Replies

Two oceans CANNOT protect us any more.

Couldn't agree with you more on that. So why not put more of our money and military expertise into guarding our borders. Bush and Ashcroft are not making a valient effort to do this. If we're really aware of our vulnerability we have to close our borders to all but a few select immigrants.

How many nations around the world do we have troops stationed in? Do we really need to be in Germany and Korea, still? I'm just saying, we've overcommitted ourselves globally and that's part of the reason we're a terrorist target. As O'Reilly says, tell me where I'm wrong?

First of all, the anti-immigration line you gratuitously tossed in is scapegoating at best. I'm sorry, but that is entirely unrelated to the foreign policy/national security matter. It's wrong, quite frankly. Are there problems with current immigration policy? Yes. Is that a reason to affect the immigrants themselves? No. The problem, for the most part is in allowing immigrants to get hooked on the degrading narcotic of welfare, and to get a betetr means of checking the backgrounds of those who wish to come here. That was something that our elected officials allowed to happen, and that is something elected officials will have to fix. But it ain't the immigrants' fault - save for those who mean to cause harm to others. Cutting back immigration over 9/11 is like passing a gun ban because of one nutcase shooting up a schoolyard. It's not fair to the innocent people affected by the laws you want passed.

Blaming immigration for problems like unemplyoment is a cop-out for people who don't want to do the heavy lifting that will be necessary to end the hostile business climate created in this country through grossly excessive corporate taxation and regulations that have gone way past any idea of common sense.

Second, I couldn't care less how many countries we are in - this war ain't just al-Qaida and Afghanistan. It's about clearing out ALL of those groups. If those groups have a global reach, they're on our list. If there is a nation-state supporting terrorist groups, they're on our list. We've got troops in Korea as part of a mutual defense treaty with South Korea. The troops in Germany are in as part of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Third, "overcommited" or not, the U.S. pull out until the war is won. Anything less would give potential adversaries the impression that we have a weakness of resolve, and that will be a lot more likely than our current policy to cause a much more costly war down the road - and we will have fewer allies that we can count on to fight that war.

And THAT is where you are wrong. If we make changes in foreign policy, it should only come in AFTER we have won the victory. Any other course of action WILL get us into a more dangerous situation.

So why not put more of our money and military expertise into guarding our borders. Bush and Ashcroft are not making a valient effort to do this. If we're really aware of our vulnerability we have to close our borders to all but a few select immigrants.

Watch out...I've been called intellectually dishonest and a 'rat for saying that. And I'm naive and misinformed because of my anti-globalist stands.

It's a shame. There are a lot of views that a majority of conservatives favor, but social conservatives who want to preserve our way of life, our laws, and secure our safety by closing borders to most immigration just aren't conservative enough anymore.

I resent that there are those who think that being a "conservative" means that one must forgo what are deemed "liberal" views on some issues. I don't feel that one has to be ideologically pure to be acceptable.