PDA

View Full Version : What my President should do



napabob
10-29-2004, 02:53 PM
I think that the next president should do the following:
After Iraq, Iran should be next in line for invasion (Syria here we come). They (Iran) are developing nuclear capabilities and will be a threat to us if extreme radical elements ever take full control of the country. North Korea should be in the process of being bombed (News flash, there has been nuclear accidents at all suspected atomic sites in the Republic of North Korea).
I believe that the United States should pull all of its ground troops out of all the U. N. countries it currently has them in (they donÂ’t support us anyway) and deploy them in Afghanistan. We would be closer to Pakistan and the fugitives that we are looking for.
Develop permanent military bases in remote areas defended by 24/7/365 unmanned air borne surveillance craft backed up by space stationed geostationary spy satellites and Patriot missiles batteries. Any unauthorized movement towards any U. S. military base would be eliminated (the rules of engagement have changed). Provide any and all equipment needed by the troops to win any conflict (I like that tax).
This location will give the United States of America the capabilities of militarily reaching anyone that support terrorism against us and any country that supports us. We should eliminate the heads of state that support terrorism then leave the country. If new leaders are installed, we repeat the process.
We should create an economy for the Afghan citizens based on private companies (funded by the Pentagon) rebuilding the infrastructure of the country.
Revive the intelligence community by using the human contact factor and gather information that will lead us to successful strikes against the leaders of the Islamic movement against us. Planning is the key to results.
Enlist the help of U. S. bounty hunters to track down the people we are looking for.
Dam the Kabul River and others to provide improved irrigation for crop use. This will jump start the agricultural requirements to feed the countries population.
Modernize the heroine production capabilities of Afghanistan and provide the product to the pharmaceuticals of the world undercutting prices offered by all other suppliers.
Establish the worldÂ’s larges solar panel array to provide electricity to the region.
Amend the constitution to compel all U. S. citizens to serve in the military for at least two years and pay them well with government support for their families. We can not win without a standing military of al least 1 million. There are a lot of radicals over there (and maybe next door).
Replace the secretary of defense with a secretary of war. This will clarify what needs to be done.
Lastly, I am confident that all on this forum, including myself, would volunteer in a New York minute to defend this country by joining the military and traveling to foreign countries and using the latest military arsenals to defeat the radicals on their own soil if we are ever again attacked here in our homes. This patriotism would protect our loved ones and guarantee that they will continue living in freedom.

MagicMtnDan
10-29-2004, 07:11 PM
Lots of good ideas there Bob. Did you write that? If so, good work!

JustMVG
10-29-2004, 10:08 PM
Well done, yes i would gladly serve if needed, they'd have to get my fat a** in a shape not considered round as hell, but i'd go in that NY Minute, our freedoms are worth it,MY FREEDOM is worth everything.
MikeVG

napabob
11-01-2004, 11:05 AM
Lots of good ideas there Bob. Did you write that? If so, good work!
Yes MagicMtnDan,
I started the draft of my ideas after seeing how the conflicts have evolved. It took me until now to finalize these radical ideas.
It seems that if we are going to be involved in the Middle East for a long time, we should have our troops acclimated to function in that environment.
Afghanistan is the logical choice to amass our troops, we the people as a whole supported that invasion. It would be the ideal spring board to eliminate governments that support and purport terrorism.
We should pull out of every Iraqi populated area and regroup around the oil fields and pipe lines. The United States military should be able to defend open space without having to engage in urban warfare. Let the civilian population decide if they like to be subjected to the demands of whoever takes control of the populated areas. We should reverse the age old outcome of the populated areas being controlled by the invading forces and not having control of the country side. If our opponents are out in the open, we can deal with them effectively.
The half of the oil proceeds should be controlled by the United States, the other half by the elected government made by the Iraqi people. Who cares what type of people is placed in power, they will have to deal with us.
After we recover the costs of the conflicts in that region, we negotiate the continued purchases of oil and withdraw from the country. Remember, we will be just a short distance away in Afghanistan where special ops forces will be ready to remove in again to remove the government only if it becomes radicalized again.
WMD/Nuclear inspectors will be accompanied at all times with a force of 10 thousand troops. All suspected areas to be inspected are to be cleared of all government and civilian populations as the inspections are being conducted. Any retaliation by insurgents will be answered with air strikes on their positions that will not have non combatant collateral damage. The civilians will have to get use to this type of displacements or refuse to let the insurgents work in their neighborhoods. They can always give us a call, we will be happy to make their unwelcome guests martyrs.
This summary of ideas call for added input, since this is the last day for Political Rhetoric, pleases post away.

