Musings about technology, telecommunications, public policy, regulation, society, media, war, culture, politics, travel and the nature of things...
"The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children"
...Dietrich Bonhoeffer
I disagree with this and I couldn't listen to more than a couple minutes, though I respect Gingrich.
I would focus on protecting the borders of the US, directly protecting the homeland. No more planes flying into towers killing many people.
In the middle east, beyond doing what we need to do to help protect Israel, that place has to hit bottom and pick itself up. If this means a nuclear conflict related to Pakistan, as long as Israel's protect, let them have an all out war. The Islamic world needs to wage it's own civil war, as the US did, with nearly 1m lost, without pulling the west into it. They have to experience extreme tragedy before they will wake up and join the modern world. We wouldn't be in half the mess we are in now if Bush had fixed the domestic security issues. There's no reason why the Twin Towers had to be taken out. It was preventable. We're wasting our military in Afghanistan. I would just get out and let the Islamic world go up in flames. That fight isn't winnable and mostly only serves as a recruiting excuse for the enemy, just as the Iraq war did. Take out Iran's nukes if we must but don't get troops involved.
And part of domestic security is energy policy. End the stigma against nuclear energy and coal energy. Exploit these obvious avenues to get off oil, putting another hammer into the middle east, pushing it to get into new industries.
Painful as it is to be heavily involved in other parts of the world fighting terrorism, I don't beleive that we can allow the terrorists to have access to nuclear weapons. The consequences are just too gruesome to envisage.
Just how we go about preventing that is subject to, as it should be, considerable debate. But nukes going off in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem,Tehran, Islamabad, Mumbai, Kabul, Damascus, or Baghdad is an unthinkable catastrophe.
2 comments:
I disagree with this and I couldn't listen to more than a couple minutes, though I respect Gingrich.
I would focus on protecting the borders of the US, directly protecting the homeland. No more planes flying into towers killing many people.
In the middle east, beyond doing what we need to do to help protect Israel, that place has to hit bottom and pick itself up. If this means a nuclear conflict related to Pakistan, as long as Israel's protect, let them have an all out war. The Islamic world needs to wage it's own civil war, as the US did, with nearly 1m lost, without pulling the west into it. They have to experience extreme tragedy before they will wake up and join the modern world. We wouldn't be in half the mess we are in now if Bush had fixed the domestic security issues. There's no reason why the Twin Towers had to be taken out. It was preventable. We're wasting our military in Afghanistan. I would just get out and let the Islamic world go up in flames. That fight isn't winnable and mostly only serves as a recruiting excuse for the enemy, just as the Iraq war did. Take out Iran's nukes if we must but don't get troops involved.
And part of domestic security is energy policy. End the stigma against nuclear energy and coal energy. Exploit these obvious avenues to get off oil, putting another hammer into the middle east, pushing it to get into new industries.
My two cents!
Painful as it is to be heavily involved in other parts of the world fighting terrorism, I don't beleive that we can allow the terrorists to have access to nuclear weapons. The consequences are just too gruesome to envisage.
Just how we go about preventing that is subject to, as it should be, considerable debate. But nukes going off in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem,Tehran, Islamabad, Mumbai, Kabul, Damascus, or Baghdad is an unthinkable catastrophe.
Post a Comment