Posted on 10/13/2009 2:22:59 AM PDT by Sergeant Tim
"Keep America Safe will make the case for an unapologetic approach to fighting terrorism around the world, for victory in the wars this country fights, for democracy and human rights, and for a strong American military that is needed in the dangerous world in which we live."
(See their lead video, aimed squarely at Obama, 'Rhetoric vs. Reality')
They are all IslamOfascists and delcared war on America.
The IslamOfascists who flew into the Pentagon were living
6 miles from me here in San Diego
Neil Cavuto on FOX just had on Debra Burlingame re KAS
What a great person.
Reality check time...
Tell me, if the borders are "open," how are coyotes (people smugglers working the southern border) managing to charge up to three or four thousand dollars per person per crossing?
Why on earth would poor Mexicans (and even poorer El Salvadorans, Guatemalans, etc) pay such steep prices when -- since the borders are supposedly "open" -- they could easily walk across for free?
The fact is that, even if most sufficiently determined illegals can get across eventually, to do so is more difficult/dangerous/time consuming/expensive than ever. The fact is that since the 1980's (the last time the borders could be reasonably described as "open") border security has become tighter and tighter almost every year. Even during the Clinton years border control resources were substantially increased, and since 9-11 even more so. The fact is our borders have never been more secure, at any time in our history, than they are right now.
Can we increase border security even more? Sure we can. But I suspect we've already passed the point of diminishing returns.
There are also unintended consequences of tight borders which we are already dealing with. During the 80's nearly all Hispanic illegals were working age males, and nearly all left their dependents behind. Since it was easy and cheap to cross the border, this made sense: Do seasonal work in construction or agriculture, leave the family at home to tend the farm, and where the cost of living was less, then spend the winter with them back in Mexico.
Now that crossing the border is difficult, expensive and less certain, this pattern of "circularity" (crossing the border in both directions) has greatly decreased. Those who come are far more likely to stay permanently, year round, far more likely to bring their dependents, and far more likely to compete with legal Americans for nonseasonal jobs, and more likely to turn to crime if jobs are not available.
We could make much better progress by working the demand side (the illegal labor market -- either by getting tougher on those employing illegals and/or developing a more accessible temporary work program) and by devoting more resources to tightening up visa programs -- than by further incremental increases in border security.
Just one FReeper's opinion. But it is certain that we cannot effectively address the issues of borders and illegals if we adopt false facts, and that is exactly what the "open borders" mantra is. It simply isn't true. If you want to deal with the problems, deal with the actual problems, not made up ones.
Um, wait a minute... How is that an indictment of "a [supposed] Wilsonian foreign policy"?
You yourself point out our attackers were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. But those are exactly the places were we did NOT follow the advice of the e-vile and dastardly "neocons," and determinedly promote democracy; but instead followed the dictates of the contrasting foreign policy "realism" which you advocate, and tolerated or supported authoritarian regimes.
I do not advocate the amoral version of realism you lay out. I advocate a policy of national defense and non-interventionism.
Defining American Conservatism
MSMB | October 13, 2009 | Rob W. Case
Posted on 10/13/2009 12:59:38 AM PDT by Making_Sense [Rob W. Case]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2361140/posts
Fine. You can advocate "non-interventionism." No harm, since as the world's one true conservative, you'll never have to deal with the consequences.
But, certainly, in theory (thank God) you would advocate terminating America's single largest and most costly foreign intervention, and one of the longest lived. Right?
It's not much talked about, but certainly our naval policing of the global sea lanes is our greatest foreign intervention. Heck, we built, and continuously maintain, an entire naval fleet, just for the purpose of patrolling only one of the most crucial regions: the Persian Gulf.
Of course if we ceased this intervention, there is at least a fair chance, if not a strong probability, that some regional squabble gone out control would cut off a significant fraction of global oil supplies, sparking a global depression, and eating up the billions of dollars we had been saving annually on maintenance of the Fifth Fleet in a matter of weeks.
