E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Struggles Anew to Ensure Air Safety As Gaps Are Revealed. A review of government audits and interviews with experts inside and outside the government shows that the system has been slow to make even bigger changes because of a balky bureaucracy, fickle politics and, at times, airline industry opposition. It has also squandered tens of millions of dollars on faulty technology, like high-tech "puffer" machines that repeatedly broke down and flunked the most basic test: they failed to detect some explosives. (nytimes.com)".
These failures are not the fault of technology. They are the fault of ideology. If one does not have a clear understanding of the problem, no amount of successful technology will be able to solve it.
A prime example is the Christmas day attempt to destroy passengers and an airplane traveling from Amsterdam to the US. Homeland Security Sec. Napolitano is the typical example of confused ideology. She said that the security system worked. The adjunct of that is nobody will be held responsible for an obvious failure to protect the American public. The system will not be modified, because it is already claimed to be effective. The perpetrator will likely be given a slap on the wrist. Al Qaeda will be encouraged to continue its terrorist activities, because government officials appear to have no understanding of what's really going on.
How ridiculous can one get? Are you in Congress a pawn of the Obama Administration or an effective part of the US government? If the latter, you and your associates should be immediately demanding the firing of Homeland Security Sec. Napolitano as being mentally unfit to perform the duties of her responsibility. Notice that I said "firing", rather than asking for her resignation. She deserves no respect in this episode.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Nuclear Arms and Russia
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Russia Accuses U.S. of Throwing Up Last-minute Obstacle to Nuclear Arms Treaty. Russia is accusing the United States of throwing up last-minute obstacles to a new landmark nuclear arms reduction treaty as Nato promised Moscow the military alliance would "never" attack it. (telegraph.co.uk).
Russians are not stupid, nor are their leaders. Suppose Pres. Obama gives NATO Commanders an order to attack Russia. The Commanders would likely do it, because Pres. Obama is Commander-In-Chief. Also, Commanders like war. It's the basis of why they are in the military in the first place.
Why would Pres. Obama give an order to attack Russia? Who knows? There could be 10 different reasons. What about the promise not to do so? Irrelevant. Pres. Obama has made many promises in the past, which he has not kept. In fact there so many, I can't think of a single one.
What then should the US position be on a Nuclear Arms Treaty? First, it should maintain the aspect of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which I have previously explained. Second, it should eliminate excessive atomic weapons, which are unnecessary to accomplish a MAD response. It should include established procedures, which would avoid accidental initiation of MAD.
On the side, US should continue research to develop improved atomic weapons and techniques to deliver them. In addition, every effort should be made to develop a defense system (Star Wars), which would avoid the intended conclusion of MAD.
If your technologically and strategically ignorant associates in Congress are bent on spending money, US defense is where it should go. Not on frivolous and ridiculous proposals, such as carbon dioxide emission control, or even unnecessary revision of the US health care program.
EIN News says, "Russia Accuses U.S. of Throwing Up Last-minute Obstacle to Nuclear Arms Treaty. Russia is accusing the United States of throwing up last-minute obstacles to a new landmark nuclear arms reduction treaty as Nato promised Moscow the military alliance would "never" attack it. (telegraph.co.uk).
Russians are not stupid, nor are their leaders. Suppose Pres. Obama gives NATO Commanders an order to attack Russia. The Commanders would likely do it, because Pres. Obama is Commander-In-Chief. Also, Commanders like war. It's the basis of why they are in the military in the first place.
Why would Pres. Obama give an order to attack Russia? Who knows? There could be 10 different reasons. What about the promise not to do so? Irrelevant. Pres. Obama has made many promises in the past, which he has not kept. In fact there so many, I can't think of a single one.
What then should the US position be on a Nuclear Arms Treaty? First, it should maintain the aspect of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which I have previously explained. Second, it should eliminate excessive atomic weapons, which are unnecessary to accomplish a MAD response. It should include established procedures, which would avoid accidental initiation of MAD.
On the side, US should continue research to develop improved atomic weapons and techniques to deliver them. In addition, every effort should be made to develop a defense system (Star Wars), which would avoid the intended conclusion of MAD.
If your technologically and strategically ignorant associates in Congress are bent on spending money, US defense is where it should go. Not on frivolous and ridiculous proposals, such as carbon dioxide emission control, or even unnecessary revision of the US health care program.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Atomic Weapon Capability
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Report Calls for Moving to U.S. Nuclear 'Dyad,' Dropping Triad's Bomber Leg. The move would be the ultimate result of arms control and weapons-acquisition trends that undercut the value of a nuclear role for these aircraft, according to a trio of aerospace experts writing for the Air Force Association's Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies. Under such an approach, the nation's nuclear triad would become a "dyad" comprising just submarine- and ground-launched ballistic missiles. (globalsecuritynewswire.org)".
