Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DoughtyOne

Sure! ;)

1: Understand and accept that the MidEast (henceforth ME)/Pak is a terrorist country no different than any of the ‘stans’ Iran or now again, Iraq. And by ‘understand’ I mean accept the fact and treat them accordingly in a more ‘Reagan’ than Obama/Carter sense.

2: Immeadiately suspend every EPA/ect rule and reg hindering domestic/offshore oil/gas/energy production and criminalize interference with this natsec issue.

3: Immeadiately meet with Putin and whoever is in charge of China this week and say “Ok guys, here’s the deal. We are aout of the wannabee worldcop business permanantly. You can HAVE the ME, with the exception of Israel. Do not screw with them via proxy or we stop stopping them from nuking every damn sandrat nation around them. Further, we will not interfere with your landgrabs in Africa. As for Japan/Taiwan, nothing changes.

In return, you be satisfied with staying the hell out of Poland and the other countries that broke off post Soviet. We will be the West and do out thing in our areas, you be you and do your stuff in yours. We can work together when our interests align as it will benefit us all. No need to nuke eachother over a bunch of fanatics that want to enslave us all since they hate you every bit as much as they hate us and lets not BS each other, we all know that’s the goal.

3: End ALL funding/support of all forms to Stan central. Pull out all Americans/troops and leave nothing we own unburned/destroyed.

4: Work with western countries to seal off the ME. Air/ocean/land from contact/interaction with the west.

5: Begin a process of screening and deporting any and all people from America who place the interests of Islam over their own country. This includes non muslims, libs and Democrat or Republican politicians.

6: Make gun ownership mandatory and make aid to ME/terrorists a capital offense. Enforce it.

7: Explain to Pak that it has a number of satellites parked overhead and it’s nuke sites are under heavy monitoring. Further explain that if a missile leaves Pak airspace or nuclear anything is caught leaving ME boundaries, the country ceases to exist. Enforce it.

8: End all associations and funding with/for the UN. Conduct diplomacy with individual western nations directly henceforth.

9: Begin construction of infrastructure connecting the US with Canada and into Alaska for the free flow of oil/gas.
Manhattan Project it and put hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans instantly back to work.

10: Watch the west thrive in it’s own ‘New World Order’.

Now of course there are issues to be ironed out with the above, but all the above lacks only one thing to implement. The will to do it.

And lets face it. We are going to get to the above eventually, one way or another.


15 posted on 09/20/2012 2:46:16 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: Norm Lenhart
Sure! ;)  Okay, lets take a look.

1: Understand and accept that the MidEast (henceforth ME)/Pak is a terrorist country no different than any of the ‘stans’ Iran or now again, Iraq. And by ‘understand’ I mean accept the fact and treat them accordingly in a more ‘Reagan’ than Obama/Carter sense.

I'm going to go with what you have stated here, because you didn't exactly clarify what you meant by actions 'Reagan' vs 'Obama/Carter'.  In a general sense, I would support that too.  When it gets down to individual actions you may mean with that blanket statement, we may agree or disagree on issue by issue.  I'm sure we're about to get there down below, so I'll leave it at that here.

2: Immeadiately suspend every EPA/ect rule and reg hindering domestic/offshore oil/gas/energy production and criminalize interference with this natsec issue.

I've advocated dropping a number of federal agencies.  The EPA is one of the ones I want gone.  You'll get no argument out of me here.  I don't think businesses should be able to pollute their surroundings, but those types of things can be handled by licensing agencies at the state level.

3: Immeadiately meet with Putin and whoever is in charge of China this week and say “Ok guys, here’s the deal. We are aout of the wannabee worldcop business permanantly. You can HAVE the ME, with the exception of Israel. Do not screw with them via proxy or we stop stopping them from nuking every damn sandrat nation around them. Further, we will not interfere with your landgrabs in Africa. As for Japan/Taiwan, nothing changes.

Okay here's where we part ways.  President Reagan was not in favor of withdrawing to our own shores, and dismantling our global infrastructure.  He rebuilt our military dismantled under Carter, which was then allowed to be cut back in half by Clinton and Bush.  Today it's being cut even more.  After the first of the year, we may see cuts that will reduce our military to levels not seen since around 1915.  I know that's the plan for our Navy, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see our armed forces reduced in kind.

