English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

4 answers

One way I can think of is to release the two people who were trying to protect our border and got put in the hole for "possibly" shooting a drug lord in the a**. They are trying to keep us from protecting our own country. I think we should close our borders to anyone coming in (except of course Americans) until we get a handle on illegals coming in and causing pandemonium.

2007-05-02 06:42:08 · answer #1 · answered by clbinmo 6 · 0 0

From a strictly military perspective, read Admiral Mahan. The sea is an open plain, sea powers can move anywhere on that pain, the country that is dominant on the oceans can control the land mass.

But a single country, like the United States, is no longer able to be a dominant power — it is as much beyond the capability of a single power as it was possible for the barons to survive once gunpowder and he printing press arrived and were used to create national states.

We need a core unification of a number of coutnries with a good tradition to work together as if they were one while the world goes through the awesome and difficult transition.

Recently, there have been the beginning of proposals to create a new core alliance of democratic countries sharing similiar backgrounds and vallues — the Anglosphere. Britain, the U.S., stable states that were among the British Dominions — Canada, Australia, New Zealand — and countries that are close to these in approach and attitude such as India and Japan. Recently (last few months) Japan has linked in defensive agreements with both India and Australia. These countries have a common interest — their own basic survival and the perpetuation of their basic values and way of life.

The strategic expression of such an alliance would be a unified and stabilizing seapower. This would mainly act as a deterrent and influence. However, if there were a need to respond it would and should be based on major unified strategic strikes (punitive if necessary) endorsed by diplomatic weight in world forums (where possible) and avoiding periods of occupation which only expose troops to the crude power of the most backward parts of the earth.

Neither Mahan nor the strategists of the incipient Anglosphere believed in stupid blundering, but they also do not believe in a notion of fairness and "gentlemen's rules" when you are playiing hardball with thugs who have no scuples whatsoever about massacaring anyone they can get close to.

2007-05-02 20:53:37 · answer #2 · answered by silvcslt 4 · 0 0

America, since before the framing of the constitution, has made a conscious decision to put the liberty of it's people before the cause of 'National Security.' Globalization doesn't much change that.

2007-05-02 13:37:51 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0 0

American's need to take thier country back.

2007-05-02 13:37:25 · answer #4 · answered by jeb black 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers