It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Candidate Declaration: xpert11, Reform

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 06:59 PM
I explain my policy in some detail so people will know how illegal aliens and other matters will be dealt with. Since no one in there right mind would campaign on maintaining the status quo(SP?)
So the question becomes which and who's course of action is the best to take ?
I believe that I offer the best course of action on all fronts. The voters will decide if they agree with me.

posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 01:41 AM
Foreign policy. Part 3

Middle East.
If possible solutions should come from with in the region in the recent past the measures below have been suggested.

Israel is required to withdraw from all territories seized in 1967 - the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
In return, all Arab states offer normal diplomatic relations - including a peace deal that recognises Israel's right to exist and secures its borders.


My admin would support such a plan.
The Palestine people have been failed by there leaders to such an extend that the current crop are probably impossible to put on the path of responsible governance. The key lies in promoting unity amongst moderate Palestine and Israeli youth. The extremists still have to be weeded out because any political process can only succeeded when two or more moderates come to the table.

If future leaders of Israel and Palestine are moderates who support the idea of unity there is a very good chance that the Israel and Palestine states will be able to peaceful co exist.

posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 01:54 AM
An interesting idea. How would you make this work, given the current state of the Palestinean government?

posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 02:34 AM
The are two possible answers to answers.
First answer.
Admittedly that is the biggest problem to over come . To be honest until a new generation of leaders emerge the best bet seems to be to encourage moderate Palatines to stand for office and/or be apart of the political process.

Second answer.
The other aspect that could work in the peace processes favour is that the Palestine government may be more inclined to accepted a deal that has come from inside the region. They may also be prepared to listen and work with more local leaders.

The second answer is preferable but it dosnt seem the most realistic so that really only leaves option one unless the Palestine government starts to show some enthusiasm for the plan outlined above . There is also the matter of corruption amongst the Palestine government.

Now here is an idea that is worth brining to the table.
Make Jerusalem or sections of the city that contain such things as the Western Wall an International City. Both sides could contribute financially to the City of Jerusalem but neither side would have sovereign ownership.

Justin Oldham thanks for the questions.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by xpert11]

posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 11:44 PM
The House and the Senate have each passed supplemental military spending bills for the war in Iraq. Each of the two bills contains some measure that would mandate a pull-out of U.S. forces from Iraq. Although it seems most likely that President Bush will veto the measure, it will ensure that Congress will remain hostile to overseas military action for some time to come.\

If you were President NOW, would you veto this bill?

Assuming that you are elected to the Presidency, how will you make nice with such a hostile Congress?

posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 12:17 AM

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
If you were President NOW, would you veto this bill?

Well I'm not President now so I cant answer that question. I can say that if it happened when I was in office I would consider vetoing the bill.

Assuming that you are elected to the Presidency, how will you make nice with such a hostile Congress?

Have of an open door to those who are willing to talk and listen. I would point out that a withdrawl would lead to an Islamic state that will be a greater threat then Saddam ever was. The resolution is non binding so its really just political games.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by xpert11]

posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 05:49 AM
It's been said by Hillary Clinton and others that some troops will have to be left in Iraq after the general withdrawl. The case is made that a small garrison must remain to ensure the survival of a pro-Western government. Would you support this policy?

posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 06:38 AM
Justin Oldham your question seems to indicate that the running of the geographical area known as Iraq would still be left to the current Iraqi government.
So on that basis I have to answer no to your question. My Iraq policy is quite clear and it dosnt involve Iraq remaining in its current form.

See my Iraq policy for more details.

posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 07:42 AM
You have not mentioned the UN in your statements of foreign policy.

What is your view of the UN?

posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 09:57 PM
United Nations.
In its current form the UN is corrupt and ineffective.
My admin would push for a major reforms of the UN.
Here is a summary of the reforms.

Human Rights would be brought to the forefront with the UN having the means of methods of dealing with Human Rights abuses such as in Sudan.
Remove the power of veto from the Security Council.
Review the nations that sit on the Security Council and have more countries there on a temporary basis.
Stamp out corruption. Corruption as a crime would be treated on par with Human Rights abuses.