We have avoided atomic warfare for 70 years, because of a MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) strategy. This strategy says that any perpetrator who detonates an atomic weapon in the US may be assured of atomic weapon retaliation to the extent that the perpetrating country and its population will be destroyed.
While it has worked in the past, it has done so because of the worldwide belief that US leaders will have the physical ability to do as claimed and also the fortitude to do it. In other words, there are two requirements to continue to make this strategy work.
Pres. Obama has been going around the world making friends, which also leads to a possible perception on the part of evildoers that he will not have the fortitude to carry out the MAD strategy. The presently publicized reduction of atomic weapon capability as the second aspect is likely to encourage evildoers to take the risk.
I realize that there are many members of the House and Senate who have grown up in an era of "let's hug and be comfy", which makes it very difficult for them to realize evildoers can be a serious security threat to the US. It takes a knowledge of history, human nature and some judgment to come to a correct decision. I'm sure that you have it, but you also must believe that voting numbers are against you. This means that you will have to work significantly harder to make your vote count two or three times its mathematical value, as you try to stop the timid and physically unjustifiable reductions of our atomic weapon usability.
EIN News says, "Report Calls for Moving to U.S. Nuclear 'Dyad,' Dropping Triad's Bomber Leg. The move would be the ultimate result of arms control and weapons-acquisition trends that undercut the value of a nuclear role for these aircraft, according to a trio of aerospace experts writing for the Air Force Association's Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies. Under such an approach, the nation's nuclear triad would become a "dyad" comprising just submarine- and ground-launched ballistic missiles. (globalsecuritynewswire.org)".
We have avoided atomic warfare for 70 years, because of a MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) strategy. This strategy says that any perpetrator who detonates an atomic weapon in the US may be assured of atomic weapon retaliation to the extent that the perpetrating country and its population will be destroyed.
While it has worked in the past, it has done so because of the worldwide belief that US leaders will have the physical ability to do as claimed and also the fortitude to do it. In other words, there are two requirements to continue to make this strategy work.
Pres. Obama has been going around the world making friends, which also leads to a possible perception on the part of evildoers that he will not have the fortitude to carry out the MAD strategy. The presently publicized reduction of atomic weapon capability as the second aspect is likely to encourage evildoers to take the risk.
I realize that there are many members of the House and Senate who have grown up in an era of "let's hug and be comfy", which makes it very difficult for them to realize evildoers can be a serious security threat to the US. It takes a knowledge of history, human nature and some judgment to come to a correct decision. I'm sure that you have it, but you also must believe that voting numbers are against you. This means that you will have to work significantly harder to make your vote count two or three times its mathematical value, as you try to stop the timid and physically unjustifiable reductions of our atomic weapon usability.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
A Time of Universal Deceit
E-mail to Congress:
This is an interesting philosophical article by Star Parker, a syndicated columnist:
"Gallup's just-released Honesty and Ethics of Professions poll shows that for the first time, a majority -- 55 percent -- rate members of the U.S. House of Representatives low/very low for honesty and ethics. Senators come in slightly better at 49 percent."
"A whopping 9 percent of the House and 11 percent of the Senate get high/very high ratings in honesty and ethics."
"Even members of the clergy do not escape this cynical cloud hanging over the nation. Although 50 percent rate the clergy as high/very high in honesty and ethics, this is the lowest since Gallup starting reporting it.
"This prevailing mood of distrust is understandable given how commonplace it has become for so many in public life to lie to us."
"A mountain of hacked emails shows that scientists who held the public trust regarding information on climate change research were liars. The emails show they selectively expunged data and suppressed research not supporting the conclusions they wanted showing man-made global warming."
"Congress is frenetically trying to pass major healthcare reform that report after report shows is filled with politically manipulated data and conclusions."
"And now we learn that even Tiger Woods has been lying to us about whom he is."
"What is so troubling is that all this is not about human error or fallibility. It's the opposite. It's about individuals intentionally manipulating information to deceive the public in order to advance their own personal agendas."
"The late writer/physician Michael Crichton pointed out back in 2003 in a speech he gave at the California Institute of Technology the common sense being violated in the research allegedly showing that human activity is causing the earth's climate to irreversibly warm."
'Nobody believes a weather prediction 12 hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everyone lost their minds? '
"Similarly in the healthcare reform push, simple exercise of common sense would put the brakes on what is going on."
"Before us is proposed massive new government expenditures and intervention into healthcare markets under the assumption that the benefits of all this government activity will exceed the costs."
"But simple honesty would recognize that if this were true it would be unprecedented."
"When Medicare was enacted in 1967, the projections then were that its annual expenditures by 1990 would be $12 billion. Actual expenditures in 1990 were $110 billion."
"Medicaid started as a proposed modest program with $1 billion in annual expenditures. It's now $280 billion.
"We're told that healthcare reform won't cost more than $900 billion over the next 10 years. This is accomplished on paper by sleight of hand. Taxes are assumed to start in 2010, but expenditures not until 2014. Starting the meter when the expenditures actually begin shows that over the first ten years the costs are more like $2.5 trillion."
"It's not that we no longer know how to conduct honest inquiry in America. It's that our interest in doing so is disappearing. How can you search for truth in a society that increasingly denies that truth exists?"
"What is adultery when our acceptance of something as basic as the definition of marriage can change with the political winds? So Tiger Woods, unhampered by moral constraint, simply pays handlers to produce a public image calculated to maximize his income."
"Our national history began by asserting "self evident truths." Now we have a president who, in his interpretation of our constitutional history, writes: 'Implicit in its structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth.... '
"It must have been times like this that George Orwell had in mind when he wrote: 'In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'
Congressman, with this background, the questions are simple. Are you part of the universal deceit, or are you willing to engage in a revolutionary act by telling the truth? From previous communications, you appear to be telling the truth, but it must be done more forcefully to have any effect.
This is an interesting philosophical article by Star Parker, a syndicated columnist:
"Gallup's just-released Honesty and Ethics of Professions poll shows that for the first time, a majority -- 55 percent -- rate members of the U.S. House of Representatives low/very low for honesty and ethics. Senators come in slightly better at 49 percent."
"A whopping 9 percent of the House and 11 percent of the Senate get high/very high ratings in honesty and ethics."
"Even members of the clergy do not escape this cynical cloud hanging over the nation. Although 50 percent rate the clergy as high/very high in honesty and ethics, this is the lowest since Gallup starting reporting it.
"This prevailing mood of distrust is understandable given how commonplace it has become for so many in public life to lie to us."
"A mountain of hacked emails shows that scientists who held the public trust regarding information on climate change research were liars. The emails show they selectively expunged data and suppressed research not supporting the conclusions they wanted showing man-made global warming."
"Congress is frenetically trying to pass major healthcare reform that report after report shows is filled with politically manipulated data and conclusions."
"And now we learn that even Tiger Woods has been lying to us about whom he is."
"What is so troubling is that all this is not about human error or fallibility. It's the opposite. It's about individuals intentionally manipulating information to deceive the public in order to advance their own personal agendas."
"The late writer/physician Michael Crichton pointed out back in 2003 in a speech he gave at the California Institute of Technology the common sense being violated in the research allegedly showing that human activity is causing the earth's climate to irreversibly warm."
'Nobody believes a weather prediction 12 hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everyone lost their minds? '
"Similarly in the healthcare reform push, simple exercise of common sense would put the brakes on what is going on."
"Before us is proposed massive new government expenditures and intervention into healthcare markets under the assumption that the benefits of all this government activity will exceed the costs."
"But simple honesty would recognize that if this were true it would be unprecedented."
"When Medicare was enacted in 1967, the projections then were that its annual expenditures by 1990 would be $12 billion. Actual expenditures in 1990 were $110 billion."
"Medicaid started as a proposed modest program with $1 billion in annual expenditures. It's now $280 billion.
"We're told that healthcare reform won't cost more than $900 billion over the next 10 years. This is accomplished on paper by sleight of hand. Taxes are assumed to start in 2010, but expenditures not until 2014. Starting the meter when the expenditures actually begin shows that over the first ten years the costs are more like $2.5 trillion."
"It's not that we no longer know how to conduct honest inquiry in America. It's that our interest in doing so is disappearing. How can you search for truth in a society that increasingly denies that truth exists?"
"What is adultery when our acceptance of something as basic as the definition of marriage can change with the political winds? So Tiger Woods, unhampered by moral constraint, simply pays handlers to produce a public image calculated to maximize his income."
