Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire You are now the POTUS, what do you do?

All I can say is thank god none of you guys is actually PODUS.

Since I'm the President.....I don't have to "tackle" your issues first.

I'd call the airport and have the fuel up Air Force One and I'd be the first President to shoot an elephant in Africa since Teddy R.

Only, since I'm not worried about reelection, I'm not waiting until I'm out of office. I'm off tomorrow. By the way, I'd somehow arrange to have the Secret Service take care of the "Mugabe" problem, while I was hunting Matesi.

<-------starts playing "HAIL TO THE CHIEF"....

Jeff <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well, first of all, I'd never voluntarily hold the position of President or any other political office--or any non-political office I was voted into.

But I did a little informal survey once with a hypothetical platform to find out how many folks would vote for me if--hypothetically--I were to run on it, and was quite pleasantly surprised at the result.

The platform, originally, was that I promised not to do a single thing during the four years of my term--or until I was impeached--but lie in a Barcalounger all day and watch cable television, and veto every bill Congress sent me without even reading it. Including, of course, all appropriations bills. No press conferences, no occasions of state, no talk shows, no commander-in-chiefing, no Air Force One--I'd e-mail in my state-of-the-union addresses. (Congress could have somebody read the e-mails in a nationally televised joint session if they liked that kind of thing.)

But in the real world, I wouldn't be able to tolerate that much indolence; I'd have to do something. So I figured...why not get a PO box, go back to my regular job, and just have Congress forward all its bills to my box? Once a month (or once a week, I suppose, if Congress just couldn't hold its water) I could go by the box, pick up the mail, and spend a few minutes vetoing bills, then send them all back. I figure I could do the whole President thing in my spare time, maybe an hour or two a month.

But that's if I were President, and I'd never be President.

Reduce troop levels (US and Coalition) by 2/3 over the next 2 years on the outside; where there is now a Division replace it with a Brigade, and move the VAST majority of non-organic support units out of Iraq. At the same time move the units to US or European style camps well away from the general population. At each base/camp establish a training cadre from the unit stationed there to train the Iraqi military in an advisory role. Bring in private contract police to train Iraqi Law Enforcement. As the bases are being built slowly end US troop patrols of Iraqi cities and villages, Iraqis need to see Iraqis conducting their security. When Iraq dissolves into a full-fledged, no BS, shoot-em-up civil war (when the pot that's been simmering since 1991 boils over) stand firm in the bases, let the Iraqis sort it out, and make a determination if we want to deal with whoever is in charge in that area at the time. If not, blow the base and walk away. Iraq; or Kurdistan, or Sunni-stan, or Shia-stan will stand or fall on it's own.


No I don't. The United States will be happy to trade with North Korea, but only if the trade is mutually beneficial. Make something we want to buy and we will gladly pay for it, otherwise pack sand.


We will be glad to buy Iranian oil if they offer the lowest price, but they must realize that Isreal is our ally and as such any attack on Isreal, even by proxy, will be taken as an attack on us and we will respond with appropriate force. We will also not trade with any nation that harbors or supports those who would attack us or our allies. Iran stands to make some pretty good money if they get smart.


Hamas is a terrorist organization and we will not deal with them. We will continue to support Israel and recognize her borders, including that territory taken in conflict to defend her sovieregnty. If Israel decides to deal with Hamas we will support that decision, if Isreal decides to divide herself to provide a Palestinian homeland we will support it to the point of giving up full soviergnty. In the end the decision is to be between Isreal and those people living in Israel who are not Isreali.


Simple, nations who harbor or support terrorists will not be traded with, or dealt with as equals. In any nation controlled by a known terrorist organization we will close our embassy and shut down all trade. Nations who wish to reap the benefits of trade with the US will soon make out like bandits. Those who might go so far as to attack our trade can just stand by, we will deal with them with appropriate force.


Isreal will have to learn to stand on it's own two feet. They are an ally and will continue to be treated as such, but they will not suckle at the teat of the US taxpayer. If Israel is in need of cash due to a negative GNP then they will have to provide a service we can pay for, on a user fee basis, not annual salary.


The key to shutting down the influence of the Saud family is shutting down OPEC. Openly state our position; we will buy oil from the lowest priced seller, anywhere in the world for the same quality product, we will NOT buy from those who harbor or support terrorists, we will NOT buy from those who attack us or our allies openly or by proxy, if you need services the US can provide (but you can't pay for) we will take oil in trade, there will be no preferential treatment.


Two words: nuclear power.


We have a National Guard for a reason. I'm sure there enough combat arms units in the Guard to patrol the border 24/7/365 and all on their Annual Training under the control of the US Border Patrol. Regarding drugs, this is just the place that we can help Central and South American countries curb the drug trade at the roots in exchange for oil.



This is just a start.....

Bob

Barak,

My deal was sort of a Gotterdamrung scenario. If we were to nuke Mecca, it is a sort of last defiant act of revenge, all the while knowing that it signals the end of things as we know it. That is the theory of mutual assured destruction. You have to be ready to pull the trigger knowing that the bullet is going to have to go through your own skull before it kills the other guy as well and the other guy has to know you are ready and willing to do it.

I don't think the Muslims are crazy, so I think it would work, maybe. My point was that if they are crazy enough to make us nuke Mecca, then there is no hope anyway. Just like if the Russians had been crazy enough to start something, it really wouldn't have mattered what we would have done and we wouldn't have worried about the reaction of Russian immigrants in America.

You can bet the Israelies have a similar plan and all their Arab neighbors know it. If they go too far against Israel, every Arab capital and Mecca and Medina will only be so much shiny melted sand.

I'm not sure I like even that much involvement.

Suppose you were an Iraqi policeman or soldier, and somebody was telling you:

"There's a dangerous, bloody job out there that needs to be done. Chances are it'll take your life, or one or more of your limbs, or at the very least your peace of mind and probably any semblance of family life you might have as well. We Americans are going to do this job for you until we're satisfied that you can do it for yourself. We're going to stay here, supported on the backs of the American taxpayers, for as long as it takes for you to learn the job, even if it takes years. Some of us--maybe even lots of us--will die doing this job for you, but that's okay: we're Americans and we are going to stay the course, no matter what happens. When you finally learn how to do the job yourselves, then we'll go home and leave it in your lap and let you start being killed and dismembered instead."

How quickly would you strive to learn that job?

On the other hand, suppose somebody told you this instead:

"You think you might have a good thing going here, with this democracy and stuff? You think maybe you have a chance for something bigger and better than anything you've ever dreamed of before? Well if you do, then you had better get up off your butts and figure out how you're going to keep it from running right through your fingers, because you know what? September first we're outa here, and you're on your own. Succeed or fail, live or die, look competent or look stupid in the eyes of the world: the choice is yours...and the decision will be made six months from tomorrow. Good luck."

Here is how we can solve the border issue. We kidnap Chavez and Fox. We make Chavez the ruler of Mexico, and insist he make Mexico into a communist country. We encourage Chavez to strengthen his ties with China so they can help him be a good communist....which of course means building a wall across the US Mexico border and make 100% sure no Mexican citizens escape--as all good communist countries do.

Then we help a US friendly president get elected in Venezuala, and we become the only customer for their oil.

What do you say? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Maybe.

I'm not convinced that a bunch of ignorant superstitious ragheads from squalid Middle Eastern hellholes are capable of assuredly destroying this country. Terrorist attacks, sure; maybe even a couple or three big ones that kill thousands--even dozens of thousands--of people. But we've got hundreds of millions where they came from. If we could quit relying on the government to keep us safe and trying to address a non-military threat with an inappropriate military response, we could become a whole lot harder to attack successfully.

This was OK 200 years ago, but we now live in a world wide economy and import vital items from the four corners of the world. And it's not just us.

Just as Britain in the 19th century had to develop a world wide presence to protect its economic interests, so do we now. It might not be convenient to think so, but we depend on resources from around the world.

"Make our kids pay hefty fines if they wear their hats backward or their pants down around their asss."


Damn 284, that was good!




Mac

Too bad it can't be get-er-done!

Musings are fun. We can extrapolate scenarios all over the board to right out of kilter situations all over the world, but I am inclined to believe that as you move out from the areas in North America with smatterings of remaining core values towards the rest of the world, they could'nt care less as long as the tanks weren't rolling down their streets..........again. The world wide masses favoring appeasement at any cost over confrontations, in all areas of controversy, be it Muslim fundamentalists, other peoples attrocites, tyrants in other countries, border issues, ad infinitum, are the bigger problem than the problem itself. They are sinking into a quagmire of indifference to anything but survival and self-gratification, that strips humanity from humans and promises to plunge mankind towards the abyss of catastrope that will pull the rest down with it. I wonder if that realization makes many of us suggest extreme solutions to extreme problems. I also wonder how many would actually follow through on their "solutions" when the time came to give the final "make it so". I must admit to truly believe that nuke strikes at all of Irans nuclear facilties looks to me to be the only sure way out a situation bound to deteriorate and drag the rest of the world into it, if the inflamatory rethoric from insanely devout lunatics coupled with nuclear capability continues. And how will it not? Still, if I could flip the switch to make it all happen, I'm not sure I could, but neither am I sure I wouldn't.