napabob
11-01-2004, 04:58 PM
Well done, yes i would gladly serve if needed, they'd have to get my fat a** in a shape not considered round as hell, but i'd go in that NY Minute, our freedoms are worth it,MY FREEDOM is worth everything.
MikeVG
MandMVG,
I am passed the half century mark and will be the first in line if needed to support a global deployment of American support forces. I joined the USMC during the communist threat (Da Nang 69-70), now it's time to joint up to defeat the fundamentalist threat. This conflict is not like World War II, at that time we had a swelling of the military by young volunteers. It will take a draft to raise the armies that we need today.

bordsmnj
11-01-2004, 05:14 PM
Holy cow,Bob. I may have jumped the gun in judging you. i get the wife to log in and give your rep points back when she gets home(not a big deal-i guess but at least i'll admit and fix my errors.) so is Kerry or Bush more likely to do all this mentioned above? and can we just send all the tree huggers over there to help out? heh heh heh mondays almost over.- jas

napabob
11-02-2004, 03:22 PM
Holy cow,Bob. I may have jumped the gun in judging you. i get the wife to log in and give your rep points back when she gets home(not a big deal-i guess but at least i'll admit and fix my errors.) so is Kerry or Bush more likely to do all this mentioned above? and can we just send all the tree huggers over there to help out? heh heh heh mondays almost over.- jas
bordsmnj,
Tuesday and this forum in almost over.
I don't think that the presidential choices we have will be willing to do what I have described (I think that it is up to us).
Ecologists would not be effective in winning the war, but they do need trees over there.

napabob
03-23-2005, 02:59 PM
Yes MagicMtnDan,
I started the draft of my ideas after seeing how the conflicts have evolved. It took me until now to finalize these radical ideas.
It seems that if we are going to be involved in the Middle East for a long time, we should have our troops acclimated to function in that environment.
Afghanistan is the logical choice to amass our troops, we the people as a whole supported that invasion. It would be the ideal spring board to eliminate governments that support and purport terrorism.
We should pull out of every Iraqi populated area and regroup around the oil fields and pipe lines. The United States military should be able to defend open space without having to engage in urban warfare. Let the civilian population decide if they like to be subjected to the demands of whoever takes control of the populated areas. We should reverse the age old outcome of the populated areas being controlled by the invading forces and not having control of the country side. If our opponents are out in the open, we can deal with them effectively.
The half of the oil proceeds should be controlled by the United States, the other half by the elected government made by the Iraqi people. Who cares what type of people is placed in power, they will have to deal with us.
After we recover the costs of the conflicts in that region, we negotiate the continued purchases of oil and withdraw from the country. Remember, we will be just a short distance away in Afghanistan where special ops forces will be ready to remove in again to remove the government only if it becomes radicalized again.
WMD/Nuclear inspectors will be accompanied at all times with a force of 10 thousand troops. All suspected areas to be inspected are to be cleared of all government and civilian populations as the inspections are being conducted. Any retaliation by insurgents will be answered with air strikes on their positions that will not have non combatant collateral damage. The civilians will have to get use to this type of displacements or refuse to let the insurgents work in their neighborhoods. They can always give us a call, we will be happy to make their unwelcome guests martyrs.
This summary of ideas call for added input, since this is the last day for Political Rhetoric, pleases post away.
I have resurrected this post to see if anyone can add to the Iraqi solution.

cdog
03-23-2005, 03:20 PM
Take their oil as a fee for their liberation. After that I can give a rats ass. No more war. We should pull out of everywhare we are talked down to and regroup here and defend our borders. After paying us back from the umpteen billion dollars for the war we should be swithin over to bio fuel desiel in our cars and trucks. That would put money in farmers and create more industry here in the US. We all have been sold out by our goverment. The only people that will benifit from this outsoursing of blue collar jobs are the CEO's of these company's. We became a strong nation because of the diversity in our workforse after world war 2. There will be no equallibreiam when our econimic future is held in limbo by other countrys and goverments. They hate us for what we have and want us to pay for it. Bring our jobs home and mabey then we can afford your overpriced cars GM.

mickeyfinn
03-23-2005, 08:11 PM
My president should do the following:
Finish in Iraq. Maintain a permanent base there to work missions in the area from in the future. Bring the majority of our boys home.
Utilize these troops brought home to immediately seal our southern border from illegals.
EVERY country who owes us money and is in default should come due immediately. Take payment in oil.
Seek compensation for all expenses from securing Kuwait in oil.
IMMEDIATELY enact real import tarriffs on textiles and make our textile industry cost competitive with others. (textile industry is the latest industry to leave and may be started up quicker than others)
IMMEDIATELY subsidize (loan at zero interest rate) our steel industry to crank our mills back up. Once production capacity is in place IMMEDIATELY place tarriffs on foreign steel to make our mills competitive.
IMMEDIATELY show support for a switch to a National Retail Sales Tax. Work toward making it happen.
Any country with which we have a trade deficit who buys our food and sells us oil should be invited to drink their oil as they will not get more food unless oil prices return to pre-2002 levels.
IMMEDIATELY begin subsidizing solar energy at the same levels the petro-chemical industry receives today. Reduce subsidies to the petro chemical industry by 10% every year for 10 years. This will give us a greater incentive to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Allow all companies with money in out of country accounts to bring this money into the country at a flat tax rate of 11%.
Once the textile and steel industries are back up and running begin tarriffs on other industries in order to put as much manufacturing back into our country as possible.
WHAT THIS REQUIRES OF CITIZENS
Be diligent in watching your purchases. If it is not "made in USA" then find an alternative product if possible. "Made in USA" is subject to abuse but is the best indicator available today and will help to send a message.
Be prepared to see your lifestyle reduced for a while. These tarriffs and gov. Subsidies are going to cost money and we will have to pay. (We have been living the good life borrowing from our kids. Time to pay some of it back)
DO NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN IN OFFICE BEFORE. ANY OFFICE ANYWHERE
DO NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO HAS MADE MORE THAN 50% above median income in his/her local area.
Let your officials know that you are willing to suffer some during the process of putting this country back together.
THAT IS WHAT MY PRESIDENT SHOULD DO.

Blown 472
03-24-2005, 08:39 AM
My president should do the following:
Finish in Iraq. Maintain a permanent base there to work missions in the area from in the future. Bring the majority of our boys home.
Utilize these troops brought home to immediately seal our southern border from illegals.
EVERY country who owes us money and is in default should come due immediately. Take payment in oil.
Seek compensation for all expenses from securing Kuwait in oil.
IMMEDIATELY enact real import tarriffs on textiles and make our textile industry cost competitive with others. (textile industry is the latest industry to leave and may be started up quicker than others)
IMMEDIATELY subsidize (loan at zero interest rate) our steel industry to crank our mills back up. Once production capacity is in place IMMEDIATELY place tarriffs on foreign steel to make our mills competitive.
IMMEDIATELY show support for a switch to a National Retail Sales Tax. Work toward making it happen.
Any country with which we have a trade deficit who buys our food and sells us oil should be invited to drink their oil as they will not get more food unless oil prices return to pre-2002 levels.
IMMEDIATELY begin subsidizing solar energy at the same levels the petro-chemical industry receives today. Reduce subsidies to the petro chemical industry by 10% every year for 10 years. This will give us a greater incentive to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Allow all companies with money in out of country accounts to bring this money into the country at a flat tax rate of 11%.
Once the textile and steel industries are back up and running begin tarriffs on other industries in order to put as much manufacturing back into our country as possible.
WHAT THIS REQUIRES OF CITIZENS
Be diligent in watching your purchases. If it is not "made in USA" then find an alternative product if possible. "Made in USA" is subject to abuse but is the best indicator available today and will help to send a message.
Be prepared to see your lifestyle reduced for a while. These tarriffs and gov. Subsidies are going to cost money and we will have to pay. (We have been living the good life borrowing from our kids. Time to pay some of it back)
DO NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN IN OFFICE BEFORE. ANY OFFICE ANYWHERE
DO NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO HAS MADE MORE THAN 50% above median income in his/her local area.
Let your officials know that you are willing to suffer some during the process of putting this country back together.
THAT IS WHAT MY PRESIDENT SHOULD DO.
All good ideas but you are forgeting one thing, lobbiests.

mickeyfinn
03-24-2005, 07:09 PM
All good ideas but you are forgeting one thing, lobbiests.
Damn....sounds like we are close to agreeing on something :D
I never said it was gonna happen just listing what I believe the ideal president would do. (of course this assumes that the president actually has the power to move things in the first place.)..
And you are absolutely right. Damn lobbyist.

napabob
03-31-2005, 04:01 PM
Who Cares If DeLay Bullies Lobbyists?
It's better than the other way around.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Friday, July 11, 2003, at 4:02 PM PT
Every Tuesday morning, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., meets with a couple dozen Republican lobbyists. Here is how Nicholas Confessore describes the ritual in the July/August Washington Monthly:
[T]he lobbyists present pass around a list of the [lobbying] jobs available and discuss whom to support. Santorum's responsibility is to make sure each one is filled by a loyal Republican—a senator's chief of staff, for instance, or a top White House aide, or another lobbyist whose reliability has been demonstrated. After Santorum settles on a candidate, the lobbyists present make sure it is known whom the Republican leadership favors.
The procedure is even more unembarrassedly thuggish than Confessore—and, in a less-nuanced June 26 Washington Post story, Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin—make it sound. For example, Grover Norquist, chairman of Americans for Tax Reform and a key Santorum ally in this effort, doesn't just maintain a database on the party affiliations and political contributions of Washington lobbyists. He puts his little lists online. (Click here for the law firms, here for the trade associations, and here for the corporations.)
The best-known heavy in the campaign to force lobby firms to displace Democrats with Republicans is House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. In 1999, DeLay had his wrist slapped by the House Ethics Committee for holding up an intellectual-property vote in order to pressure the Electronics Industries Alliance into hiring a Republican as its president. Although the ethics advisory memorandum didn't mention DeLay by name, it was widely observed that a member of the House leadership (DeLay was then majority whip) should not need reminding that "one of the fundamental rules of ethics for government service" is that "government officials Â… are prohibited from taking or withholding any official action on the basis of Â… partisan affiliation."
One part of this oft-told story, however, is usually left out: DeLay's crude pressure tactic didn't work. The EIA did not hire a Republican. Instead, it went ahead and named as its president Dave McCurdy, an Oklahoma Democrat who had served in the House from 1981 to 1995. As his EIA biography notes, McCurdy had a "distinguished career" in Congress. He co-founded the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist group that helped pave the way for the Clinton presidency; he was "the youngest person in Congressional history to chair a full committee"; he was chairman of one especially important committee, the House Intelligence Committee; and he was genuinely influential in shaping military and foreign policy.
All this raises a question that the EIA would prefer not to address: Why would a hotshot like this waste his life petitioning the government on behalf of transistor manufacturers? Because, as Chatterbox previously explained, a disturbing confluence of social forces has elevated the lobbyist far above the mere House member in Washington's status hierarchy.
Viewed from this angle, the threat posed by the DeLay-Santorum-Norquist "K Street Project" doesn't seem particularly great. Is it sleazy? Absolutely. Chatterbox would prefer that DeLay be indifferent not only toward business lobbyists' political affiliations, but also toward their campaign contributions and—most especially—toward their opinions about how legislation should be written. But that isn't going to happen. (Setting aside the job-placement component, it didn't happen when the Democrats controlled the House, either.) If one side in this transaction is going to give orders to the other, Chatterbox would much prefer that democratically elected members of Congress be the ones giving the orders. Better that K Street bend over for DeLay than that DeLay bend over for K Street.
That this is not already obvious shows the extent to which Washington, at least subliminally, has bought into the notion of K Street as a fourth branch of government. How dare the GOP dictate political loyalties to the lobbying class!? But political loyalties are what Washington's lobby industry is based on in the first place. Lobbyists are typically former staffers from Capitol Hill, the White House, or federal agencies; former members of the House or Senate; or, if they're real hacks, former Cabinet members. (Andrew Card, the current White House chief of staff, ran the auto-makers' lobby after serving as transportation secretary during the Bush I administration. Matters have not yet degenerated to the point where an actual president will consider a lobbying career, but give it time.) The most successful lobbyists don't sell their skills so much as they sell their influence, which is based on proximity to power. As the New Republic's "&c." blog noted recently, it's a bit ridiculous to worry that the GOP will undermine meritocracy on K Street because K Street isn't built on merit. It's built on connections:
If you're holding down the top job at a lobbying firm and the Republicans are in power, by definition you're qualified if powerful Republican politicians say you are and unqualified if they say you're not. This isn't heart surgery. This isn't even the kind of low-level, nuts and bolts lobbying that requires intimate knowledge of the home mortgage deduction or federal environmental regulations. This is glad-handing the House majority leader so that your foot-soldiers get a chance to write the legislation your clients want written.
Does this oversimplify? Do skill and smarts enter into the picture at all? Oh, probably, especially during the pre-Dubya era, when power was more evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans (though typically, lobby firms met this challenge through the non-meritocratic means of putting both parties on the payroll). Republican control of the White House and both houses of Congress strengthened the GOP's hand in eliminating market inefficiencies on K Street and established what Confessore correctly describes as a self-reinforcing political machine. Republican lobbyists raise money for Republican legislators, thereby increasing the latter's chances of re-election. The legislators then further tighten their hold on power by placing their protégés—and, increasingly, themselves—in Republican lobby firms, thereby rendering them even more committed to raising cash for the GOP.
But the more lobbyists were reduced to being party apparatchiks—the less free will, and perhaps even skill and merit, came to matter in a lobbying career—the less appealing a career in lobbying would have to become. Who wants to be a cog in a machine? Perhaps more important, who wants to be an apparatchik with no job security? Because no Republican machine would be so efficient as to perpetuate itself forever. Indeed, the less distinguishable the GOP and the business community became, the more likely voters would come to loathe both. Democratic victory in the House, the Senate, the White House, or all three would throw the patronage assembly line violently into reverse. Live by party loyalty, die by party loyalty. Isn't that insecure, status-impaired scenario more appealing than today's permanent culture of glamorous and all-powerful Washington lobbyists?
In a Washington subdued by the K Street Project, it's hard to imagine that a Dave McCurdy would want to lobby for the electronics industry. And it's just about impossible to imagine that a Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., or a Rep. Mary Bono, R-Calif., would want to give up a House seat to become a lobbyist. So, maybe—just maybe—the GOP is doing us all a favor by treating Washington lobbyists like the help.
Timothy Noah writes "Chatterbox" for Slate.