"Our national history began by asserting "self evident truths." Now we have a president who, in his interpretation of our constitutional history, writes: 'Implicit in its structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth.... '
"It must have been times like this that George Orwell had in mind when he wrote: 'In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'
Congressman, with this background, the questions are simple. Are you part of the universal deceit, or are you willing to engage in a revolutionary act by telling the truth? From previous communications, you appear to be telling the truth, but it must be done more forcefully to have any effect.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Time to Promote Freedom and Opportunity Versus Communism
E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
I read your December 14 Newsletter.
You and I are exactly on the same wavelength, with respect to significantly reducing national, opposing permanent bailouts, and ignoring the ridiculous Copenhagen Treaty Conference.
The difference is that I have a very small voice in my writing. You have a potentially big voice, as a US Representative to Congress. I agree that it's obviously necessary to keep your constituency informed on your positions, so that you will have their support through reelection. However, I have complained previously that you are not making a big enough splash with your fellow representatives.
I now partially withdraw that comment after having seen your performance on two issues on YouTube. You are a good speaker, but I noted that you had an essentially nonexistent audience. That could have been a deficiency of negative political set-up, over which you had no control. However, it also could have been a matter that your stated position and presentation were not "thunderous".
May I suggest that you pull out all the stops. Name names. Talk dollar amounts. Have your staff scrape up scandal on your opponents. And, fight fight fight. You might want to get some videos of Sen. McCarthy's speeches when he was uncovering communists in the federal government and Hollywood. In the ensuing time, communism is perceived to be a more desirable form of government. This has been accomplished through continued pressure by socially elite liberals. However, there are no selling points to communism, when one stresses life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even the most sedentary of persons wants freedom of choice. The Bill of Rights can be sold and communism destroyed, but it takes effort, effort, and effort.
Pres. Obama and his socialist regime continue to have high support based on polling of the American public. However, those polls are questionable. Even so, they show a continued decline of satisfaction with a socialist regime. Republicans continue to be confused at the top level of strategy and platform. There is a great opportunity for a clear thinker and promoter to change that situation, so that a program of freedom and opportunity might again prevail in this US, after the next election.
I read your December 14 Newsletter.
You and I are exactly on the same wavelength, with respect to significantly reducing national, opposing permanent bailouts, and ignoring the ridiculous Copenhagen Treaty Conference.
The difference is that I have a very small voice in my writing. You have a potentially big voice, as a US Representative to Congress. I agree that it's obviously necessary to keep your constituency informed on your positions, so that you will have their support through reelection. However, I have complained previously that you are not making a big enough splash with your fellow representatives.
I now partially withdraw that comment after having seen your performance on two issues on YouTube. You are a good speaker, but I noted that you had an essentially nonexistent audience. That could have been a deficiency of negative political set-up, over which you had no control. However, it also could have been a matter that your stated position and presentation were not "thunderous".
May I suggest that you pull out all the stops. Name names. Talk dollar amounts. Have your staff scrape up scandal on your opponents. And, fight fight fight. You might want to get some videos of Sen. McCarthy's speeches when he was uncovering communists in the federal government and Hollywood. In the ensuing time, communism is perceived to be a more desirable form of government. This has been accomplished through continued pressure by socially elite liberals. However, there are no selling points to communism, when one stresses life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even the most sedentary of persons wants freedom of choice. The Bill of Rights can be sold and communism destroyed, but it takes effort, effort, and effort.
Pres. Obama and his socialist regime continue to have high support based on polling of the American public. However, those polls are questionable. Even so, they show a continued decline of satisfaction with a socialist regime. Republicans continue to be confused at the top level of strategy and platform. There is a great opportunity for a clear thinker and promoter to change that situation, so that a program of freedom and opportunity might again prevail in this US, after the next election.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Rep. Neugebauer's Newsletter on Afghanistan
I sent the following comments to Rep. Neugebauer concerning his visit to Afghanistan:
I have read your December 7 newsletter concerning your visit to Afghanistan.
My first reaction is to congratulate you for visiting this hot spot of contention. Later reflection, based on the details of your report, leads me to wonder a bit. When a high profile person representing money such as yourself, visits the recipients, it is almost guaranteed that they will lay out the red carpet, put their best foot forward and sell you on a program which is in their interest rather than yours.
I agree you hit Pres. Karzai hard, but as you point out, he is still the President. You can be sure that he will merely mouth you and any other Congressional visitors to extract from the American public every last dollar that he can.
