I like your gung ho pro US ideals, but I don't think that's the right way to go about it. I too am a big fan of Bush, but I have a different outlook on the war, and immigration.
As far as the middle east goes I think we should make a slow pull-out in Iraq, and from here on out, do all of our military attacks there done by special force hit squads. As for the rest of the middle east we need to keep a close eye on them, and if Iran strikes at us, or Isreal, we should go at'em full force. I don't mean deploy the military, I mean nuk'em. While we're at it I think we should also stop taking on the responsibility of being the world police, and world savior. Everytime some disaster happens in the world everyone looks to the US to jump in and help, and at the same time they view us as the root of all evil in the world. They can't have it both ways. We give an incredible amount of support to countries all over the world who still hate us. I say we make a world wide public announcment that we will no longer be getting involved in issues around the world that don't affect the US. At first the nations that have been critical of the US will salute the idea. But, the first time there is some disaster in another country (natural or otherwise), or we stop sending that foreign aid money they'll be screaming for the US to pull their fat out of the fryer. At that time our reply would be "we'd love to help, but it's not our problem". Go ask the European Union, or better yet ask China. See how far they get.
As for Mexico, Central America (all the way to the Panama Canal) and Canada I think we should just step in and take them. They don't have any military to speak of, because they've relied on us for protection all these years. Also, that way all the Mexicans (who are all eventually coming here anyway) will be tax paying citizens, and we'll have a huge piece of prime real estate. If we have these countries under US rule the only border we'll have to defend is the Panama Canal, and the Bering Strait.
2006-12-17 19:24:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by baloneycurtains 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Truly you've got a dizzying mind, OP. You certainly don't have any knowledge of any of those problems you elevate. I desire I felt like coming into each and every of them extensive, however I'll simply stick with the "conflict." I'm no longer a democrat, and I'm not often one to safeguard democratic congressmen, however they deserve it while uneducated, misinformed Bill O'Reilly disciples spew what you've got repeated. On the drawback of the "conflict," the "surge" has NOT labored. When you assert each analyst concurs in this, you're misinformed. The surge offered further protection that has precipitated transitority decreases in casualties, however has instituted 0 lasting results--that's, if the ones further troops have been to be withdrawn, the affected places might just about undoubtedly go back to their pre-surge tendencies. On Barack Obama's stance on Iraq, please exhibit us a turn-flop, on account that I have not noticeable one. He has mentioned he might withdraw troops as quickly as feasible--that does not imply striking us all at the first C-130s out of Iraq as quickly as Obama takes the oath of workplace, however as an alternative as quickly as rotation out of theater may also be performed whilst briefing the more often than not Iraqi substitute protection equipment. That might be a sixteen-18 month proposition, be confident. As on your asinine announcement that "we must certainly win Iraq earlier than we will be able to combat one f," have you ever stopped to feel that there was once relatively no well intent to be in Iraq within the first position?
2016-09-03 16:56:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
19th Century Economics is Bush econmics I could care less because the pedalum will swing back to the people so they can write rules instead of the wealthy writing rules to avoid taxes. I say have fairtax reform because then neither the wealthy write the rules or the poor tax neturality is key, and people still get thier safety net goodies. Democrats should try to smoke out lobbyists period who goal not to make taxes cheaper its to aviod them and stick the taxes on the honest people. It takes 200 billion dollars to collect 1 trillion in taxes that is waste, waste, waste. I figure lower taxes makes some people turn honest, but still there will be evasion thru legal means till we go more comsumption based taxation policy. Fair tax, Fair tax just to dragnet cheaters of all income to have to pay in.
2006-12-18 04:02:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by ram456456 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Good God, what are you smoking, do you have an education? Do you read what you write. Why are you posting this incomprehensible drivel.
I admire president Bush, and I appreciate that he is willing to be a lightning rod for the future generations of our country and those of our allies, but I can't stand the thought of standing in the same room as you, or even acknowledging your ignorant presence.
Thanks for your post though, you weenie.
2006-12-17 17:20:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
WOW!!!!! execute them on the spot.... put them to work.....control the sky!!!!!! Hmmmm... you definitely sound like a Bush supporter.
It also sounds like you are in need of an education. A God fearing soul wouldn't hurt either. I am impressed that you noticed the improved economy. Thats why men like George Bush wage war... for profit. Let's not forget that this great nation you want to build a wall around is stolen. I really have pitty for people like yourself. Those that swallow the patriotic propaganda that makes them feel good about being part of a nation that murders children, mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters. I think people like yourself need to take a look at some of the real pictures and video footage of what is going on over there. Not the crap our media hands you. I don't see how anyone could justify it.
2006-12-17 15:54:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by jwplaster 4
·
0⤊
4⤋
I don't even really know how to respond to this. It's so ridiculous and so absolutely incomprehensible that I can't tell if you're joking or not. I don't think you are, so I think someone should execute you on the spot because people like you - stupid, arrogant and hypocritical - are ruining this country. I agree that we are lucky to live in America, but if we keep inbreeding morons like you, this country will only continue to become an undesirable place to live.
2006-12-17 15:39:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by alex_ginestra 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Your solution is fundamenttaly flawed. This is real life, you must be very ignorant to believe we can 'never speak to them again'. We are dealing with countries here not bullies in the playground... Your solution does indeed sound great and perfect but i'm sorry welcome to the real world
2006-12-17 22:42:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
For a person who likes Bush, you sure don't hold the same views on illegals. You've been Bush-whacked.
2006-12-17 17:06:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by The Hell With This Constitution 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I know, but American Boss Is so wrong in his habbitual
if really he is a president dont make a war
he just have a reason, that he wants kill terorrist and others
but the right he must could make a piece there.
but, actually bush want to show his power, it is ok he just wrong in trick
2006-12-17 15:37:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by RHEIN 1
·
0⤊
2⤋
Ah, yes. I love it when people with no concept of what a sentence is, or basic grammar, or can't spell "their" or "legalize" ... tell us how smart Bush is.
LMAO
2006-12-17 19:12:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by c_sense_101 2
·
0⤊
0⤋