Well, I agree with that as well. You will notice that my scenario about nuking them was only as a last response after removing our troops from the Middle East and leaving people alone. I feel that if we truly did that, then we really won't have to worry about nuking anybody. The nuke response is just kind of a bone to the people who say "they hate us because of our freedoms". I don't think that is true, but just in case it is, we'll take out Mecca if you mess with us.

Re: the "nuke 'em" option; I am diametrically opposed to that.

In fact, and this is going to be heresy, but allow me to explain, I'd rather the U.S. or Israel receive a nuke than give one out. Yep, take one and NOT give one.

Here's why:

Let's say we actually dropped on Mecca, Medina, or Tehran. Okay, now we have zero support globally, have just invited and basically approved as far as global opinion (and much at home) any response the terrorists want to throw at us, for as long as they want to, inside or outside the U.S. We would remain the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon on it's opponents, and in this case, well, it's a lose-lose situation IMHO.

Now, if Tel Aviv were to take one, or maybe even NYC, LA, or D.C., the situation changes dramatically. Opinions for what to do from at home go to the "whatever is necessary" extreme. The global opinion of the terrorists and Iran go to zero, Europe is likely galvanized behind us, and the gloves come off. Permanently. A massive, overwhelming and CONVENTIONAL response is explicitly approved, and Katie-bar-the-door in the Middle East, 'cause there's a new sheriff in town PDQ.

Further, we now have the moral high ground, pretty much permanently, can and will do whatever we choose over there and in regards to N. Korea, can push for and get across the board nuclear disarmament globally.

Yes, it would suck for Tel Aviv, or NYC, or LA, or D.C., and that's a horrible price to pay. In a perfect world, it would never happen, but the likelihood is there that it will happen, somewhere, sometime, and IMHO, this way gets it over and done with just once.

Okay, I don't really mean this, mostly because of a lot of innocents living in the three cities emphasized above, but if NYC, LA or Washington, D.C. took a nuclear weapon...

Geez, talk about a win-win situation.


(Well, I'd miss visiting the Smithsonian, but other than that...)

I'm with VA.

Okay, carpet bomb the Kabba. But really, I am in favor of the nukes because I am pretty much in favor of drastically reducing the size of the military. I mean like an army of less than 100,000.

With a very small military, our penchant for imperial adventures will be greatly hampered. How will we protect ourselves, you say? Simple, we let every one know that we really have only one option to any undue aggression and they don't really want us to have use that do they? Meanwhile, we trade with all nations, keep to ourselves, and make no enemies. Nukes are cheap and wouldn't require much in the way of military expenditure, as well. Likewise, it would be kind of hard for our hawks to get worked up about what is happening in Crapblakastan if the only military option we have is to nuke someone. It makes us mind our own business and still gives those who might hazard to harm us, cause for pause.

We will be like the enormously fat cops you see. You know the ones I am talking about. The ones that are so fat that they could never successfully fight off or chase down a suspect. So, you know that anyone who ever messes with cop or tries to run from him is going to get shot because that cop won't be able to do anything else.

We're getting closer. You say drastically reduce the size of the military, I say privatize it and let it take on whatever size the competitive free market would support.

I am not sure you could successfully privatize a military as that true privatization means that things have to pay for themselves or provide some other useful benefit. It you are saying privatize it, but still have the government (us) pay the tab, I am against that. I would much rather completely get rid of a professional military than do that. I don't want our government funding private armies to go around and do its dirty work. If you mean privatize, with a private person paying for it, well then he is going to have to figure out a way to make it pay. That is going to turn out a lot like feudalism.

Just get rid of a professional army altogether. Our founders understood that professional armies created more trouble than they are worth. A small force combined with reserves and militias for genuine homeland defense backed up by nukes for very serious threats. Avoid foreign adventures and entangling alliances.

If we do all of that, chances are we won't have any enemies, but if we do, then we are not defenseless.

Barak, whenever I see you post about privatized army...I think about warlords. In your view how would the comand and control work? What would be the safeguards AGAINST such groups?