Will Trump Resist Calls to Invade and Rebuild?


расписание маршрутки 68 коломна

лодка ярославка технические характеристики

http://balorg.ru/prikaz-na-pravo-zavereniya-kopiy-prikazov-obrazets.html приказ на право заверения копий приказов образец

поздравление с юбилеем председателя профкома

инструкция к кассе микро к

http://kalifornia-vrn.ru/vyazanie-shapochki-spitsami-dlya-nachinayushih.html вязание шапочки спицами для начинающих

энергетическая ценность супа куриного

характеристика деятельности ивана калиты

http://urbase.ru/smeshnie-stihi-pro-mishu.html смешные стихи про мишу


  1. Unfortunately, we have had both presidents and congressional representatives/senators who have supported intervention overseas when the results have been little more than attrition. The waste, in terms of both materiel and equipment, but more grievously, human resources, has produced few returns for the investment. One wonders if it is, indeed, not investment which is the great motivator for many of these interventions.
    After Viet Nam fell, while the left in the country waxed much stronger, the spread of communism did not occur. Attrition did. The left does not protest attrition. Its policy foster attrition.
    Less than 15 years after the end of the Viet Nam War, communistic socialism met its downfall in both the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc of Warsaw Pact nations who had been ruled by it since the end of World War II.
    The truth concerning the “War on Terror” against radical, fundamentalist, Islamic terrorism is that it could and should have been avoided by a better understanding of the nature of Islam and the need to appreciate what Muslims know about themselves, their individual country’s history and heritage and a consistent respect on the part of other nations to respect the right to self-determination, unimpeded by foreign perspectives and interests.
    Consider the plausibility of an alternative response to the attacks of 9/11/01, the implemented policy of which has more than doubled the initial casualty number of victims. What do we have, 15 years later, to show as evidence of the effectiveness of American policy?
    If President Bush, on 9/11/01, had declared a total moratorium on all immigration, stationed troops along the Southern border to seal it (and build a wall) and stopped all tourism, all trade, all shipping and all airline flights to and from ALL Muslim countries and given them an ultimatum to stop all financing, all training and exportation of terrorists and terrorism, and bolstered domestic security at all ports of entry to make America safe for democracy and freedom, the world would be a far different place. We may not have changed the internal situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, but we have to realize that representative democracy, including Islamic fundamentalists, is what the Muslim countries have to work out for themselves. Our current immigration policy regarding refugees is nothing more than proof of the stupidity and failure of our foreign interventionist policy!
    We have had some very short-sighted leaders who have a Kennedyesque mentality that “no cost or burden is too great.” This is the utter nonsense of one whose vision for the country “put a man on the moon.” It is a legacy which has two Voyager spacecraft in interstellar space destined for an encounter with a star in 44,000 years. Relevance? The vision which gave birth to the phrase, “Houston, we have a problem.” Dallas didn’t solve it. Houston is not the only city with a problem, as has been noted by many news organizations over the past several decades. The money wasted on space exploration could have been spent, better, on infrastructure renovation in the United States.
    The politicians who think that sending jobs overseas and implementing foreign policies which propose to– and do little more than–enrich investors in the military industrial complex are responsible for the mess the country is in. It is no wonder that the whole band of them was soundly rejected by American citizens who want to preserve the heritage for which their ancestors fought and died and for which many, of recent generations, have done the same. It is citizens, not immigrants, who have the greatest stake in the future of this country because of the heritage they have fought and served and serve to maintain. The fundamental, political divide in the U.S. is over the law and obedience to it because minority diversity would overthrow that rule of law. This is the essence of the Clinton Campaign, democratic representation which fosters the overthrow of the rule of law, favoring the freedom of choice of the individual to be “different.” It is aimed at, specifically, people who have a basic problem with purposeful behavior and who want or need to obviate or violate the laws which govern it. This is completely unacceptable and always will be. In attempting to create a majority comprised of diverse minorities, it is the law of majority rule which runs counter to the rule of written, codified law, as exemplified in the current harangue over election recounts and the popular vote vis-a-vis the due process of law prescribed with respect to the electoral college. The notion that the individual has a right or freedom of choice to obviate or violate the law is fallacious. There is no respectable order without adherence, compliance and obedience to the rule of law. Elections are NOT a referendum on the rule of law!