Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Let's Say You're The President

SANITY
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 9:26:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let"s say you"re the President.

What are you gonna do about ISIS/ISIL in Iraq? What are you gonna do about the Russians and the Ukraine? How about the southern United States border? What would you do about that?

On political forums there"s mostly criticism of the leftist when they"re in office by the right and criticism of the rightist when they"re in office by the left. Criticism is always oh so easy to put out, but actually having a rational [b]"SOLUTION"[/b] for the issues that are being criticized is a whole different animal.

So let"s see how many folks on this forum actually have rational solutions for the most urgent issues.

So now you"re the President, whatchagonnado?
"There's a sucker born every minute."
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 10:06:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 9:26:42 AM, SANITY wrote:
Let"s say you"re the President.

What are you gonna do about ISIS/ISIL in Iraq?

Continue targeted air strikes on ISIS targets. Send more arms to the Kurds, coordinate intelligence sharing with the Kurds as well. Work with France to coordinate a ground occupation to reclaim territories and key infrastructure seized by ISIS. Deploy humanitarian workers to construct temporary shelters for those refugees displaced by ISIS in Iraq. I would also freeze all US held assets of groups linked to ISIS, and impose biting sanctions on those Gulf states which are sponsoring ISIS.

I would try to coordinate with Tehran on this as well, because in ISIS we have a common enemy -and doing so could lay the foundation for less hostile relations between the United States and Iran in the future.

Basically, I want to accomplish two things: prevent ISIS militants from establishing their own Islamic caliphate, and remediate the extant humanitarian crisis while preventing further innocent loss of life.

What are you gonna do about the Russians and the Ukraine?

Continue to impose sanctions; avoid war in Western Europe at all costs. The situation is pretty complicated, though, but I think that if Putin doesn't invade Ukraine by October, he's not going too.

Right now, Putin's got a window of opportunity between when his newest class of Russian infantrymen complete their training (which will be at the end of this month) and the winter. That basically gives him September and October to accomplish everything he wants to accomplish, because launching a military campaign in winter is a fool's errand. But, he's also got to complete everything he wants to complete by -at the latest- mid-November, for the same reason.

To the extent that Putin perceives the rebels to be losing ground against the Ukrainian government, the risk of a Russian invasion in Ukraine is amplified. So, I also want to be sure that the Ukrainian government doesn't go too far... but at the same time I'd coordinate intelligence sharing with the Ukrainian military so that they could bomb some key areas -like where the rebels keep their Buk anti-aircraft missile systems.

My goal here is to keep the situation from developing into war in Europe, more than anything else. While it would be nice to work with the Ukrainians to launch a series of coordinated strikes that would virtually eliminate the Rebel presence, doing that would tear Ukraine in half and would basically make Ukraine into an indefinite war zone for the foreseeable future. That would also profoundly increase the chances that Putin would invade, especially now, as this is his golden window of opportunity. But right now, I just want winter to come and pass to cool off (literally and metaphorically) the situation.

How about the southern United States border? What would you do about that?

Tend to the needs of all the immigrants detained at the border, grant them expedited citizenship, attempt to find foster families for unaccompanied minors and begin work on immigration reform to ease the process of gaining citizenship to the United States. This is the easiest problem to fix, though the solution I'm talking about (even though it's the right thing to do) is highly politically contentious.

On political forums there"s mostly criticism of the leftist when they"re in office by the right and criticism of the rightist when they"re in office by the left. Criticism is always oh so easy to put out, but actually having a rational [b]"SOLUTION"[/b] for the issues that are being criticized is a whole different animal.

So let"s see how many folks on this forum actually have rational solutions for the most urgent issues.

So now you"re the President, whatchagonnado?
Tsar of DDO
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 11:09:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 9:26:42 AM, SANITY wrote:
Let"s say you"re the President.

What are you gonna do about ISIS/ISIL in Iraq?

Keep using airstrikes and drones whilst training the locals to eventually take care of themselves. I know it would take a while, but I imagine it might be cheaper in the long run.

What are you gonna do about the Russians and the Ukraine?

I don't know. I'm not very informed on the situation.

How about the southern United States border? What would you do about that?
1. Complete the border fence
2. Electrify the fence.
3. Offer Border patrol jobs to military vets/ Post national guard/ Activate military reserves.
4. Change the law so that illegals are released in their own country, rather than ours.
5. Only after the 4 above are fulfilled and the net flow of illegals here is 0 and remains that way, grant amnesty to the illegals living here as long as they learn english and have a job.

On political forums there"s mostly criticism of the leftist when they"re in office by the right and criticism of the rightist when they"re in office by the left. Criticism is always oh so easy to put out, but actually having a rational [b]"SOLUTION"[/b] for the issues that are being criticized is a whole different animal.

So let"s see how many folks on this forum actually have rational solutions for the most urgent issues.

So now you"re the President, whatchagonnado?
SANITY
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 6:20:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:09:55 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 8/18/2014 9:26:42 AM, SANITY wrote:
Let"s say you"re the President.

What are you gonna do about ISIS/ISIL in Iraq?

Keep using airstrikes and drones whilst training the locals to eventually take care of themselves. I know it would take a while, but I imagine it might be cheaper in the long run.[/quote]

By what authority do you as President commit those acts of war? Only the Congress has the power to declare war.
"There's a sucker born every minute."
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 6:47:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd leave ISIS alone and deal with illegal immigration by cracking down on employers who hire illegals and pay them less than minimum wage. I think that would be more cost effective and better than building a border fence.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 6:51:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd have a non interventionist foreign policy, which should clear up any questions you have in regards to that.

Honestly though, my first priority as president would be to reduce the amount of power my office has.

Congress keeps granting the president more power/powers and I think it's just asking for trouble.

It's as if both parties when they are in power are too stupid to realize, they won't always be in power.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 7:54:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 6:20:05 AM, SANITY wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:09:55 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 8/18/2014 9:26:42 AM, SANITY wrote:
Let"s say you"re the President.

What are you gonna do about ISIS/ISIL in Iraq?

Keep using airstrikes and drones whilst training the locals to eventually take care of themselves. I know it would take a while, but I imagine it might be cheaper in the long run.[/quote]

By what authority do you as President commit those acts of war? Only the Congress has the power to declare war.

