One thing that I think is sorely lacking in all of these debates is a set of objective standards. Can we have our regular posters come on and list what their major concerns are and how they believe that they should be addressed? This will ensure that a barometer exists to measure the fairness of poster views so we do not get one person criticizing Clinton for something that they give Bush a pass for and vice versa.
-
I generally oppose missions for only humanitarian concerns. Therefore I am not keen to see nation-building in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia or Kosovo which are not in the United States’ strategic interests and in my opinion such actions only allow Europe to get off the hook yet again for something it should be dealing with in its own backyard (kosovo/bosnia). If we can jump in and out of Haiti fine. If not, forget it. We are not responsible.
-
I do not give the UN any veto over US defense interests. We can work with the UN when it is in our best interests but it should never supercede or have a veto over US sovereignty.
-
Ditto for NATO. We can work together when convenient but the US should act similar to the other members of NATO and get involved only when it is in our interests. Hence, Bosnia and Kosovo should not have been NATO actions and the US should have said to Germany and France where is the threat? we cannot act against a sovereign nation, it does not have UN approval. Therefore while we do not agree, and we will not get involved, you can go ahead and deal with the situation and we will not try to oppose you. We need to loosen the US involvement in NATO to force nations to spend more on their own defense. When they do not, we resent them and resent their demanding a role in actions that they contribute nothing to. When we adopt this attitude we create resentment among our allies and their citizenry. This dependence is unhealthy and the US must remove itself from the equation unilaterally if necessary.
-
I support actions in Afghanistan and Iraq because they are important to America’s strategic interests. While humanitarian concerns can also be addressed, the primary aims are strategic in nature and every effort should be made to turn over as much day-to-day operations to the Iraqi people while attempting to leave a large force in Iraq so that as in South Korea, Japan and Germany, its neighbors will feel no cause to destabilize Iraq while perhaps others will not need to develop wmds (Saudi Arabia) because of the US security footprint in the region. Naturally, such actions will engender positive humanitarian results and this is a positive side effect but should not be the main reason for such efforts.
-
Economically, I support free trade. I am against US protection of the steel industry or US agriculture or textiles. Outsourcing is natural and should be encourage. No limitations should be placed on it.
-
I am for devovling as much power to the States as possible. The federal government should focus only on defense, justice, treasury and state. All other departments should be closed with all such power and responsiblities being devolved to the States to deal with transport, welfare, etc. This will also water down greatly lobbyist power since these decisions will be made in 50 capitals rather than one and the local press and interest groups will have more control over forumulating these decisions and in monitoring how they are done.
-
Privatize everything. Post office, power, distribution, ports, roads, anything and everything that can be sold and privately managed including federal and state employee jobs and functions should be encouraged.
-
Reduce taxes whenever possible.
-
I am against quotas, affirmative action, hate crimes or any other legislation that sets up separate categories of citizens.
-
I do not believe in global warming or that its causes can be traced to human activity and therefore do not support the Kyoto protocol. I find the Kyoto protocol too expensive for the measly results that it delivers. I trust in mankind to come up with new technology to deal with the problem faster and more efficiently if in fact it is a serious problem.
On historical notes,
I do not believe that the US anticommunist efforts were bad nor do I believe that we must apologize for them. This includes involvement in nations such as Vietnam, those in Central and South America, the Caribbean, etc. I support the overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953 given the variables and Soviet expansion at the time. I recognize that the morality of the overthrow is cloudy but take responsiblity for the action as a US citizen. While we are criticized for supporting dictators such as the shah, those in Azerbaidzhan and Uzbekistan today and previously in East Asia, I believe that the overall trends were positive and we were dealing with a bad situation the best we could. Ultimately, our choices were wise compared with what has followed.
Forgot a big one:
I believe that Islamofascism has been a serious threat for three decades and that dialogue has not helped. I believe that we must fight this threat as we fought communism and fascism and that it will take 30 years to win. But dialogue and negotiations have failed and the actors are not truly interested in peace but in raising the bar even higher to being new negotiations from an even stronger vantage point. Enough is enough. We are at war.