While I believe my comprehensive plan, below, for American peace, prosperity, security and liberty would actually work, there are obviously certain details that will have to be worked out. For example, whether to use tactical nukes, or mere conventional weapons, when we bomb the Iranian military back into the stone age. (woops did I say that out loud?)
I do not claim that my plan is the only solution or even necessarily the best. But, at least I offer something other than the usual bull-headed GOP/military "Throw more bodies at the problem!" approach that isn't working. And it is a far cry from the "America is EEEEEVIL so if we just withdraw our troops the problem will go away" approach we typically hear from the left. The status quo isn't acceptable to most either, and, frankly, adjusting troop levels up or down by 20K or even 100K really doesn't change the status quo much unless those troops have a clearly identifiable enemy to fight, which they don't.
What I offer is a fresh approach. Whatever approach is taken, we need a president who can think outside the box and find bold, creative solutions rather than simply push a pre-conceived agenda. Look at Mitt Romney's proven record of problem solving, then try and tell me he's not the man for the job. He recognizes this is not about Iraq, but all of radical Islam, its sympathizers, and global freedom. And he and his staff can THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The Comprehensive Plan
I've been stewing over this for some time now. As mentioned in previous posts, China is the emerging superpower and is the real threat to our nation's security. At least the potential is there, as This report from the NY Times only seems to confirm. My solution is simple:
Develope nuclear power in the U.S. like crazy. (Like we should have been doing for the last decade, but Billary shut down federal authorization. The chump. Now we're as dependent on foreign oil as we've ever been. Yet, the trend can be reversed.) The cheap nuclear energy from the power plants can also produce clean hydrogen fuel for our cars. We will have cheap, clean, effective power, and, we won't have to compete with China for mid-eastern oil. More importantly, Jihadistan will no longer have any leverage over us. Even the Enviro-hippies should love this part of the plan; if they have lingering doubts about our ability to prevent nuclear contamination of the environment, I invite them to do their research. Suffice it to say we've come a long ways since the 60's, baby.
Place troops in friendly Kurdistan, Saudi, and Jordan. Use some of our soldiers in Iraq proper for this, and let the rest go home to their families. We've wasted enough time and money on that fallen civilization. Democracy is a noble ideal, and an acheivable one, if and only if the majority of people are ready, willing, worthy and capable of self government. Having been there, I offer as my humble opinion, with all due respect to the few Iraqi's who might be ready for self-government as well as those in the rest of the world who have faith in them, that while most Iraqis are glad we got rid of Saddam, most of them are not and probably never will be ready for democracy. They are too interested in what the mullahs say about advancing the cause of their individual factions, and will simply have to fight it out just as they have for centuries. When we withdraw, make sure as many households as possible are armed with an AK-47 and one magazine of ammo, to keep the death squads from having their way with innocent families.
Placing our troops in Kurdistan will at least fill the power vacum in that particular area. We could even help it become a country of its own, a non-jihadist ally with oil. That would piss off our NATO ally Turkey, but who cares they really don't do much for us anyhow. Our troops there and in other parts of the region will round out the balance of power and enable us to defend Israel and friendly Sunni Arab nations from Iranian-backed jihadist aggression. Iran will most likely seek to dominate what's left of Iraq, they will most likely be backed by China, who wants access to oil markets in both those countries. So be it, let them spend their resources and manpower dealing with Iraq's insurgency. See how they like it.
Be ready to invade and/or destroy Iran's military. And for that matter, ready to nuke Beijing should the need arise.
Good grief, if Amnesty International thinks the U.S. is hard on terrorists in detention camps . . . just wait until Iran and China start dealing with the feces flinging monkeys. Come to think of it, if anyone besides the U.S. commits abuse, it probably won't even get reported.
There you have it, from someone who's won a few games of RisK.
Develope nuclear power in the U.S. like crazy. (Like we should have been doing for the last decade, but Billary shut down federal authorization. The chump. Now we're as dependent on foreign oil as we've ever been. Yet, the trend can be reversed.) The cheap nuclear energy from the power plants can also produce clean hydrogen fuel for our cars. We will have cheap, clean, effective power, and, we won't have to compete with China for mid-eastern oil. More importantly, Jihadistan will no longer have any leverage over us. Even the Enviro-hippies should love this part of the plan; if they have lingering doubts about our ability to prevent nuclear contamination of the environment, I invite them to do their research. Suffice it to say we've come a long ways since the 60's, baby.