I don't think airstrikes against ISIS count as acts of war. And I never said declare war. We're stationed over there in the middle of Iraq anyway and we're not attacking the government itself.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 7:55:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 6:47:31 AM, Wylted wrote:
I'd leave ISIS alone and deal with illegal immigration by cracking down on employers who hire illegals and pay them less than minimum wage. I think that would be more cost effective and better than building a border fence.

That's a good idea as well.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:41:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 6:47:31 AM, Wylted wrote:
I'd leave ISIS alone

And allow them to continue to kill christians and Yazidis en masse, while establishing their own terrorist state under the heading of an Islamic caliphate? That is what leaving them alone will result in.

and deal with illegal immigration by cracking down on employers who hire illegals and pay them less than minimum wage. I think that would be more cost effective and better than building a border fence.
Tsar of DDO
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:43:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 9:41:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:47:31 AM, Wylted wrote:
I'd leave ISIS alone

And allow them to continue to kill christians and Yazidis en masse, while establishing their own terrorist state under the heading of an Islamic caliphate? That is what leaving them alone will result in.

Yep


and deal with illegal immigration by cracking down on employers who hire illegals and pay them less than minimum wage. I think that would be more cost effective and better than building a border fence.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 9:58:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
ISIS - Assist those in the area who oppose ISIS to battle them via weapons and intel. It is not our fight, I would not go beyond that until ISIS actually threatens the home land. The idea is that we have been at it for almost two decades trying to stamp out radical islam. It can't be done via war, period.

Russia - pretty much what we are doing. I would not risk getting in a war with Russia. The Ukraine is not worth it.

Illegal immigration: Enact policies that take out the economic benefit of sneaking into the US. IE: low wage via program. Those here get first dibs at getting a work visa. Actively police businesses that hire non-citizens that don't have the proper visa and make the penalty so high that a company intent fully hiring illegals is not a feasible company. Fundamentally, get legit peoples in the low wage jobs and there is no reason to come over illegally. We already saw this when the recession hit. People don't come across if they have no hope of earning a livelihood.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 1:39:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 7:55:13 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:47:31 AM, Wylted wrote:
I'd leave ISIS alone and deal with illegal immigration by cracking down on employers who hire illegals and pay them less than minimum wage. I think that would be more cost effective and better than building a border fence.

That's a good idea as well.

eliminating minimum wage could also hurt illegal immigrants.
SANITY
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 9:41:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 7:54:30 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:20:05 AM, SANITY wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:09:55 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 8/18/2014 9:26:42 AM, SANITY wrote:
Let"s say you"re the President.

What are you gonna do about ISIS/ISIL in Iraq?

Keep using airstrikes and drones whilst training the locals to eventually take care of themselves. I know it would take a while, but I imagine it might be cheaper in the long run.[/quote]

By what authority do you as President commit those acts of war? Only the Congress has the power to declare war.

I don't think airstrikes against ISIS count as acts of war. And I never said declare war. We're stationed over there in the middle of Iraq anyway and we're not attacking the government itself.

Why isn't aggressive military power an act of war? If it looks like a war, sounds like a war and quacks like a war, why isn't it a war?
"There's a sucker born every minute."
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 2:02:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 9:41:24 AM, SANITY wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:54:30 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:20:05 AM, SANITY wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:09:55 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 8/18/2014 9:26:42 AM, SANITY wrote:
Let"s say you"re the President.

What are you gonna do about ISIS/ISIL in Iraq?

Keep using airstrikes and drones whilst training the locals to eventually take care of themselves. I know it would take a while, but I imagine it might be cheaper in the long run.[/quote]

By what authority do you as President commit those acts of war? Only the Congress has the power to declare war.

I don't think airstrikes against ISIS count as acts of war. And I never said declare war. We're stationed over there in the middle of Iraq anyway and we're not attacking the government itself.

Why isn't aggressive military power an act of war? If it looks like a war, sounds like a war and quacks like a war, why isn't it a war?

The president has full and complete authority to command any act of war. The congress does not have to declare war in order for it to be authorized. Congress has not declared war since WWII, yet our military has been in conflicts around that globe many times since then. The US military is not democratic in the slightest; our founding fathers made it that way intentionally.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 3:31:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 9:26:42 AM, SANITY wrote:
Let"s say you"re the President.

What are you gonna do about ISIS/ISIL in Iraq? What are you gonna do about the Russians and the Ukraine? How about the southern United States border? What would you do about that?

On political forums there"s mostly criticism of the leftist when they"re in office by the right and criticism of the rightist when they"re in office by the left. Criticism is always oh so easy to put out, but actually having a rational [b]"SOLUTION"[/b] for the issues that are being criticized is a whole different animal.

So let"s see how many folks on this forum actually have rational solutions for the most urgent issues.

So now you"re the President, whatchagonnado?

My friend, please allow me to offer my perspective.

My first order as President, would be to repeal prohibition and push for a defunding of the DEA. Following this, I would partner the US military with the central American governments which were formerly our "communist" opponents, by lifting sanctions on the condition US troops will be employed to route and destabilize the drug cartels and their drug industries.

This policing action would last the entirety of my Presidency, hopefully 8 years, and would repurpose all funds previously sent as foreign aid, by directing it toward the Army Corps of Engineers. They would build infrastructure as the regions become more stable.

I would issue tax credits for any household which practiced a personally sustainable agriculture effort.

Now, on to less domestic foreign policy.

I would not engage ISIS using US troops. I would "encourage" by threat of reduction in aid, the neighboring regions to take apart the ISIS "nation" region by region.

I would write Syria off as a vassal of Russia, but put so much pressure on the ISIS group via Turkey, Israel Egypt and Iran, (and the Kurds), that they would likely solidify power in eastern Syria, where they would be more Assad and Russia's problem than America's.

I would allow Israel to have free reign over any lands they can seize from ISIS, including lands withing Syria's borders, if Israel is willing to take that risk. (doubtful, but depends on their administration.)

I would encourage the Saudis to take action, but who knows what they will do. But you take some gambles in foreign policy.

As to the Russian and Ukraine issues. There is no simple solution to this save for outright war, and I do not feel that would benefit anyone.

Russia wants access to a warm water port that is close to home, this is a reasonable necessity. However Russia went about ensuring this by subverting the electoral process of Ukraine. The people ousted the Russians and now Putin wants to punish them.

Sanctions are the right first step, but the US has a dire need to drastically limit the NSA spying program on domestic individuals, and couple this with a promise of amnesty for Edward Snowden.

Once this has been done, the White House should offer financial aid the to Ukrainian government, but only if the government uses the funds to employ non-american affiliated PMC organizations in their war against the separatists.