If you believe this will lead to world stability, you're wrong.  And while you may not advocate for this at all, the stand-off policies you advocate here call for a much less robust military.  Why spend the money to maintain a robust military when you are withdrawing globally.  What happens to our interests in these regions?  What happens to our ability to transit these regions with our Navy?  What happens when terrorists do get nukes, and those nukes are proliferated to the Americas?  We have no right to object right?  I mean we can't be the world's policeman can we?  Why of course not!

What happens to our traditional allies in these regions?  Why should Italians look to us, if we're content to withdraw to within our own borders?  Across the board, the influence of the United States dissolves under your plan.  This is what the Left has advocated for since the mid-1960s.  And you as a Conservative have now bought into it.

You talk about the ME and the region nearby, you're missing the point that Islamic extremists are highly represented in the Middle-East, Africa, Asia, and even parts of Europe.  You're essentially advocating a U. S. withdrawel of the Middle-East, parts of Africa, the parts of Asia around Pakistan across to Malaysia.  Turkey is a highly Islamic nation.   Disengagement with these regions, would mean that the United States would no longer advocate for it's interests in areas containing upwards of two-thirds of the world's populace.   And once we do this, how do you transit through the Mediterranean to protect Israel with a 1915 level Navy and armed forces?

In return, you be satisfied with staying the hell out of Poland and the other countries that broke off post Soviet. We will be the West and do out thing in our areas, you be you and do your stuff in yours. We can work together when our interests align as it will benefit us all. No need to nuke eachother over a bunch of fanatics that want to enslave us all since they hate you every bit as much as they hate us and lets not BS each other, we all know that’s the goal.

Look, you can kid yourself that this would mean world peace.  With regard to that, I find it chilling.  You honestly think that a gentleman's agreement with Russia and China would lead to world peace.  That's what you are advocating here.  And you're doing it in conjunction with us withdrawing our influence over two-thirds of the world's populace.  That's something you think Reagan would do?  I see it as the naive actions of a Carter or an Obama.

Tell me, where would the challenges to our authority be expressed then?  Europe, the M/E, Asia, Africa?  Well sure, but then also every nation around the planet right up to our own border.

What you advocate here is nonsense.  Then when people rioted in the streets of Europe, you'd soon be advocating we withdraw from there too, since their governments must agree with it if it's taking place.  That's what you have assumed with regard to all Middle-Eastern and Islamic nations.

If you think things are bad today, you wait until the entire Middle-East across to Malaysia is a Chinese/Russian satellite.

Do you understand that globalist Marxist organizations are driving much of the Islamic terrorist movements?  They're doing it here.  They're doing it in Europe.  They've been doing it in the Middle-East for over half a century.  And your fix for that is to surrender?  Really?

3: End ALL funding/support of all forms to Stan central. Pull out all Americans/troops and leave nothing we own unburned/destroyed.

Yep, no longer have any presence whatsoever in Turkey, the M/E, Africa, and across to Malaysia.  Just burn our embassies and property, and leave.  And what happens to U. S. Citizens that happen to live in those nations, or wish to travel to them?  There are so many overlooked consequences to what you advocate, that it's almost impossible to address them all.  Here's just one.  How do we ensure we can conduct reasoned trade with any of these nations, after you've implemented your plan?  We've pulled out and burned and destroyed anything we've left behind.

Every single nation we pull this trick in, is going to consider it the ultimate insult, and hate us with a passion that will make today's displeasure with us look positively saintly.

4: Work with western countries to seal off the ME. Air/ocean/land from contact/interaction with the west.

I would suggest we stop immigration from these regions, as long as Islamists advocate death to the West.  I would not withdraw from them.  I would try to keep other avenues of cooperation open.

5: Begin a process of screening and deporting any and all people from America who place the interests of Islam over their own country. This includes non muslims, libs and Democrat or Republican politicians.

Sounds real good until a Democrat comes to power.  Then guess what happens.  Then our government could screen and deport everyone that disagreed with their policies.  I do believe it is incumbent upon our government to screen what takes place in Islamic mosques.  If the leadership is advocating anti-American activities, then the leadership should be expelled.  That doesn't mean there wouldn't be down sides to that as well.  We could expect the Left to monitor our Christian churches and take them to task for objecting to things our government supported.  Objections to homosexuality, same sex marriage and abortion, could easily leave them wide open to prosecution.  These types of desires enacted, open the door to problems to our interests too.

