Also conspicuous by its absence. But I don't think there is much to say.

There may be some disagreement, but as a proposed start though I'm not good at wording such thigns:

Quote:

The military should not be used against US Citizens and is for securing our borders and citizens. The national guard should be home, here in the US helping to meet crises within our border. It is not to funnel money to defense contractors or programs or provide jobs as this just makes us weaker. We are funding both sides in several conflicts but should fund nothing and no one beyond paying rent for forward bases or for use of their resources. We cannot bring liberty to the world that doesn't want it either by money or force. We need to become secure as we once were - not depending on other nations for anything, an d particularly not to have our economic security dependent on having a military threat of initiation of force if they don't "cooperate"

I think terrorism is covered in the other planks by the discussion of self-defense, the 4th amendment, and the TSA. The split is over where to consider it a law enforcement matter and where to use the military. That would be a prudential judgment based on whatever conditions present themselves at the time.

Pakistan has between 90 and 110 nuclear warheads. If we do not pay them to keep half their population pacified and to keep the other half of their population under the governments thumb, who takes over and runs Pakistan? Who would have control over their Nuclear stockpiles? Pakistan sucks and giving them money we don't have sucks, but if it is not OUR paid off puppet government in charge over there cracking heads..... Who will be? It's a tough choice.

Quote:

If we do not pay them to keep half their population pacified and to keep the other half of their population under the governments thumb, who takes over and runs Pakistan?

Then perhaps we ought not be blowing up villages and killing a lot of innocent friends and family with our predator drones. Before 9/11 we were generally not hated and resented in Pakistan. I would also note a short time ago they had a flood worse than anything the Mississippi has done in the last century and we did nothing to help. The military holds the nukes. We are actively turning the military against us since they don't like being killed by their citizens when we have them do our bidding. And Osama was in a house a few miles from their "West Point". Paying them won't help if we do enough things on their soil to make the entire population rightfully hate us.

They don't even have oil. Leaving them alone would make us safer.

India also has nukes, as does Israel. Do we need to pay bribes to every country that might pose a threat? And what if they keep doubling the protection racket money? We're already broke. Or should we suggest that we have more nukes and will turn an entire country into a radioactive wasteland if they lose or misuse even one bomb and it blows up on US territory.

India and Israel will not be taken over by radical fundimentilists muslims.

You know NOTHING of Islam.

Defence and foriegn policy are driven by our energy policy. I will go with Gen on our enegy policy of energy independace.
Then rethink our foriegn aid/defence.

1lumpor2 - Pakistan has control of their nukes.

It is rumored that China has more people than we do in Pakistan, ready to secure the nukes if instability gets too far out of hand.

It is in every nuclear state's favor if pakistan stays in the status quo and if the USA drops it's efforts, one of the other big shots will step up to keep things stable.

If we end all foreign aid (which in its present form I favor so doing) then we need to grow up and realize a few things-- we are basically paying bribe money overseas. (An extended definition of foreign aid might include covert assistance to all those NGOS that pop up all over the place, like in the various color revolutions in Eastern Europe.) Basically slush funds to keep things pacified overseas-- but primarily ending up in the same comfortable subset of foreign (and domestic corporate!) pockets.
If we do end all foreign aid we have to grow up and realize that getting our exact way overseas will be a lot harder than it is now. It means also that if one side wins a war we can't go disputing the results using bribes to all sides as leverage. It means having our diplomats kept in waiting rooms instead of being immediately seen in some cases.
It probably will be that some level of residual and temporary bribe money (cheaper than actual military action) is needed to keep the 2 vital inputs to our economy going: Oil and rare elements imports. We should as rapidly as possible get to the stage of not needing even these (ie space solar power and thorium reactors, Fischer-Tropsch etc etc on the energy side, and diversification of supply on the rare element side ie, no you may not import 90% of all your rare earths from one country, or you will pay a special tarrif designed to make competing sources competitive)
Our foreign affairs must be conducted so as to exclude sudden import supply shocks to our economy as it recovers under restored liberties. Otherwise the people conducting them are not doing their job. The average citizen has enough on his plate without having his elbow jogged by avoidable huge increases in prices for vital fuels and minerals.

Eventually everyone will have nukes. Anyone that wants them already has Chemical agents. Non-proliferation is not an effective policy, nor is trying to strong-arm nuclear-capable nations.

Defense is the answer. Intelligence operations to track warheads. Detection at our borders. And defense against delivery systems (missiles). Take our budget for meddling in foreign affairs and spend most of it on defending our border.

Nothing for tribute. MillionsTrillions for defense.