This would do one of two things.

Force Putin to commit more resources (likely openly) toward the rebels, which would further alienate Russia. OR it would force Putin to employ a similar tactic, (still overtly), which would further drain the Russian coffers, and solidify the west against Russian aggression.

I would encourage, through the use of tax breaks and the waiving of export fees, the LNG industry of the southern half of America to begin exporting mass amounts of LNG to Europe, which I would encourage the companies to sell with minimal markup, to the governments of Europe, to ensure they are energy independent from Russia, further damaging Russia's coffers.

I would ignore congress, and bomb the living hell out of northeastern Syria. Focusing heavily on supply lines leading toward Armenia, taking away another route Russia utilizes for import/export.

There are a number of moves I would make in Asia, to solidify relations with China, and form more partnerships between the world's two most powerful nations. China and America should be friends, as we have similar hegemonic approaches.

As for American domestic policy, specifically the border "crisis": Every child who is unaccompanied will receive a fast-track to citizenship, which includes intensive, small class-size education initiatives.

I would not put the unaccompanied children directly into social services, but rather would put them in "academies", where they would learn the most basic necessities of living in America. Many of the things most Americans are ignorant of.

By going through the gauntlet of central America, these children have earned the right to stay, and there is no reason to send them away. The total cost is negligible for caring for these children, compared to a single subsidy paid to oil companies every year.

I would ask, publicly, and loudly, the iconic texas based oil companies to give up a SINGLE YEAR of subsidies, as charity, to help protect these children.

That would be well over $100 million if even a SINGLE company agreed for PR purposes.

For the record, the US government gives about $775 billion to perhaps $1 trillion annually in subsidies to oil companies. Annual meaning YEARLY.

If we stopped subsidizing big oil for 17 years, the debt would be gone. Think about that.

This agreement would be on the condition their price per barrel did not increase to compensate for their donation. It's not charity if you're taking it out of the peoples' pockets.

The migrant children would be educated until the age of 18, or until their adoption, at that point, they would enter the workforce, through a government procurement center, which fills private employment requests with workers who are seeking employment.

Why the past administrations failed to institute, on a large scale, similar organizations is beyond me.

Following this simple legislative action, and the subsequent pacification of the drug cartels, I would pull all US troops out of central America, and would establish manufacturing intensive trade deals with the governments and industries of those nations. (with a focus on the worker and their wages).

Once our house in in order, we can again turn our eyes on the rest of the world. And crush any foreign threats before they become actual threats.

The middle east, Russia and even China would have much to fear from angering the entirety of north and south America, if we joined in a true alliance, econimically as well as militarily.

And all it would take is to repeal drug laws, and help the governments and the people take their nations back from the criminals.

Many would die, but most of them would be those who helped ruin nations. Texas would struggle for 8 years due to the refugees from the combat, but, honestly, screw Texas. They are part of the problem, and will benefit most in the long-run, despite their lack of foresight on these and other matters.

So those are a few things I would do. Not all, to be sure, and I haven't explored the nuances of some of the more overt foreign policy actions, due to space constraints.

I would happily expound on these ideas with anyone who wishes to send me a message.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 10:16:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 9:41:24 AM, SANITY wrote:
At 8/19/2014 7:54:30 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 8/19/2014 6:20:05 AM, SANITY wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:09:55 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 8/18/2014 9:26:42 AM, SANITY wrote:
Let"s say you"re the President.

What are you gonna do about ISIS/ISIL in Iraq?

Keep using airstrikes and drones whilst training the locals to eventually take care of themselves. I know it would take a while, but I imagine it might be cheaper in the long run.[/quote]

By what authority do you as President commit those acts of war? Only the Congress has the power to declare war.

I don't think airstrikes against ISIS count as acts of war. And I never said declare war. We're stationed over there in the middle of Iraq anyway and we're not attacking the government itself.

Why isn't aggressive military power an act of war? If it looks like a war, sounds like a war and quacks like a war, why isn't it a war?

Because last I checked, Isis isn't a formal government. Therefore, we aren't engaging in war. At least not by the definitions we use. But I could be wrong.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 10:19:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 3:31:07 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/18/2014 9:26:42 AM, SANITY wrote:
Let"s say you"re the President.

What are you gonna do about ISIS/ISIL in Iraq? What are you gonna do about the Russians and the Ukraine? How about the southern United States border? What would you do about that?

On political forums there"s mostly criticism of the leftist when they"re in office by the right and criticism of the rightist when they"re in office by the left. Criticism is always oh so easy to put out, but actually having a rational [b]"SOLUTION"[/b] for the issues that are being criticized is a whole different animal.

So let"s see how many folks on this forum actually have rational solutions for the most urgent issues.

So now you"re the President, whatchagonnado?


My friend, please allow me to offer my perspective.

My first order as President, would be to repeal prohibition and push for a defunding of the DEA. Following this, I would partner the US military with the central American governments which were formerly our "communist" opponents, by lifting sanctions on the condition US troops will be employed to route and destabilize the drug cartels and their drug industries.

This policing action would last the entirety of my Presidency, hopefully 8 years, and would repurpose all funds previously sent as foreign aid, by directing it toward the Army Corps of Engineers. They would build infrastructure as the regions become more stable.

I would issue tax credits for any household which practiced a personally sustainable agriculture effort.

Now, on to less domestic foreign policy.

I would not engage ISIS using US troops. I would "encourage" by threat of reduction in aid, the neighboring regions to take apart the ISIS "nation" region by region.

I would write Syria off as a vassal of Russia, but put so much pressure on the ISIS group via Turkey, Israel Egypt and Iran, (and the Kurds), that they would likely solidify power in eastern Syria, where they would be more Assad and Russia's problem than America's.

I would allow Israel to have free reign over any lands they can seize from ISIS, including lands withing Syria's borders, if Israel is willing to take that risk. (doubtful, but depends on their administration.)

I would encourage the Saudis to take action, but who knows what they will do. But you take some gambles in foreign policy.



As to the Russian and Ukraine issues. There is no simple solution to this save for outright war, and I do not feel that would benefit anyone.

Russia wants access to a warm water port that is close to home, this is a reasonable necessity. However Russia went about ensuring this by subverting the electoral process of Ukraine. The people ousted the Russians and now Putin wants to punish them.

Sanctions are the right first step, but the US has a dire need to drastically limit the NSA spying program on domestic individuals, and couple this with a promise of amnesty for Edward Snowden.

