Listed as an Indonesian National
Let's confirm his US citizenship with a look at his SSN Application with a CT mailing address. Is he a US Citizen or a Legal Alien?
Posted on 06/09/2010 6:47:23 AM PDT by hopeisnotaforeignpolicy.org
Since the Democratic Party’s decisive electoral victories in 2006 and 2008, the Tea Party movement has helped to re-energize conservatism. The movement has focused largely on domestic politics, promoting limited government, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty. The reality is, however, that when it comes to foreign policy the conservative movement is being pulled in multiple, and often mutually exclusive, directions. Some believe that democracy promotion should be the cornerstone of American foreign policy while others do not. Quite simply, the conservative movement does not have a coherent foreign policy platform. Going forward, it will be important for conservatives to articulate a clear foreign policy platform. What is at stake is not the success of the conservative movement or a political party but the future health of the American state—its power, security, and way of life. This is the first in a series of posts exploring conservatism and U.S. foreign policy.
Today there are at least four discrete foreign policy schools within the conservative movement alone. These include: Democratic Globalism (William Kristol and Robert Kagan), Democratic Realism (Charles Krauthammer), Traditional Realism (Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft), and Paleoconservatism (Patrick Buchanan and Ron Paul).
(Excerpt) Read more at hopeisnotaforeignpolicy.org ...
Federalism? What's that?
The more we "dilute" sovereignty and self-determination thru sundry treaties and UN policy poppycock, the more our personal liberties are at risk -- and the more our nation (and foundational values) remain increasingly vulnerable.
'nuff said.... have a nice day
Of course those who fall in the Paulbot camp will deny that Saddam Hussein was a threat to this nation and would include it as a policy of expanding democracy. But the fact is that Saddam Hussein was a serious threat to this nation. The delusion that these Paulbots live under as well is that we live in a day whereas dictatorships could be ignored. WMD technology makes the Paulbot foreign policy a delusional weak philosophy that would result in the day whereas it will be 3 million dead one morning and not just 3000.
Obama disagrees with you:
Subsidize failed states, especially those hostile to us.
Reward countries that are irresponsible.
International politics is a lot like child psychology, we must reward bad behavior and discourage good.
For starters, continue coddling the troublemakers like we have been doing for decades.
Ah, you see the problem. Good.
If you mess with us we will destroy you, utterly and completely.
After 9/11 I was able to sum up my foreign policy in one simple statement:
Death to All Dictators!
How is that for promoting democracy?
Regardless of what label one wants to wear, we must begin with strengthening our own national security. This means securing the border by whatever means necessary, whether it’s by moat or fence.
This also includes calling back our National Guard from foreign service - they should be guarding the nation, period. For border states, their primary mission should be of assisting the Border Patrol in the apprehension of illegal aliens. Provide them with loose rules of engagement; if any weapon is present, shoot on sight.
It has become cliche now, but get the U.N. out of the U.S. We shouldn’t waste valuable manpower providing security at what can be done over videoconferencing. I’d prefer that we see the U.N. destroyed, but if it is to continue, one resolution against a rogue state would serve as a warning, and after that, there would have to be action.
As far as wars go, I believe that both Afghanistan and Iraq were threats to our security, and we should support the expansion of democracy as an essential tenet of our foreign policy.
However, war is messy and not to be fought in a P.C. manner. If the cause is just, get the job done as quickly and spectacularly as possible. Show them and the world that we mean business. If a particular city stronghold is acting up, cordon off the area, announce that women and children have 24 hours to leave, and then leave the city desolate.
Stop the madness of paying assistance money to foreign countries - it goes toward causes that are anti-American.
If Israel is going to go after Iran, we should give our full vocal support, as well as cut the head of the snake concerning North Korea and Syria at the same time.
The Palestinians are historically a nomadic people - let them find some other land to occupy. They have no friends in the Middle East, only people who use them for their own cause - the destruction of Israel. If the other countries cared about them, why don’t they offer them some land? The answer - it’s about an eventual takeover of all of Israel.
After the governments of Syria, North Korea, and Iran are gone, warn the world that this is the fate of anyone who would dare oppose freedom and threaten her with weapons of mass destruction. If another dictator arises, take him out, too, until the people get it right. Let Russia wail and complain - they need to make their money from legitimate sources.
We also need to raise tariffs - it’s time that China stops flooding our markets with their junk while overpricing our items over there. We need fair trade, not just free trade. It’s difficult to compete in the global economy when they pay their workers so little, but with the global expansion of democracy, it will become easier.
We need to do a better job of partnering with democracies like India and Israel, and encouraging trade with them. This makes for a more competitive trade agreement, as well as ensuring we’re not buying products built on the backs of “slaves.”
To make the Left’s heads explode, I would invoke John F. Kennedy - “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
Saddam may have been many things, a thug, dictator and mass murderer to name a few.
A threat to the US? No, an ongoing threat to his nieghbors? Maybe. But a threat to the US? Not in this lifetime.
Iraq’s army was a shell, they could crush internal opposition but not much else, Iraq had no Air Force to speak of, many of their most advanced aircraft were shotdown, destroyed on the ground or fled to Iran during the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam’s Navy, what was still afloat, were rusting hulks in the river south of Basrah.
How could Saddam threaten the US? He supported terrorist groups. So what! Iran and Syria support the same groups and we haven’t gone after them.
The Iraq invasion was based on two things, bad info and bad advice.
First, bad info: Saddam had WMD, that is a fact. Saddam had chemical warfare agents, he had them & had used them against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War & against the Kurds in Northern Iraq and Saddam had a nuclear program, exactly where it was & how far along it was is unknown. After Israel bombed his French Built Reactor in 1981, his nuclear program went to the back burner. Delayed but not abandoned.
Saddam throw up every roadblock he could to the UN inspectors, he bribed UN offical thru the Oil for Food program, sold oil to neighboring countries under the table, you name it and Saddam probably did it.
The real question is, did Saddam have WMD in 2003? My answer would be NO. Then why would Saddam continue to do all those things to prevent the inspections? Status, to have or being thought to have WMD was a status symbol. To keep everyone thinking that he had WMD, Saddam played every card he had and to save face he could not admit that he didn’t have them, even when faced with a US led invasion in 2003.
Second, bad advice: Bush stopped listening to the people who understood what was going on in the world and started listening to others.
Leading the bad advice crowd was VP Cheney, who as SecDef during the 1991 War, failed to allow the military to remove Saddam then. Remeber Norm Schwarztopf in that how we won the war briefing at the end of Desert Storm, at one point he said when we were here (pointing to the map during the famous “left hook” attack) there was nothing between us and Baghdad.
After failing to oust Saddam with military force, the Bush (41) admin called on Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam, implying that the US would assist them. When the Iraqis rose up, the Bush (41) admin, suprised that the Iraqi poeple would actually rise up against Saddam, did nothing.
Cheney’s bad advice in 1991 ensured that the US was stuck in the Gulf for the duration. Had Saddam been removed from power in 1991, there would have been no reason to invade in 2003.
Unspoken in all of this is that junior had to clean up daddy’s mess. And we are still dealing with daddy’s mess.
The daddy’s mess comments by you are pure garbage left-wing talking points. Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States.
You claim:
“How could Saddam threaten the US? He supported terrorist groups. So what! Iran and Syria support the same groups and we haven’t gone after them.”
Of course the same thing could have been said about Afghanistan and the Taliban by you and your point has obviously been proven wrong.
The other problem with your statement is that it uses the left-wing logic of making it seem like all dictatorships have to be treated equally. It is obvious that the issues involved with National Security are more complicated than some left-wing talking point about treating all dictators equally.
Saddam Hussein was supporting many of the same terrorists as was by both Afghanistan and the Taliban as well. Saddam Hussein had even openly invited Osama Bin Laden to Iraq. Saddam was a very openly sworn enemy of the United States. Is known to have supported attacks against us and had made attempts to assassinate a U.S. President. Saddam was training, financing, and supporting terrorists all the while having secretive financial dealing with the UN and other foreign allies. Saddam Hussein of course was the only world leader to openly praise the 9/11 attack as well. Saddam Hussein had WMD yes and whether or not he had developed more is unknown but he was seeking them and all world intelligence pointed to this.
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.