I said - is an act of war.

Its time to call a spade a spade - and give these states the choice - either change their actions - or continue while KNOWING the repercussions. And when it comes to Iran - I seem to recall that when we first went into Iraq alot of commentators were asking - would we stop - or turn left into syria or right into Iran. I also would not hesitate to remind Iran that the Ayatollah took power from an ally of ours- the Shah - and I think he is still alive and well in exile and probably wouldn't be too upset if we set him back up. *Another big failure - we didn't support him and keep him in power during the coup attempt.....*

I don't have a problem letting people be - encouraging right action and isolating those who choose a path of hate and terror.