6: Make gun ownership mandatory and make aid to ME/terrorists a capital offense. Enforce it.

Actually, you don't want to force Leftists to arm.  Allow unfettered gun ownership and concealed carry, but don't force idiots to arm.  Do you want the members of ACORN to be armed?  It's like advocating for everyone to vote.  No, the stupid people should be allowed to continue not voting.  As for stating that aid to terrorist nations is not helpful, Pakistan has not proliferated it's nuclear technology to other states.  Egypt for a number of decades did honor it's agreements with Israel.  These are not bad things.

7: Explain to Pak that it has a number of satellites parked overhead and it’s nuke sites are under heavy monitoring. Further explain that if a missile leaves Pak airspace or nuclear anything is caught leaving ME boundaries, the country ceases to exist. Enforce it.

Look, some of this stuff sounds good on the surface, but every action has an equal and opposite reaction.   What happens if we come out and  threaten Pakistan openly?  Doesn't Pakistan seek alignment with a major nation that would back it?  We would be driving Pakistan straight to Russia or China for alignment.  They could sign agreements where those nations would become allies, and be forced to honor agreements to see an attack on Pakistan as an attack on their own soil.  That isn't a neutral outcome.  It's an escalative and highly negative outcome. 

The leadership of Pakistan stood up to street protesters today, killing 15 of them for protesting violently against the United States.  If the government was the operating partner of the terrorists, it would have allowed the protests to take place.  It would have funded them and supported their efforts.

Is Pakistan problematic?  Yes.  We still have U. S. Citizens traveling to Pakistan in peace.  We conducted the effort to kill Osama Bin Laden on their soil.  Our press soon swooped in, and the locals were neutral on our actions to take him out.  They talked openly with our press, and treated them respectfully.  We are seeing the vocal terrorist minority in Pakistan.  The leadership there considers the Taliban their enemy too.  The Taliban presence there is large enough to cause serious problems, so Pakistan has to walk a fine line.

What you advocate would essentially undermine the government of Pakistan.  In short order the Taliban take over, and the nukes you don't seem to mind if the players in the region get, they have.  We're talking in the range of five years or less.

We can't expect every nation to ignore their own plight, to agree with us in all instances.  We do our best to form a working relationship with them, and hope for the best.

8: End all associations and funding with/for the UN. Conduct diplomacy with individual western nations directly henceforth.

I didn't develop this graphic years ago, because I disagree with the sentiments you express here.



9: Begin construction of infrastructure connecting the US with Canada and into Alaska for the free flow of oil/gas.
Manhattan Project it and put hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans instantly back to work.

I don't have a problem with this either.  I still don't think we cut off all economic activity with nations in the Middle-East.  Economic ties with them do cause them to desire decent relations with us to some degree.  Today China will be more than happy to pick up the slack in our Middle-East oil consumption.  Once again, we drive these nations directly into the camp of our next global adversary  That would be a strategic and almost impossible to reverse mistake.

10: Watch the west thrive in it’s own ‘New World Order’.

That would be a New World Odor, if spelled correctly.  What you advocate, and the resulting ramifications it would result in, would create a stinking mess globally.

Now of course there are issues to be ironed out with the above, but all the above lacks only one thing to implement. The will to do it.

Or perhaps the the good common sense to reject it.

And lets face it. We are going to get to the above eventually, one way or another.


You seriously better hope not.  The worse possible outcome we could face in the future, is a unified China, Russia, and Islamic coalition.  And the polices you have advocated here, would create that coalition in a very short period of time.

Western Europe has a little over 400 million citizens.  The United States has a little over 300 million citizens.  We're talking about somewhere around 725 million citizens between us.  This in a planet with a total population of over 7 billion.  Another-words, you want us to slink back behind our borders and withdraw contact with the other 90% of the world's inhabitants.  Just let China and Russia have them.  Pull out and burn or destroy our property there, and quit being the world's policeman.

And when China picks up the slack and becomes the world's policeman in the vacuum we left behind, you'd be happy with that?  Well, evidently so.

Ah, no thanks.

You honestly think this is the world President Ronald Reagan wanted us to help evolve into?  I don't.

16 posted on 09/21/2012 12:06:03 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Imagine how bad these global protests would be, if Obama hadn't won us so many new friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson