Posted on 07/29/2015 7:27:33 PM PDT by CutePuppy
She'll be at the minor league debate.
I like Carly, but this is all talk. If someone really wanted to make the US more secure, he or she would bring US troops home and put on our borders, ban Islam as being incompatible with freedom and civilization, tear down all the mosques, deport Muslims, and institute a “pet the pig” requirement to board a plane.
Russia is Europe’s problem. Nothing the US is willing to do would be enough to stop Iran from getting a nuke. We have no Muslim allies, only people willing to use us for a time.
If we don’t solve the problems of government spending and regulation, illegal immigration, and Muslims in our midst, then nothing we do overseas will make a bit of difference. If we could get the Christians out of there, I have no problem with Muslims fighting each other.
That's the infamous "ostrich strategy" that has served poorly to a number of nations, including in many instances the U.S., e.g., fairly recent ones, like in Kenya and Tanzania, 9/11, etc. — it never worked against asymmetrical warfare and terrorism.
The same way that Hitler's Germany was Europe's problem? It's a good thing that Ronald Reagan didn't think this way about Russian / Soviet "sphere of influence" in Europe.
Simply not accurate, and somewhat defeatist, i.e., the Obama-Kerry Middle East doctrine. Much could have been done about Iran, which has been surrounded by our troops in Iraq (west) and Afghanistan (east), without actually resorting to direct military action, under the right leadership.
Please acquaint yourself with the concept of The Gap, advanced by Thomas Barnett in "The Pentagon's New Map", originally in Esquire article. Please read my comments ##19, 20, 22, 24 in this FR thread (Strains grow over strategy to rein in Iran (Cheney vs Condi+Euros), 2007 June 04) and the thread Can David Petraeus Rebuild a Nation? - FR / Esquire, by Thomas P. M. Barnett, 2007 January 25.
It may be 99% accurate but it's 100% irrelevant. We can also "use" them "for a time," as long as the (albeit, possibly short-term) goals are beneficial to all parties involved in partnership, which may outlive its usefulness upon completion of the goals. That was the brilliance of Donald Rumsfeld's and Condoleezza Rice's concept of the somewhat loosely structured and deliberately non-permanent "Coalition Of the Willing (COW)" when the old, formal coalitions, like NATO, were too slow, rigid, bureaucratic, fractured, unprepared, unfunded, unwilling or had no self-interest in taking certain actions against certain actors — nations, groups or networks.
(The last bit is quite arguable, of course, due to generalization and [sometimes rapid] changes of nations' governments, demographics and cultures) - see more / example in (Israel's Netanyahu calls for supporting Kurdish independence - FR, post #17 by CP, 2014 July 01)
Very true, but it's a different subject — you are taking one segment of the speech regarding a single subject, and conflating separate — internal and external — unrelated issues as if they are sequential or entirely overlapping/dependent in nature.
That's not how [effective] nations / governments, organizations or people work. Those who can't multitask ("walk and chew gum at the same time") don't succeed.
And those nations who allow the enemy within their borders and spend themselves into bankruptcy don’t survive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.