The US military in Afghanistan is composed of people with a combination of motives. Some are in the military primarily to have someone take care of them. Some are there because they want to fight. Others seek power. However, the whole combination should have known full well when they enlisted that there are various jobs to be done. In many cases, these require multiple assignments to fighting zones and most involve separation from their families, when they have families. What I'm saying is, my heartstrings should not be pulled because of these family separations and possibility of death from enemy action through multiple tours of duty. I also love and pray for them, but these responsibilities, duties, and risks go with the job.
However, I am more concerned with why we are there. You have not addressed that point specifically and perhaps you should not have, based upon the fact that your visit involved on-the-ground viewing, rather than strategy. You did touch on it a bit by saying the Afghans must take ownership of their country and make the decisions and sacrifices that are necessary to be a free people. You also said Pres. Karzai must establish a responsible government, which would include eliminating corruption, in response to US support. Randy, this is nation-building, and we should have no part of it. Liberal Democrats have been trying to do this for a great number of years, and it has failed every time.
Our only interest in Afghanistan should be a matter of American security. Our interest is that Al Qaeda and the Taliban should not be using Afghanistan as a base of operations from which to obtain Pakistani nuclear weapons, with the possibility that those weapons might be used against us. However I have treated that subject separately, including interest and responsibilities of Russia and the NATO countries of Western Europe. I've also said ground forces in Afghanistan are not necessary to maintain this American security. It can be done by superior technological capabilities from a distance.
The bottom line of now having our military in Afghanistan is nation-building, and we should get out. I quote you again, "The Afghans must take ownership of their country and make the decisions and sacrifices that are necessary to be a free people".
I have read your December 7 newsletter concerning your visit to Afghanistan.
My first reaction is to congratulate you for visiting this hot spot of contention. Later reflection, based on the details of your report, leads me to wonder a bit. When a high profile person representing money such as yourself, visits the recipients, it is almost guaranteed that they will lay out the red carpet, put their best foot forward and sell you on a program which is in their interest rather than yours.
I agree you hit Pres. Karzai hard, but as you point out, he is still the President. You can be sure that he will merely mouth you and any other Congressional visitors to extract from the American public every last dollar that he can.
The US military in Afghanistan is composed of people with a combination of motives. Some are in the military primarily to have someone take care of them. Some are there because they want to fight. Others seek power. However, the whole combination should have known full well when they enlisted that there are various jobs to be done. In many cases, these require multiple assignments to fighting zones and most involve separation from their families, when they have families. What I'm saying is, my heartstrings should not be pulled because of these family separations and possibility of death from enemy action through multiple tours of duty. I also love and pray for them, but these responsibilities, duties, and risks go with the job.
However, I am more concerned with why we are there. You have not addressed that point specifically and perhaps you should not have, based upon the fact that your visit involved on-the-ground viewing, rather than strategy. You did touch on it a bit by saying the Afghans must take ownership of their country and make the decisions and sacrifices that are necessary to be a free people. You also said Pres. Karzai must establish a responsible government, which would include eliminating corruption, in response to US support. Randy, this is nation-building, and we should have no part of it. Liberal Democrats have been trying to do this for a great number of years, and it has failed every time.
Our only interest in Afghanistan should be a matter of American security. Our interest is that Al Qaeda and the Taliban should not be using Afghanistan as a base of operations from which to obtain Pakistani nuclear weapons, with the possibility that those weapons might be used against us. However I have treated that subject separately, including interest and responsibilities of Russia and the NATO countries of Western Europe. I've also said ground forces in Afghanistan are not necessary to maintain this American security. It can be done by superior technological capabilities from a distance.
The bottom line of now having our military in Afghanistan is nation-building, and we should get out. I quote you again, "The Afghans must take ownership of their country and make the decisions and sacrifices that are necessary to be a free people".
Friday, December 4, 2009
More on troops to Afghanistan
E-mail to Congress:
I listened to Pres. Obama's talk from West Point concerning why he was sending 30,000 more ground troops to Afghanistan.
He didn't say anything we already didn't know. Basically, he claimed to be doing so for "security" reasons. He didn't say what "security". He sort of skirted around the fact that Pakistan has atomic weapons, and he doesn't want those atomic weapons to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda or Taliban.
I found it much more interesting that later all the pundits were discussing the timetable of withdrawal, without any significant attention to the atomic weapon aspect. There was no mention of Western Europe or Russia, as their even having the slightest interest in the affair. It was as if they are somehow immune to any effects of atomic weapons falling into the hands of rogue countries. The pundit discussion was only about the United States and what it could and would do. There was some reference to all the great help that the NATO countries would contribute to the ground forces. In fact, Great Britain will send 500, and Italy later said they would send 1000. Is that a significant contribution compared to our sending 30,000? Will France, Germany, and Spain do it? Not on your life. The European Union has always taken the attitude that if there is tough work to be done, "let George (the US) do it".