Place troops in friendly Kurdistan, Saudi, and Jordan. Use some of our soldiers in Iraq proper for this, and let the rest go home to their families. We've wasted enough time and money on that fallen civilization. Democracy is a noble ideal, and an acheivable one, if and only if the majority of people are ready, willing, worthy and capable of self government. Having been there, I offer as my humble opinion, with all due respect to the few Iraqi's who might be ready for self-government as well as those in the rest of the world who have faith in them, that while most Iraqis are glad we got rid of Saddam, most of them are not and probably never will be ready for democracy. They are too interested in what the mullahs say about advancing the cause of their individual factions, and will simply have to fight it out just as they have for centuries. When we withdraw, make sure as many households as possible are armed with an AK-47 and one magazine of ammo, to keep the death squads from having their way with innocent families.
Placing our troops in Kurdistan will at least fill the power vacum in that particular area. We could even help it become a country of its own, a non-jihadist ally with oil. That would piss off our NATO ally Turkey, but who cares they really don't do much for us anyhow. Our troops there and in other parts of the region will round out the balance of power and enable us to defend Israel and friendly Sunni Arab nations from Iranian-backed jihadist aggression. Iran will most likely seek to dominate what's left of Iraq, they will most likely be backed by China, who wants access to oil markets in both those countries. So be it, let them spend their resources and manpower dealing with Iraq's insurgency. See how they like it.
Be ready to invade and/or destroy Iran's military. And for that matter, ready to nuke Beijing should the need arise.
Good grief, if Amnesty International thinks the U.S. is hard on terrorists in detention camps . . . just wait until Iran and China start dealing with the feces flinging monkeys. Come to think of it, if anyone besides the U.S. commits abuse, it probably won't even get reported.
There you have it, from someone who's won a few games of RisK.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Gospel of John Moses Browning
Hallelujah. I'm surprised I didn't discover this excerpt from the Holy Writ sooner. It is now one of the few sites linked on my blogrole of Worthy Websites. I guarantee I will not put anything on the blogrole not worthwhile, at least to my way of thinking. (Which, incidentally, is the correct way of thinking!) This should keep it small enough that one can check everything out and avoid randomly surfing through a bunch of baloney.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Vehicular Image Dilema
Yesterday I purchased, for my growing family, a 1984 VW Bus. There it was on the corner with a for sale sign, it test drove really nice, and I got the guy selling it down from $1500 to $1000. Done. We'll soon need something with seating for 7 anyhow, but the REAL reason I chose this particular vehicle is because it handles and drives so darn well. The Germans really know how to make a smooth, stable, well mannered van that handles winding roads like a car. I like the clean efficient styling. I like the close ratio 4-speed. I like how it feels huge inside even though it's just the size of a mini-van outside.
There is only one catch. The VW Bus is the classic, iconic, legendary "hippie ride." I have nothing personal against hippies; mainly just the welfare-state policies they are often known to endorse. Yet driving a VW Bus, highly enjoyable from a "fahrfegnooogen" or whatever standpoint, sticks in my craw as an affront to the American values I hold dear. Like burning twice as much gasoline with room enough for only 3 passengers, while causing erosion on backcountry roads in my old V8 powered GMC 4x4 truck, displaying EVIL assault rifles in the rear window. You get the idea.
Not that image matters near as much as what's inside, but how do I temper the potential "Euro-loving environmentalist, U.N. supporting socialist suckweasel" image of this ride with the true, all-American, "live free or die" attitude of my inner persona?
Maybe some big knobby tires and a gun rack? Any other ideas? Anyone?
There is only one catch. The VW Bus is the classic, iconic, legendary "hippie ride." I have nothing personal against hippies; mainly just the welfare-state policies they are often known to endorse. Yet driving a VW Bus, highly enjoyable from a "fahrfegnooogen" or whatever standpoint, sticks in my craw as an affront to the American values I hold dear. Like burning twice as much gasoline with room enough for only 3 passengers, while causing erosion on backcountry roads in my old V8 powered GMC 4x4 truck, displaying EVIL assault rifles in the rear window. You get the idea.
Not that image matters near as much as what's inside, but how do I temper the potential "Euro-loving environmentalist, U.N. supporting socialist suckweasel" image of this ride with the true, all-American, "live free or die" attitude of my inner persona?
Maybe some big knobby tires and a gun rack? Any other ideas? Anyone?
Monday, January 15, 2007
Mitt at the Gun Show
Mitt Romney, apparently a regular reader of this blog, made his appearance at a gun/outdoor show in Florida last Friday, a gesture most certainly in response to my aforementioned concerns regarding his position on the 2nd amendment. Thank you Mitt, and thanks to Rob for the link!
He made the usual remarks about supporting the individual's right to bear arms, somewhat in contradiction to his statement just a few years ago in favor of tough gun laws. The nay-sayers will almost certainly flaunt this as a flip flop (remember Kerry posing with a shotgun in 2004? what a croc!) yet I am optimistic he will be true to the constituencey that elects him president.
A politician is a human being just like everyone else, and, as such, ought to be capable of learning and gaining understanding as life's experience unfolds. While Kerry's exibition with the shotgun in 2004 was obviously to mask his truly rabid anti-gun position, Romney's remarks at the recent gunshow were, I believe, representative of his true beliefs and the position he will actually take as president. Most people change over time, often for the better; to allow ourselves to improve with time while denying politicians the same priviledge is hypocritical at best.
Romney's statements in his 1994 race against Senator Ted "bleedingest heart of them all" Kennedy, on gun control, gay rights, abortion, etc. were generally tailored to show his willingness to meet the desires of liberal Massachussetts without his personal beliefs interfering. While his political stance may have been more moderate then than now, I can't think of a single thinking person who feels exactly the same on every issue as they did back in '94. A lot has happened since then to change the political landscape, notably, many of us have seen the folly of "political correctness" and reliance on government for safety and economic security. We are going back to the core values that made America great to begin with, namely: fiscal responsibility, national security as opposed to social security, self reliance, and traditional families.
He made the usual remarks about supporting the individual's right to bear arms, somewhat in contradiction to his statement just a few years ago in favor of tough gun laws. The nay-sayers will almost certainly flaunt this as a flip flop (remember Kerry posing with a shotgun in 2004? what a croc!) yet I am optimistic he will be true to the constituencey that elects him president.
A politician is a human being just like everyone else, and, as such, ought to be capable of learning and gaining understanding as life's experience unfolds. While Kerry's exibition with the shotgun in 2004 was obviously to mask his truly rabid anti-gun position, Romney's remarks at the recent gunshow were, I believe, representative of his true beliefs and the position he will actually take as president. Most people change over time, often for the better; to allow ourselves to improve with time while denying politicians the same priviledge is hypocritical at best.
Romney's statements in his 1994 race against Senator Ted "bleedingest heart of them all" Kennedy, on gun control, gay rights, abortion, etc. were generally tailored to show his willingness to meet the desires of liberal Massachussetts without his personal beliefs interfering. While his political stance may have been more moderate then than now, I can't think of a single thinking person who feels exactly the same on every issue as they did back in '94. A lot has happened since then to change the political landscape, notably, many of us have seen the folly of "political correctness" and reliance on government for safety and economic security. We are going back to the core values that made America great to begin with, namely: fiscal responsibility, national security as opposed to social security, self reliance, and traditional families.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Is Mitt Romney anti-gun?
Mitt comes across as a powerful candidate, exceptional leader, and a very good man. I deeply appreciate his stance on reducing government spending, the importance of traditional families, limiting abortion, and dealing with illegal immigrants and terrorists. But if he genuinely opposes ownership of militia type firearms by law-abiding citizens, I'd rather not support him no matter how correct he is on other issues.
Politicians who don't trust law-abiding citizens with weapons cannot be trusted themselves. When citizens arm themselves, it is not a politician's job to try and limit the activity. It is his obligation to stay out of the way, and perhaps ask himself, "what is our goverment doing that might cause citizens to want to take up arms?" (Waco and Ruby Ridge come to mind, along with Congress' ineptness at securing our southern border.)
July 1st, 2002 Mitt Romney signed a permanent ban on Assault Weapons. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
The above was reported by the AP, among other quasi-reliable sources. One can only hope Romney merely made the statement out of fear that his approval rating in Massachusetts would plummet if he failed to endorse the foul legislation. I'm still looking for more info on this. It doesn't look too good either way.
