Beren
Moderator Emeritus
While true, all the executive branch can do is push. Congress does not have to lift a finger at the President's urging, and the President cannot make law.
Michelle Malkin is right again.....Let's get serious about security
- Thread starter Mannlicher
- Start date
- Status
While true, all the executive branch can do is push. Congress does not have to lift a finger at the President's urging, and the President cannot make law.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
If you are talking about in Iraq, that is self-evident. If you are talking about the Al-Qaeda terrorists, then they are the stupidest people in the universe, otherwise that thesis makes no sense.
US policy in the Middle East between the first Gulf War and 9/11 consisted almost entirely of disengaging militarily and placing the region on the proverbial back burner. Their string of attacks leading up to 9/11 coincided with the United States keeping Muslims from getting massacred in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia, and some minor diddling with Saddam Hussein over the no-fly zones, a guy who they presumably didn’t even want to remain in power, either. Bush wasn’t an avowed interventionist until after 9/11; in fact, one of his critiques of Clinton was the latter’s tendency to send the military every which way all around the world. If the pre-9/11 trend in US policy toward the Middle East continued, Al-Qaeda et. al. would quite plainly get what they wanted from the US without firing a shot, if what they wanted was "US getting out of the Middle East."
Blowing up US forces where they are is an effective method for getting them to leave, generally, e.g. in Beirut. Blowing up US civilians is an effective method to get US forces to come to you, generally. Had Al-Qaeda really wanted us out of the Middle East, they would have conspired to get rid of Saddam Hussein, who was the only reason we had forces in the region in the first place, and who by the way was an ideological enemy of theirs. Or they would have concentrated on attacking our forces in Saudi Arabia, in the hope of producing a pullout along the lines of what got the US to leave Beirut. Or they could have tried to overthrow the Saudi government.
Conversely, only two things would lead to US military intervention in the Middle East: a) a direct threat to our oil supply, and b) a really effective attack on US soil originating from the region. A) is what caused us to drive Iraq out of Kuwait during the first Gulf War. B) is what Al-Qaeda did on 9/11.
The whole thesis that Al-Qaeda, as a whole, has been motivated by a desire to drive the naughty Americans out of their back yard is extremely silly. Their actions could not be logically expected by anybody to produce the result they allegedly wanted, but rather the opposite. Therefore, their motives must be something completely different.
thereisnospoon
Member
For those who actually read the aricle...the author seems to make a few good points about our security that we unwashed masses seem to know litle about. I say that as someone who learned from the article that we are NOT watching,scrutinizing those here legally.
There are people who come to our country everyday, or often enough, from foreign countries and ask permission to enter our county and persue education, business, whatever.
We DO NOT at the present have an effective method for screening these individuals or following their progress once they are here. As a matter of fact, this would probably be impossible because of the sheer numbers. Maybe we could out leg monitors on all the visa folks, since they are not citizens and therefore do not have our rights, but that too would be expensive and not entirely foolproof.
Therefore we need to HALT the influx and sort through what we already have in order to "provide for the common defense", which is actually something the Constitution calls on our Legislators and Executive Branch to do, unlike the Patriot Act and other things that have flown through Congress in the name of Homeland Security (what a joke).
What we do with the illegals is an entirely different subject, although related, and therefore does not factor into the authors thinking.
I for one have to admitt I fall in the round-em-up and ship-em-off-Pat Buchanon crowd, but unfortunately, that will never happen, so we must do SOMETHING, rather than sit and allow our country to be taken over from the inside as France, Spain and even Britain have been.
++++++++++++
Just read Sean Smith's post after I had placed mine....
DING DING DING....what a relevant point of view...
There are people who come to our country everyday, or often enough, from foreign countries and ask permission to enter our county and persue education, business, whatever.
We DO NOT at the present have an effective method for screening these individuals or following their progress once they are here. As a matter of fact, this would probably be impossible because of the sheer numbers. Maybe we could out leg monitors on all the visa folks, since they are not citizens and therefore do not have our rights, but that too would be expensive and not entirely foolproof.
Therefore we need to HALT the influx and sort through what we already have in order to "provide for the common defense", which is actually something the Constitution calls on our Legislators and Executive Branch to do, unlike the Patriot Act and other things that have flown through Congress in the name of Homeland Security (what a joke).
What we do with the illegals is an entirely different subject, although related, and therefore does not factor into the authors thinking.
I for one have to admitt I fall in the round-em-up and ship-em-off-Pat Buchanon crowd, but unfortunately, that will never happen, so we must do SOMETHING, rather than sit and allow our country to be taken over from the inside as France, Spain and even Britain have been.
++++++++++++
Just read Sean Smith's post after I had placed mine....
DING DING DING....what a relevant point of view...
I use the qualifier "self proclaimed" (I use it with "liberal" too) because there is no definitive definition for "conservative." It's not meant as an insult; I just don't feel like wasting my time debating what a "real conservative" is or isn't.
Ok, although you think she is bad for the image of conservatives. I think she is doing a good job, as i agree with her most times. I think she is what a conservative is, she is certainly in no danger of being labeled a liberal. But like is said YMMV. *cheers
Ok, although you think she is bad for the image of conservatives. I think she is doing a good job, as i agree with her most times. I think she is what a conservative is, she is certainly in no danger of being labeled a liberal. But like is said YMMV. *cheers
Not quite true
By the intent of our founders.. no.
BUT, since the checks and balances system was a little too inconvienent for the long string of despots we've *cough-cough* elected on both sides of the political fence - they came up with something to bypass that little problem.
Executive Orders.
Look em up, they'll turn your stomach.
-K
By the intent of our founders.. no.
BUT, since the checks and balances system was a little too inconvienent for the long string of despots we've *cough-cough* elected on both sides of the political fence - they came up with something to bypass that little problem.
Executive Orders.
Look em up, they'll turn your stomach.
-K
Balog
Member
Beren wrote...
Round about 140 years. Actually, the end of the War Between the States simply marked the start of a vast acceleration of the erosion.
Round about 140 years. Actually, the end of the War Between the States simply marked the start of a vast acceleration of the erosion.
- Status