Once this has been done, the White House should offer financial aid the to Ukrainian government, but only if the government uses the funds to employ non-american affiliated PMC organizations in their war against the separatists.

This would do one of two things.

Force Putin to commit more resources (likely openly) toward the rebels, which would further alienate Russia. OR it would force Putin to employ a similar tactic, (still overtly), which would further drain the Russian coffers, and solidify the west against Russian aggression.

I would encourage, through the use of tax breaks and the waiving of export fees, the LNG industry of the southern half of America to begin exporting mass amounts of LNG to Europe, which I would encourage the companies to sell with minimal markup, to the governments of Europe, to ensure they are energy independent from Russia, further damaging Russia's coffers.

I would ignore congress, and bomb the living hell out of northeastern Syria. Focusing heavily on supply lines leading toward Armenia, taking away another route Russia utilizes for import/export.

There are a number of moves I would make in Asia, to solidify relations with China, and form more partnerships between the world's two most powerful nations. China and America should be friends, as we have similar hegemonic approaches.



As for American domestic policy, specifically the border "crisis": Every child who is unaccompanied will receive a fast-track to citizenship, which includes intensive, small class-size education initiatives.

I would not put the unaccompanied children directly into social services, but rather would put them in "academies", where they would learn the most basic necessities of living in America. Many of the things most Americans are ignorant of.

By going through the gauntlet of central America, these children have earned the right to stay, and there is no reason to send them away. The total cost is negligible for caring for these children, compared to a single subsidy paid to oil companies every year.

I would ask, publicly, and loudly, the iconic texas based oil companies to give up a SINGLE YEAR of subsidies, as charity, to help protect these children.

That would be well over $100 million if even a SINGLE company agreed for PR purposes.

For the record, the US government gives about $775 billion to perhaps $1 trillion annually in subsidies to oil companies. Annual meaning YEARLY.

If we stopped subsidizing big oil for 17 years, the debt would be gone. Think about that.

This agreement would be on the condition their price per barrel did not increase to compensate for their donation. It's not charity if you're taking it out of the peoples' pockets.

The migrant children would be educated until the age of 18, or until their adoption, at that point, they would enter the workforce, through a government procurement center, which fills private employment requests with workers who are seeking employment.

Why the past administrations failed to institute, on a large scale, similar organizations is beyond me.

Following this simple legislative action, and the subsequent pacification of the drug cartels, I would pull all US troops out of central America, and would establish manufacturing intensive trade deals with the governments and industries of those nations. (with a focus on the worker and their wages).

Once our house in in order, we can again turn our eyes on the rest of the world. And crush any foreign threats before they become actual threats.

The middle east, Russia and even China would have much to fear from angering the entirety of north and south America, if we joined in a true alliance, econimically as well as militarily.

And all it would take is to repeal drug laws, and help the governments and the people take their nations back from the criminals.

Many would die, but most of them would be those who helped ruin nations. Texas would struggle for 8 years due to the refugees from the combat, but, honestly, screw Texas. They are part of the problem, and will benefit most in the long-run, despite their lack of foresight on these and other matters.

So those are a few things I would do. Not all, to be sure, and I haven't explored the nuances of some of the more overt foreign policy actions, due to space constraints.

I would happily expound on these ideas with anyone who wishes to send me a message.

How is Texas part of the problem"".
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 9:05:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let"s say you"re the President.

What are you gonna do about ISIS/ISIL in Iraq? What are you gonna do about the Russians and the Ukraine? How about the southern United States border? What would you do about that?

On political forums there"s mostly criticism of the leftist when they"re in office by the right and criticism of the rightist when they"re in office by the left. Criticism is always oh so easy to put out, but actually having a rational [b]"SOLUTION"[/b] for the issues that are being criticized is a whole different animal.

So let"s see how many folks on this forum actually have rational solutions for the most urgent issues.

So now you"re the President, whatchagonnado?


My friend, please allow me to offer my perspective.

My first order as President, would be to repeal prohibition and push for a defunding of the DEA. Following this, I would partner the US military with the central American governments which were formerly our "communist" opponents, by lifting sanctions on the condition US troops will be employed to route and destabilize the drug cartels and their drug industries.

This policing action would last the entirety of my Presidency, hopefully 8 years, and would repurpose all funds previously sent as foreign aid, by directing it toward the Army Corps of Engineers. They would build infrastructure as the regions become more stable.

I would issue tax credits for any household which practiced a personally sustainable agriculture effort.

Now, on to less domestic foreign policy.

I would not engage ISIS using US troops. I would "encourage" by threat of reduction in aid, the neighboring regions to take apart the ISIS "nation" region by region.

I would write Syria off as a vassal of Russia, but put so much pressure on the ISIS group via Turkey, Israel Egypt and Iran, (and the Kurds), that they would likely solidify power in eastern Syria, where they would be more Assad and Russia's problem than America's.

I would allow Israel to have free reign over any lands they can seize from ISIS, including lands withing Syria's borders, if Israel is willing to take that risk. (doubtful, but depends on their administration.)

I would encourage the Saudis to take action, but who knows what they will do. But you take some gambles in foreign policy.



As to the Russian and Ukraine issues. There is no simple solution to this save for outright war, and I do not feel that would benefit anyone.

Russia wants access to a warm water port that is close to home, this is a reasonable necessity. However Russia went about ensuring this by subverting the electoral process of Ukraine. The people ousted the Russians and now Putin wants to punish them.

Sanctions are the right first step, but the US has a dire need to drastically limit the NSA spying program on domestic individuals, and couple this with a promise of amnesty for Edward Snowden.

Once this has been done, the White House should offer financial aid the to Ukrainian government, but only if the government uses the funds to employ non-american affiliated PMC organizations in their war against the separatists.

This would do one of two things.

Force Putin to commit more resources (likely openly) toward the rebels, which would further alienate Russia. OR it would force Putin to employ a similar tactic, (still overtly), which would further drain the Russian coffers, and solidify the west against Russian aggression.

I would encourage, through the use of tax breaks and the waiving of export fees, the LNG industry of the southern half of America to begin exporting mass amounts of LNG to Europe, which I would encourage the companies to sell with minimal markup, to the governments of Europe, to ensure they are energy independent from Russia, further damaging Russia's coffers.

I would ignore congress, and bomb the living hell out of northeastern Syria. Focusing heavily on supply lines leading toward Armenia, taking away another route Russia utilizes for import/export.