Mitt: if you actually studied the facts, you would know that these "instruments of destruction" are less powerful and less accurate than the average deer rifle, and are used in only one percent of all crimes committed with guns. In fact, they prevented a lot of looting and crime during disasters like the L.A. riots and Katrina. These so called "assault rifles," although they do not fire full auto, resemble military weapons in appearance and that is the main reason gun banners target them. Yet it is most often the appearance of these weapons, and rarely if ever thier bullets, that is needed to make them effective as defensive tools. The gun-hating socialist nannies simply cannot stomach the idea of citizens actually being able to protect themselves and their property, because they want us to depend on government for everything.
Mitt, back in 1775 when the British went on a little expedition to disarm local farmers, we ran them back to Boston, and out of the state within a year. Massachussetts' current residents just don't seem to appreciate this lesson, but those of us in most other states do. If you're elected President, and support a national assault weapons ban, rest assured you will not serve a second term. Remember what happened to the House in 1994. We are many, we are armed . . . and we vote.
Politicians who don't trust law-abiding citizens with weapons cannot be trusted themselves. When citizens arm themselves, it is not a politician's job to try and limit the activity. It is his obligation to stay out of the way, and perhaps ask himself, "what is our goverment doing that might cause citizens to want to take up arms?" (Waco and Ruby Ridge come to mind, along with Congress' ineptness at securing our southern border.)
July 1st, 2002 Mitt Romney signed a permanent ban on Assault Weapons. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
The above was reported by the AP, among other quasi-reliable sources. One can only hope Romney merely made the statement out of fear that his approval rating in Massachusetts would plummet if he failed to endorse the foul legislation. I'm still looking for more info on this. It doesn't look too good either way.
Mitt: if you actually studied the facts, you would know that these "instruments of destruction" are less powerful and less accurate than the average deer rifle, and are used in only one percent of all crimes committed with guns. In fact, they prevented a lot of looting and crime during disasters like the L.A. riots and Katrina. These so called "assault rifles," although they do not fire full auto, resemble military weapons in appearance and that is the main reason gun banners target them. Yet it is most often the appearance of these weapons, and rarely if ever thier bullets, that is needed to make them effective as defensive tools. The gun-hating socialist nannies simply cannot stomach the idea of citizens actually being able to protect themselves and their property, because they want us to depend on government for everything.
Mitt, back in 1775 when the British went on a little expedition to disarm local farmers, we ran them back to Boston, and out of the state within a year. Massachussetts' current residents just don't seem to appreciate this lesson, but those of us in most other states do. If you're elected President, and support a national assault weapons ban, rest assured you will not serve a second term. Remember what happened to the House in 1994. We are many, we are armed . . . and we vote.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Back to the Grind
Well the break is over and I'm back for my final semester of school. There is light at the end of the tunnel!
Christmas Eve and Christmas Day were sacred at our house. This was the first Christmas in 3 years for which I was home for most of the season rather than gone with the Army, and seeing my kids anticipation ever since Thanksgiving was wonderful. Shortly after Christmas Day I drove my little family down to Utah and stayed with extended family through New Year's, all in all a wonderful trip other than a run-in with the flu.
I (obviously) took a break from posting as well. It will be interesting to see what socialist schemes the new Demon-crat controlled congress comes up with now that they're in session. Ugh. I'd rather focus on polishing the striker sear and trigger hinge assembly on a K-98 Mauser rifle to achieve a crisp two-stage pull, which I did with great satisfaction over the weekend.
Unless I start getting some comments, posting might become less and less frequent. A penny for anyone's thoughts?
Christmas Eve and Christmas Day were sacred at our house. This was the first Christmas in 3 years for which I was home for most of the season rather than gone with the Army, and seeing my kids anticipation ever since Thanksgiving was wonderful. Shortly after Christmas Day I drove my little family down to Utah and stayed with extended family through New Year's, all in all a wonderful trip other than a run-in with the flu.
I (obviously) took a break from posting as well. It will be interesting to see what socialist schemes the new Demon-crat controlled congress comes up with now that they're in session. Ugh. I'd rather focus on polishing the striker sear and trigger hinge assembly on a K-98 Mauser rifle to achieve a crisp two-stage pull, which I did with great satisfaction over the weekend.
Unless I start getting some comments, posting might become less and less frequent. A penny for anyone's thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)