But that's O.K. because we'd be ideologically pure non-interventionists. Right?
Of course the examples could be multiplied endlessly. For instance we intervened early in the Bush presidency when Pakistan and India were on the verge of war. We strongly pressured both to sit down and talk. But it would have been better, apparently, to mind our business and risk nuclear war.
By the same token we should end our interventions in Pakistan on principle, even though they have proven, at least by readily discernible increments, successful in turning the Pakistani government and armed forces against Islamists they were previously sponsoring and arming. Granted the result may be nuclear arms falling into the hands of Islamic terrorists, but better that than compromising the non-interventionist principle. Right?
Yep! Big time!
Me, too!
WOW! You are on a roll tonight! Thanks for the great job!
At least you are MUCH closer to him than I am now. ;*(
True, but it does me no good really. It is good to have him
and Laura back here in Texas with people who love them!
Awesome, thank you so much.
Your doomsday scenario contradicts basic economics. The oil market is a world market. Oil is a fungible good hence it is impossible to "cut it off" especially in a "regional squabble" that would not affect our supplies in Alaska and elsewhere. Even Bin Laden said, we can't "eat it." The theory that we had the navy to "control" every oil field in the world is a canard. Once it flows into the world market, it is available to everyone.
You're really reaching here. There is evidence that our benighted little brown brothers wouldn't have talked without the intervention of their benevolent, all-seeing papa America. In any case, both India and Pakistan first developed their nuclear weapons DESPITE the world policing policy you advocate and the active involvement of the U.S. in that region. Now....that's quite indictment of such a policy, isn't it?
I meant to say that “there is no evidence.”
I don't see how.
A large oil tanker costs in the range of $100 million dollars, the total value of it's cargo when fully loaded is also in that range. So a large, fully loaded tanker is worth $200 million, plus or minus.
The gross profit a shipper can expect from a given voyage (i.e. the total shipping cost) is only around $1 million. I don't know the net profit, but it's obviously less still.
So do the math. Will oil continue to be freely shipped (at any price currently considered remotely affordable) in conditions of war, rampant piracy, or even mere (but credible) threats against shipping from rouge regimes?
Sorry, but without the American navy ensuring freedom of maritime trade you would almost immediately see shipping cost shoot up, just to cover increased insurance rates. That could turn down the global economy by itself. But given an actual interruption (which would almost inevitably occur sooner or later) it could trigger a depression that would make our currently difficulties seem trivial.
First 0bama and Hitlery tell Russia they can come inspect our nukes... now this...
Reports: Russia warns US on missile defense
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BBJG402&show_article=1
Someone needs to impeach 0bama and remove him from office immediately! 0bama can go back to Chicago and run that hell.
History tells us that the only way to contain Islam, which is an inherently aggresive force, is by military force. The Portuguese, by flanking Islam on the east and gaining control of trade in the waters between India and Africa, set a limit to the expansion of the Muslim Powers. Superior ships, manned by skill seamen, using better cannon allowed tiny Portugal to became a leading naval power in the East. The annexation of Portugal by Spain put an end to this, for the Spanish were preoccupied in the Americas and in the Netherlands. But they were succeeded by the Dutch, who in turn were rivaled by the English and French. But Portugal,the Netherlands, Britain and France, as well as the Spanish presence in the Phillipines kept their colonies until the last century. During the past fifty years we have taken on their role. We made impossible the continuation of these empires after WWII, thinking to open the world to our trade. Unfortunately this has resulted in the enrichment of the Muslim states and we are now paying the price of feeding a tiger.
Our military presence in the region was only the proximate cause of Obama’s resentment. The driving force is Islam. The objective of men like Bib Laden and Kohmeini is to expel Western ideas and native leaders with western ideas from power in the Middle East. In general terms they are trying to establish a new caliphate. The potential of their empire is vast. Even Turkey, the most westernized Muslim power, is now governed by Islamists. Not only Jews but Christians have little place in any of these countries because they profitted from the growth of western power, and now are bearing the brunt of its decline.
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.