There are a number of moves I would make in Asia, to solidify relations with China, and form more partnerships between the world's two most powerful nations. China and America should be friends, as we have similar hegemonic approaches.



As for American domestic policy, specifically the border "crisis": Every child who is unaccompanied will receive a fast-track to citizenship, which includes intensive, small class-size education initiatives.

I would not put the unaccompanied children directly into social services, but rather would put them in "academies", where they would learn the most basic necessities of living in America. Many of the things most Americans are ignorant of.

By going through the gauntlet of central America, these children have earned the right to stay, and there is no reason to send them away. The total cost is negligible for caring for these children, compared to a single subsidy paid to oil companies every year.

I would ask, publicly, and loudly, the iconic texas based oil companies to give up a SINGLE YEAR of subsidies, as charity, to help protect these children.

That would be well over $100 million if even a SINGLE company agreed for PR purposes.

For the record, the US government gives about $775 billion to perhaps $1 trillion annually in subsidies to oil companies. Annual meaning YEARLY.

If we stopped subsidizing big oil for 17 years, the debt would be gone. Think about that.

This agreement would be on the condition their price per barrel did not increase to compensate for their donation. It's not charity if you're taking it out of the peoples' pockets.

The migrant children would be educated until the age of 18, or until their adoption, at that point, they would enter the workforce, through a government procurement center, which fills private employment requests with workers who are seeking employment.

Why the past administrations failed to institute, on a large scale, similar organizations is beyond me.

Following this simple legislative action, and the subsequent pacification of the drug cartels, I would pull all US troops out of central America, and would establish manufacturing intensive trade deals with the governments and industries of those nations. (with a focus on the worker and their wages).

Once our house in in order, we can again turn our eyes on the rest of the world. And crush any foreign threats before they become actual threats.

The middle east, Russia and even China would have much to fear from angering the entirety of north and south America, if we joined in a true alliance, econimically as well as militarily.

And all it would take is to repeal drug laws, and help the governments and the people take their nations back from the criminals.

Many would die, but most of them would be those who helped ruin nations. Texas would struggle for 8 years due to the refugees from the combat, but, honestly, screw Texas. They are part of the problem, and will benefit most in the long-run, despite their lack of foresight on these and other matters.

So those are a few things I would do. Not all, to be sure, and I haven't explored the nuances of some of the more overt foreign policy actions, due to space constraints.

I would happily expound on these ideas with anyone who wishes to send me a message.


How is Texas part of the problem"".

I don't have enough characters to answer. So many reasons
AdamEsk
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 11:26:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Solving the problem with ISIS and other terroristic organizations is by far the toughest thing for the United States to cope with because it's impossible to eradicate every last terrorist. The only solution is to bomb the sh*t out of any known ISIS stations/tunnels/munition posts. This will either devastate them enough to send them back into hiding where they will quietly sprout back up, and then we do the same thing, or at least damage their infrastructure enough to render them useless. The one thing I wouldn't do is sit back and let the American citizens think that these enraging acts done by ISIS don't phase me.

For the problem with Russia's power thirst, I'd meet up with the other major world leaders and assign the smaller countries surrounding Russia (Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia...) one or two nuclear missiles to share. By "share" I mean each country has to turn their key at the same time preventing any foolish launchings. Russia thinks it can bully these smaller countries and this idea gives them a way to stand up for themselves when the time comes.

The Southern border is a completely misread issue. Yes, I would up the security along the border to prevent any harmful terrorists from infiltrating our country, but I would NOT make it more challenging let alone impossible for our Central American neighbors to get in. It is un-American to not allow those individuals willing to travel to our country to earn a living. The issue is the group of immigrants that cross the border just to take advantage of our incredibly lenient welfare system. I would (if the left allows) make our welfare system stricter and focused more on the Americans it was created for. In doing so, aliens won't risk their lives to sneak into a country knowing they won't be spoon fed into a better life.

This was a fantastic and admirable Forum Topic and I respect SANITY for introducing it.
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 12:45:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would not engage ISIS using US troops. I would "encourage" by threat of reduction in aid, the neighboring regions to take apart the ISIS "nation" region by region.

Here's where I disagree with you. I believe that the United States is weary of a second invasion of Iraq given the rather unnecessary one in 2003. Yes, Iraq didn't have WMD's that posed a threat to the continental US, but that doesn't negate that what is going on in Iraq now is a genocide, and the United States is probably the only nation with the resources to reverse ISIS's destruction. At what point should the U.S. involve itself? 100,000 dead? 500,000 dead? A joint effort, especially from regional powers would be ideal, but innocents die every day, and time is a huge factor in eviscerating ISIS and resolving the humanitarian crisis.

As to the Russian and Ukraine issues. There is no simple solution to this save for outright war, and I do not feel that would benefit anyone.

Is this really the U.S.'s problem, shouldn't the European Union take responsibility given Ukraine is their backyard? And here's another thing, what of the U.S. - EU relationship, what do you think we could do to strengthen that? Isn't that one of the more important global relationships for the preservation of democracy? You mention a possible U.S. and South American relationship, why not add the EU to that equation?

Further, the U.S. is really the only nation capable of crippling the Russian economy through sanctions, it is absolutely time for us to impose those in support of Europe.

There are a number of moves I would make in Asia, to solidify relations with China, and form more partnerships between the world's two most powerful nations. China and America should be friends, as we have similar hegemonic approaches.

China has potential, but I'd hardly call it the second most powerful nation just yet. Do we really have 'similar hegemonic approaches?' China seems to obsess with unbridled economic growth, neglecting global cooperation and basic principles of sovereignty in the process. Does China even intend to be a hegemonic power by American example, or will it be content as a regional power?

The middle east, Russia and even China would have much to fear from angering the entirety of north and south America, if we joined in a true alliance, econimically as well as militarily.

Absolutely. But how well have these sorts of things worked, in the past? The EU, UN, NATO, etc, all seem to be less successful than intended. How could a new one hope to be more efficient.

Many would die, but most of them would be those who helped ruin nations. Texas would struggle for 8 years due to the refugees from the combat, but, honestly, screw Texas. They are part of the problem, and will benefit most in the long-run, despite their lack of foresight on these and other matters.

Texas has become a sanctuary for political extremism these days... Tens of thousands of educated young people could potentially reverse the 'single digit IQ' rampage there now.

Overall, I strongly agree with you, just had a few criticisms. I'd send you a message, but it says you aren't accepting messages at this time.
MisterMittens
Posts: 3,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 4:21:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 9:26:42 AM, SANITY wrote:
Let"s say you"re the President.

What are you gonna do about ISIS/ISIL in Iraq?
I'm all for military suppression of the Islamic militants who have no regard for human rights whatsoever. It should be done by U.N. rather than U.S. commission to show that the international community, not the U.S. alone, strongly oppose the caliphates' actions. We must have some international human rights standard, right?
What are you gonna do about the Russians and the Ukraine?
What can we really do about Russians and the Ukraine? Russia isn't exactly answerable to the U.S. Russia is also, to a degree, justified in its claiming territorial possession. The Ukrainians are also justified in denying assimilation. Sadly, I think talk, which hasn't really done much, won't really do much at this point. Ultimately, I'd probably sit back and hope for the best.
How about the southern United States border? What would you do about that?
I'm not sure. I would try to get as much information as possible. What exactly is wrong with the border situation. I'd also ply for hard stats on the effects of immigration and related policies, maybe consult and bring together as much expert opinion as possible and use that as the basis by which I decide what I'd like to see done in this area. Aren't there congressional committees that do this? I'd probably have to go through these committees to do whatever I'd want to do.

On political forums there"s mostly criticism of the leftist when they"re in office by the right and criticism of the rightist when they"re in office by the left. Criticism is always oh so easy to put out, but actually having a rational [b]"SOLUTION"[/b] for the issues that are being criticized is a whole different animal.
Agreed.

So let"s see how many folks on this forum actually have rational solutions for the most urgent issues.

So now you"re the President, whatchagonnado?

Ultimately, the President only has so much power. What can I do as President of the USA? There's a huge distinction between what I may want to do and what I can actually do.
The question should be: you're the President, whatchagonnado given that your power is relatively limited and that some of the things you'd like to see done may be politically impossible to push through.
Someone could probably make an argument in favor of dictatorship somewhere along these lines.
I'm handsome. Whoever disagrees with me can go die in a deep, dark hole.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 9:32:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 12:45:26 AM, Praesentya wrote:
I would not engage ISIS using US troops. I would "encourage" by threat of reduction in aid, the neighboring regions to take apart the ISIS "nation" region by region.

Here's where I disagree with you. I believe that the United States is weary of a second invasion of Iraq given the rather unnecessary one in 2003. Yes, Iraq didn't have WMD's that posed a threat to the continental US, but that doesn't negate that what is going on in Iraq now is a genocide, and the United States is probably the only nation with the resources to reverse ISIS's destruction.

Clearly we don't have the resources as we were unable to prevent it. Further destabilizing the region by placing more American soldiers on the ground would be a fool's errand. We've already shown we can police the area, but we cant' pacify it.

At what point should the U.S. involve itself? 100,000 dead? 500,000 dead?

When did we involve ourselves in Darfur?

When did we get involved in the genocide in Rwanda?

Why are the Kurds important now, when they weren't important during the Iran-Iraq war, when our buddy Saddam gassed hundreds of thousands of his people?

What about the genocide by the Congolese of the Pygmy people?

What about the slaughter of the Armenians by the Ottomans during WWI? That went unanswered.

Why does genocide in the ISIS controlled region differ so strongly from the other genocidal conflicts we have seen in the past century?

The answer is, it does not. America uses genocide to occasionally justify hegemonic conflicts. We don't intervene every time a human rights violation occurs. We can't afford to do it.

I applaud your desire to protect innocent individuals, but the region must be responsible for itself. Would that I could go back and prevent the destabilizing war to begin with.

A joint effort, especially from regional powers would be ideal, but innocents die every day, and time is a huge factor in eviscerating ISIS and resolving the humanitarian crisis.

But as you just said. Innocents die every day. Why are these innocents so much more important than the innocents in Rwanda? Mozambique?

As to the Russian and Ukraine issues. There is no simple solution to this save for outright war, and I do not feel that would benefit anyone.

Is this really the U.S.'s problem, shouldn't the European Union take responsibility given Ukraine is their backyard?

I'd like to point out a bit of an inconsistency. You believe we should be involved in pacifying the middle east, but not a region north of that longitudinal line?

And what would the EU do against a monstrous power like Russia without the backing of the UN security council's Sr. member? They would be steamrolled economically.

A united front against plutocratic/kleptocratic aggression has to be presented.

And here's another thing, what of the U.S. - EU relationship, what do you think we could do to strengthen that? Isn't that one of the more important global relationships for the preservation of democracy?

I actually addressed this. Our main way of strengthening our diplomatic ties with the EU (aside from no longer spying overtly on their leaders and citizens), would be to offer very affordable rates on exports of LNG (liquefied natural gas), which would allow the EU to no longer be beholden to Russia for energy needs. (additionally this would be economically beneficial to America as well)

You mention a possible U.S. and South American relationship, why not add the EU to that equation?

As I detailed above, I'm fairly certain giving the EU energy independence from a major threat would strengthen our ties with them.

And as I said earlier, there are not enough characters to get into the nuance of foreign policy, so I only offered the most broad and overarching aspects of my potential agenda.

Further, the U.S. is really the only nation capable of crippling the Russian economy through sanctions, it is absolutely time for us to impose those in support of Europe.

Absolutely. Did you say this or did I? I hope I didn't just quote myself!

There are a number of moves I would make in Asia, to solidify relations with China, and form more partnerships between the world's two most powerful nations. China and America should be friends, as we have similar hegemonic approaches.

China has potential, but I'd hardly call it the second most powerful nation just yet.

Really. What other nation has nuclear arms as well as a million man army?

Don't underestimate China. That's what lost us north Korea.

Do we really have 'similar hegemonic approaches?' China seems to obsess with unbridled economic growth, neglecting global cooperation and basic principles of sovereignty in the process.

I rest my case. America is all about unbridled economic growth, see the 200(6) recession.

China is neglecting global cooperation? If you consider Europe the only opinion worth listening to in the UN, perhaps.

China undertakes humanitarian efforts in Africa regularly, in order to foster global cooperation and create hegemonic trade ties with the emerging markets.

They cooperate well with other Asian nations, as well as Russia. (aside from Japan, which they view as an American ally and security threat. Similar to our view of Cuba.)

They have managed to keep North Korea in check.

China cares about their security and their wealth. Little else. Much like America.

Does China even intend to be a hegemonic power by American example, or will it be content as a regional power?

Regional powers also have hegemonic influence in their sphere. And China's Sphere of influence makes up nearly an entire hemisphere. Not to mention their inroads into Africa and the Mid-east.

The middle east, Russia and even China would have much to fear from angering the entirety of north and south America, if we joined in a true alliance, econimically as well as militarily.

Absolutely. But how well have these sorts of things worked, in the past? The EU, UN, NATO, etc, all seem to be less successful than intended. How could a new one hope to be more efficient.

This is a defeatist mentality. Just because something hasn't worked as well as we would like in the past, doesn't mean we should give up on the ideas.

I've already detailed the actions which would endear central America to us, as well as the northern portion of South America. Brazil and Argentina are tacit American allies already, and would need little more than economic incentive to become faster friends.

Many would die, but most of them would be those who helped ruin nations. Texas would struggle for 8 years due to the refugees from the combat, but, honestly, screw Texas. They are part of the problem, and will benefit most in the long-run, despite their lack of foresight on these and other matters.

Texas has become a sanctuary for political extremism these days... Tens of thousands of educated young people could potentially reverse the 'single digit IQ' rampage there now.

Agreed.

Overall, I strongly agree with you, just had a few criticisms. I'd send you a message, but it says you aren't accepting messages at this time.

Really? That's odd. I wonder why that is. I can get messages from others. I'll try sending a test PM.
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 1:10:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Clearly we don't have the resources as we were unable to prevent it. Further destabilizing the region by placing more American soldiers on the ground would be a fool's errand. We've already shown we can police the area, but we cant' pacify it.

The Obama administration chose not to intervene in Syria in September 2013, had we toppled the Assad regime it's unlikely ISIS would have the same power it has now. We have the resources, we chose not to apply them. And I'm not sure I agree with your second comment, we did pacify Iraq, and it would have remained a peaceful nation had their government chosen to include all minority groups, as we had pressured them to do. The existence of ISIS can be blamed on the poor choices of Iraq's government, not on the United States' foreign policy or military involvement.

Why does genocide in the ISIS controlled region differ so strongly from the other genocidal conflicts we have seen in the past century?

An excellent point, that the United States is selectively humanitarian. But why can't we battle all counts of genocide, why do we have to 'sit them out.' Literally one of the first sentences of the Declaration of Independence states that those who have the ability to take action are coupled with the responsibility to take action. Why can't we live up to that phrase?

I'd like to point out a bit of an inconsistency. You believe we should be involved in pacifying the middle east, but not a region north of that longitudinal line?

I believe in exercising our power - both military power and 'soft power' - everywhere necessary to benefit nation stability. However, given that the Ukraine is in Europe, I think that the EU should take responsibility, and the United States should provide economic support, without directly involving itself.

And what would the EU do against a monstrous power like Russia without the backing of the UN security council's Sr. member? They would be steamrolled economically.

Economically, maybe, though militarily the EU's budget is significantly larger than that of Russia. I hardly think that Russia would confront the entirety of the EU. If only specific European powers acted in Ukraine then it would be a different story, but when Europe acts as one it would be suicide for Russia to invade Ukraine and risk war with the EU. This entire assumption is based on the fact that the EU will actually do something, which is unlikely at best.

I actually addressed this. Our main way of strengthening our diplomatic ties with the EU (aside from no longer spying overtly on their leaders and citizens), would be to offer very affordable rates on exports of LNG (liquefied natural gas), which would allow the EU to no longer be beholden to Russia for energy needs. (additionally this would be economically beneficial to America as well)

Ahh, ok. Missed that the first time. I'd agree, that would certainly help. Europe has been improving recently as well, with some countries consuming up to 30% renewable sources of energy, alleviating their dependence on Russia.

Further, the U.S. is really the only nation capable of crippling the Russian economy through sanctions, it is absolutely time for us to impose those in support of Europe.

Think we both said something similar :)

Really. What other nation has nuclear arms as well as a million man army?

Do those matter though? Depending on how you count the numbers, both North Korea and South Korea have larger standing armies than the United States. It would be ludicrous to suggest that either nation is more powerful than we are.

The United States military technology is so advanced that we are able to compensate for a smaller force. In addition, the Army has been able to downsize by increasing the number of Special Operations soldiers and decrease the number of 'regular' soldiers.

As for nuclear arms, these seem to be more a deterrent than a weapon lately. However, the United States' Patriot Missile System is far too advanced for us to be threatened by nuclear weapons, for the moment.

China is neglecting global cooperation? If you consider Europe the only opinion worth listening to in the UN, perhaps.

China doesn't consider ISIS a terrorist organization, China allowed the SARS outbreak to reach a catastrophic level before warning the UN, China suggested the invasion of Taiwan would be justified because 'China is a big country, and Taiwan is a little country.' It's not just at the UN, China seems to make and then ignore massive diplomatic mistakes on a consistent basis.

In addition, hasn't the Chinese government been feeding the Chinese people anti-American propaganda for years? So that's yet another obstacle to grapple with in befriending China.

Since you're earlier statement was that the United States and China should be friends, I'd ike to know what your opinion is on China's policy towards global warming. Climate change will affect China the most, yet they care about it the least. They will continue to pump our global carbon count up and up and up just to support their economy.

China undertakes humanitarian efforts in Africa regularly, in order to foster global cooperation and create hegemonic trade ties with the emerging markets.

Can you point to a specific example? As far as I can tell, China has various tributary relationships with nations in Africa, though doesn't care much beyond that.

They cooperate well with other Asian nations, as well as Russia. (aside from Japan, which they view as an American ally and security threat. Similar to our view of Cuba.)

They have managed to keep North Korea in check.

Definitely, I agree with both. But this goes back to my first point, North Korea is nothing shy of a giant concentration camp, and those who have the ability to take action should...

China cares about their security and their wealth. Little else. Much like America.

Ok, I see your point here. But I still feel as though China's fault far surpass those of the United States for the points mentioned above.

Regional powers also have hegemonic influence in their sphere. And China's Sphere of influence makes up nearly an entire hemisphere. Not to mention their inroads into Africa and the Mid-east.

Yes, but do they intend to become the next America. Since 1991, America has virtually been the sole superpower, even arguably before then. Our defense budget is more than the next nine nations combined, and our economic independence is unparalleled. Is China even capable of such extremes?

I believe their is a fixed amount of 'power' in the global arena, and the rise of one nation is only at the cost of the diminishment of another. Do you think China will rise above the US? Or be content to work with the West, despite its extremely 'Eastern' ideals thus far.

