A US political discussion....

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

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

Id go with the best source.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

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.

[A Very Super Market]

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]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

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.

Actually HT, if you look at the actions of the Israelis over the years they have gone to great lengths NOT to annihilate their enemies. This was proven yet again in their latest incursion.

There are a lot of countries that, if they were in the Israelis shoes, would have driven the Palestinians out completely long ago.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by August

Actually HT, if you look at the actions of the Israelis over the years they have gone to great lengths NOT to annihilate their enemies. This was proven yet again in their latest incursion.

There are a lot of countries that, if they were in the Israelis shoes, would have driven the Palestinians out completely long ago.

That was actually my point but i didnt make it across.
They have used only enough force to control the threat and they have nuclear weapon that they have not used.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

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]

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.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

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.