The likes of Sudan will not sit on any Councils that deal with Human Rights.

Means need to be found to control the spread Nuclear weapons and technology.

Any leaders who are responsible or commit Human rights abuses or spread corruption at the UN will be brought to justice.

The UN wouldn't deal with Terror suspects directly instead there would be an international convention in place that would be enforced. Governments themselves would deal with Terror suspects. Under the Convention torture would be illegal. The UN would deal with states that support and shelter Terrorists.

Now here comes the hard part.
How to persuaded governments to sign up to these reforms ?
Trade sanctions and a ban on arms sales to the countries that don't sign up to the reforms. Russia poses(SP?) the biggest problem from a US point of view . Russia may not sign up to the reformed UN and the US needs to build bridges with Russia. The key to ensuring that nations are willing to sign up is to make sure that the US economy is strong enough that every country will want access to the US market.

Its time to make the UN an effective force in creating and maintaining global security and Human Rights for every person.

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 08:54 AM
Your policy statement suggests that you might withold funds from the U.N. in an effort to get your way. If the answer is "Yes," what would cause you to do that?

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 01:50 AM
My admin would only consider supporting cutting off funding to the UN if nations en mass failed to sign up for the reformed UN.

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 09:56 AM

In short a framework needs to be found that will allow the US to contain or reduce the influence of the rise of China ,Russia and India. India will be the key middle man splitting Russia and China could well rely on India siding with US. Once India has sided with US political pressure needs to be applied to the Indian government to ensure that India dosnt side with Russia or China.
If China and Russia are competing for ties with India there may be less focus on there own relationship.

Interested in how your administration reacts to the news that India is dealing with Russia on the purchase of weapons systems. Does this not reduce the influence that the US can have on India. And how does this play in your aim of using India to split Russia and China?

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Interested in how your administration reacts to the news that India is dealing with Russia on the purchase of weapons systems. Does this not reduce the influence that the US can have on India. And how does this play in your aim of using India to split Russia and China?

Interesting question. Russian arms sales to India is Russias way of laying the foundations for closer cooperation and future trade. The arms sales to tip the balance of influence slightly in Russias favour but a lot less then arms sales would have to Iran.

My admin would look to an free trade agreement with India. Consumer goods will end up being worth more in economic terms then arms sales.

posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 12:45 AM
In regards to free trade, would you leave the NAFTA and CAFTA agreements in tact, or would you try to have them amended?

In regards to India, would you insist that India keeps its current trade barriers to China? Assuming that you CAN get a free trade deal with India, what stops the Chiense from asking India for the same thing?

posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 01:26 AM
In terms of NAFTA and CAFTA the sections of the agreements that deal with border security if applicable would be reviewed to ensure that there isnt a clash between my admin border security policy and the agreements.

Now as for China seeking a FTA with India putting aside a couple other factors China is free to continue going down that road. The US has to economically strong enough to ensure that India gains more by trading with the US.

posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 10:49 PM
Xpert 11 and I took part in a DEBATE that some ATS members may find to be worth reading.

posted on May, 9 2007 @ 04:54 PM

I like some of your ideas, such as your general approach to border security and putting the needs of legal citizens ahead those of illegal aliens. But I do have a question regarding your proposal to legalize drugs. Do you mean all drugs, or just marijuana? I realize that there are benefits with keeping the casual user of pot out of prison, but when it comes to things like meth or PCP, I'm not so sure I'd like to see those completely legal.

posted on May, 9 2007 @ 05:13 PM
Marijuana would be legalized and other drugs such as heroin would remain illegal. Controls would be put in place like there is with booze and cigarettes.
Politically legalizing Marijuana would be a hard sell little alone legalizing other drugs such as heroin.

posted on May, 10 2007 @ 08:43 AM
Good point. Marijuana should be treated the same as alcohol and nicotine as far as legalization and penalties. This by itself would take a large burden off of law enforcement, the courts, and the prisons.

Another question: What is your position regarding the United Nations? Should the US continue to be the base of operations, and should we continue our role in the UN?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in