This is a defeatist mentality. Just because something hasn't worked as well as we would like in the past, doesn't mean we should give up on the ideas.

No, I agree. I was simply asking how global alliances could be made more efficient. As they regularly tend to do nothing despite having the capability to do something.

Really? That's odd. I wonder why that is. I can get messages from others. I'll try sending a test PM.

http://postimg.org...
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 2:59:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 1:10:23 PM, Praesentya wrote:
Clearly we don't have the resources as we were unable to prevent it. Further destabilizing the region by placing more American soldiers on the ground would be a fool's errand. We've already shown we can police the area, but we cant' pacify it.

The Obama administration chose not to intervene in Syria in September 2013, had we toppled the Assad regime it's unlikely ISIS would have the same power it has now.

Really? It is my understanding ISIS is one of the organizations fighting Assad. Had we toppled Assad, wouldn't the power vacuum have been more likely to allow ISIS to solidify their power even more easily? It is very difficult to predict what would have happened with ISIS had Congress voted to go to war in 2013.

And it would have been congress, not Obama which decided for or against the war, had the chemical weapons not been removed.

We have the resources, we chose not to apply them....

We went into significant debt, and our economy collapsed, in major part due to the wars. We also showed we do not have the fervor for another decade-long conflict and occupation.

Additionally, we only pacified the Iraqi military, we cannot possibly pacify the radical Islamic fervor that gives ISIS its power. Certainly not by increasing our presence in the region.

The existence of ISIS can be blamed on the poor choices of Iraq's government, not on the United States'.

Disagree, had we never gone there, ISIS wouldn't exist today.

But why can't we battle all counts of genocide...

Because we can't afford it. And people resent us for it, which hurts our standing in the global community and lessens our ability to create meaningful diplomatic change in regions that aren't genocidal, but are not democratic either. I'm playing the long-game here.

Additionally, you are still being somewhat inconsistent regarding the Ukraine. If we have these lofty principals, shouldn't we also be compelled to protect the citizens of Ukraine?

Economically, maybe, though militarily the EU's budget is significantly larger than that of Russia.

Military budgets are not at all an accurate measure of a nation's might. Russian winter, Russian population sizes, Russian nationalism and Russian nuclear power, coupled with Putin's volatility are all very good reasons why a direct military conflict with Russia is out of the question. The Ukrainian conflict must be resolved by proxy.

Do those matter though? Depending on how you count the numbers, both North Korea and South Korea have larger standing armies than the United States. It would be ludicrous to suggest that either nation is more powerful than we are.

Yes, this is true, entirely due to our technological superiority. South Korea would give us a run for our money, though, if somehow we came into conflict, which is an unrealistic hypothetical.

However China is not one of the Koreas. We can never defeat China in a ground war. We can't occupy such a massive nation with such a powerful military. We might be able to decimate them, but again, this is a nuclear power we're talking about. Rather than see their nation reduced to ruin from a superior Air Force, they would launch ICBMs.

Conventional war is out of the question with China. So I take the position that if we can't beat 'em, we join 'em. Or convince them to join us.

Imagine, a strong China/US alliance would make the world tremble. And fear is often a lovely motivator for keeping radical and violent despots in line.

However, the United States' Patriot Missile System is far too advanced for us to be threatened by nuclear weapons, for the moment

This is entirely untrue. Just because we can hit everyone doesn't mean they can't hit us too.

China and Russia both have ICBMs that can, without fail, reach US soil.

China doesn't consider ISIS a terrorist organization

Yet. China is slow to move, and slow to weigh in on issues outside of their sphere of influence. Who is to say what China will think of ISIS in a year.

The Chinese are not comfortable with ISIS at all. ISIS has promised to move forces into the Xinjiang region. But they are also not keen on involving themselves in American messes, so they are being tentative.

ISIS has already declared a Jihad against China too.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com...

China allowed the SARS outbreak to reach a catastrophic level before warning the UN

A decade ago. And this is typical behavior from China. They operate a very isolationist policy.

The conquest of Tibet was in the 1950s. It was a different government and a different time. America placed Japanese citizens in concentration camps during that decade. Should our positions and moral guidance be dismissed because of that terrible mistake?

Additionally, it was for the purpose of spreading "communism", not because "China was a bigger nation".

The invasion of Iraq was not much different than the Invasion of Tibet. It was for the purpose of resource gathering and the spread of "democracy".

The US and China both make and ignore massive diplomatic mistakes, regularly. That's what happens when you play the game of thrones.

In addition, hasn't the Chinese government been feeding the Chinese people anti-American propaganda for years?

Only to the same extent our government feeds us the Red Menace line regarding China.

The Chinese government is interested in controlling their massive population. The only way to overcome this, is to foster an increased communication bridge between the Chinese government and the American government. This will inevitably lead to more communication between Chinese people and American people.

The Chinese know they live in isolation, and they are, for the most part, educated enough to ignore propaganda. But they are still ignorant of the truth. We need only present facts to them, and the propaganda will slowly fall away.

This can only be done through cooperation.

I'd ike to know what your opinion is on China's policy towards global warming.

They recently issued a large list of regulations to curb greenhouse emissions. Nearly as much as Obama's EPA regulations will.

http://www.china-briefing.com...

If we are able to create sustainable energy, the entire world will stop using fossil fuels.
Currently they are still behind the US in production of greenhouse gas.

Can you point to a specific example? As far as I can tell, China has various tributary relationships with nations in Africa

Which is exactly what the US has been doing.

http://fas.org...

http://english.cntv.cn...

http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org...

It would be suicidal for us to do anything against North Korea, and it is China's problem to deal with at this stage.

They have done a good job strong-arming the NK government.

Yes, but do they intend to become the next America?

A few things.

1. We are economically dependent on China. (and SE Asia) They produce our goods.

2. defense budgets are not the be-all-end-all of power.

3. China has long been a quiet superpower. We just don't like to acknowledge it.

I believe their is a fixed amount of 'power' in the global arena, and the rise of one nation is only at the cost of the diminishment of another.

I do not believe this. I believe power is relative to perspective and influence.

Do you think China will rise above the US?

In many respects they arguably already have.

China's ideals are not overly eastern anymore. They have been heavily influenced by western thinking. Specifically the communist thinking. Though what they now have doesn't at all resemble communism, but rather an oliga
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 3:43:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I will create a high-techs shelter at some oil rig off the coast of California, and nuke the world to the stone age!