Lets assume the worst for a minute. Let's assume that Al Qaeda and Taliban form a partnership and collectively they are able to confiscate the atomic weapons of Pakistan. So what? The partnership has no animosity toward Russia, Spain, European Union countries in general? Wrong! They will strike where it will be the easiest to strike, and that will not be the US. They have no intercontinental ballistic missiles for delivery and smuggling an atomic weapon into the US by sea and overland would be extremely difficult, compared to a nice drop on a close European country. Do you think that European countries haven't already anticipated this? They have! They are just waiting for bankrupt US to handle the problem for them, go deeper into debt, fall apart at the seams, and then they will see what they have to do on their own.
I listened to Pres. Obama's talk from West Point concerning why he was sending 30,000 more ground troops to Afghanistan.
He didn't say anything we already didn't know. Basically, he claimed to be doing so for "security" reasons. He didn't say what "security". He sort of skirted around the fact that Pakistan has atomic weapons, and he doesn't want those atomic weapons to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda or Taliban.
I found it much more interesting that later all the pundits were discussing the timetable of withdrawal, without any significant attention to the atomic weapon aspect. There was no mention of Western Europe or Russia, as their even having the slightest interest in the affair. It was as if they are somehow immune to any effects of atomic weapons falling into the hands of rogue countries. The pundit discussion was only about the United States and what it could and would do. There was some reference to all the great help that the NATO countries would contribute to the ground forces. In fact, Great Britain will send 500, and Italy later said they would send 1000. Is that a significant contribution compared to our sending 30,000? Will France, Germany, and Spain do it? Not on your life. The European Union has always taken the attitude that if there is tough work to be done, "let George (the US) do it".
Lets assume the worst for a minute. Let's assume that Al Qaeda and Taliban form a partnership and collectively they are able to confiscate the atomic weapons of Pakistan. So what? The partnership has no animosity toward Russia, Spain, European Union countries in general? Wrong! They will strike where it will be the easiest to strike, and that will not be the US. They have no intercontinental ballistic missiles for delivery and smuggling an atomic weapon into the US by sea and overland would be extremely difficult, compared to a nice drop on a close European country. Do you think that European countries haven't already anticipated this? They have! They are just waiting for bankrupt US to handle the problem for them, go deeper into debt, fall apart at the seams, and then they will see what they have to do on their own.
Troops to Afghanistan
E-mail to Representative Neugebauer:
I have read your November 30 Newsletter.
I see that you are basically in support of sending additional troops to Afghanistan. I am not, although I retain an open mind to see what President Obama offers in the way of strategy in his talk this evening.
The tentative reason for my position is that we should not be "nation-building". We have tried this before at great cost and have always failed. We obviously can't afford it now, with all of the ridiculous expenditures that Congress and the President have approved to astronomically increase our government debt and fiscal deficit.
If it is not "nation-building", but more a matter of security for the American public, there are other ways to obtain that security without ground troops. If the CIA has any validity, we have covert capability to determine locations of potential threat. These could be handled by significant strikes through use of intercontinental ballistic missiles or traditional aerial bombardment. Keep in mind also that both Russia and China have a stake in avoiding the use of atomic weapons by maverick countries or groups.
Now that President Obama has decided to send more troops, I hope his evening presentation will clearly define why we are doing so.
I think you are right on target with respect to "Climate Gate
I have read your November 30 Newsletter.
I see that you are basically in support of sending additional troops to Afghanistan. I am not, although I retain an open mind to see what President Obama offers in the way of strategy in his talk this evening.
The tentative reason for my position is that we should not be "nation-building". We have tried this before at great cost and have always failed. We obviously can't afford it now, with all of the ridiculous expenditures that Congress and the President have approved to astronomically increase our government debt and fiscal deficit.
If it is not "nation-building", but more a matter of security for the American public, there are other ways to obtain that security without ground troops. If the CIA has any validity, we have covert capability to determine locations of potential threat. These could be handled by significant strikes through use of intercontinental ballistic missiles or traditional aerial bombardment. Keep in mind also that both Russia and China have a stake in avoiding the use of atomic weapons by maverick countries or groups.
Now that President Obama has decided to send more troops, I hope his evening presentation will clearly define why we are doing so.
I think you are right on target with respect to "Climate Gate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
