Ummmmm.....because you answered the OP. Did you not? The post doesn't say "What if you were the American President? I'll prove you wrong". My question was simple, you answered it, why do I need to elaborate on your solutions? I agree with a lot of your original post, but I don't agree with the basic idea of "it is our own fault" and do nothing in return. Now, how should a U.S. president react to such an attack. I don't know....THAT IS WHY I ASKED!!!!CameronPoe wrote:
So open-minded that you won't even begin to entertain my suggestion as to how the problem might be tackled. Nice job bringing me into the 'all-inclusive' fray.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
... and I am very, very open minded.
At least tell me what the flaws in my plan are so I can either agree, disagree or modify the plan where appropriate....
PS In the west it is a fringe movement. In countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan it is more than that.
I would turn all the ME into a Wal-Mart parking lot ( shared with a Home Depot of course).DeathBecomesYu wrote:
My question is this. As some of you may know by listening to the news and/ or reading the news that threats from Al-qaida are becoming more and more threatening. There was a recent intelligence report stating that this AQ has the people in place and have access to nuclear/ dirty bomb material and the know how to put it to use. Now, no one knows how close they are to actually pulling something off but I do believe that this will happen in Europe or if AQ's wish were to come true...in America. Now here is my question. If a nuclear bomb does go off (big, small or dirty), let's say in the heart of Chicago or some other major city and AQ claims responsibility, if you were the American president....What would you do?
Since AQ does not have a conventional army, does not have borders of any kind....how should America respond, especially if YOU were president.
Oh yeah, and for good measure, bomb the shit outta France while I am at it. Just because it is full of fuckin' French.
Thank you for agreeing with a lot of my original post. Was it that hard to admit?DeathBecomesYu wrote:
Ummmmm.....because you answered the OP. Did you not? The post doesn't say "What if you were the American President? I'll prove you wrong". My question was simple, you answered it, why do I need to elaborate on your solutions? I agree with a lot of your original post, but I don't agree with the basic idea of "it is our own fault" and do nothing in return. Now, how should a U.S. president react to such an attack. I don't know....THAT IS WHY I ASKED!!!!CameronPoe wrote:
So open-minded that you won't even begin to entertain my suggestion as to how the problem might be tackled. Nice job bringing me into the 'all-inclusive' fray.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
... and I am very, very open minded.
At least tell me what the flaws in my plan are so I can either agree, disagree or modify the plan where appropriate....
PS In the west it is a fringe movement. In countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan it is more than that.
PS Implementing what I mentioned DOES NOT EQUATE TO doing nothing in return. You chase after the culprits with the CIA.
I still get the impression DeathBecomesYu is just looking for suggestions regarding which countries to blow up.CameronPoe wrote:
Thank you for agreeing with a lot of my original post. Was it that hard to admit?DeathBecomesYu wrote:
Ummmmm.....because you answered the OP. Did you not? The post doesn't say "What if you were the American President? I'll prove you wrong". My question was simple, you answered it, why do I need to elaborate on your solutions? I agree with a lot of your original post, but I don't agree with the basic idea of "it is our own fault" and do nothing in return. Now, how should a U.S. president react to such an attack. I don't know....THAT IS WHY I ASKED!!!!CameronPoe wrote:
So open-minded that you won't even begin to entertain my suggestion as to how the problem might be tackled. Nice job bringing me into the 'all-inclusive' fray.
At least tell me what the flaws in my plan are so I can either agree, disagree or modify the plan where appropriate....
PS In the west it is a fringe movement. In countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan it is more than that.
PS Implementing what I mentioned DOES NOT EQUATE TO doing nothing in return. You chase after the culprits with the CIA.
Does 'doing something' have to involve attacking another nation, would you not be content to target just the terrorists themselves instead of a load of civilians along with them (sorry, I meant to say collateral damage)?
I kinda was under the impression that all the money the US dumps into R&D for smart weapons proved that we do care about civillian deaths. Also the ROE that is tieing the hands of our troops behind their backs while trying to fight a war also proves we careBraddock wrote:
I still get the impression DeathBecomesYu is just looking for suggestions regarding which countries to blow up.CameronPoe wrote:
Thank you for agreeing with a lot of my original post. Was it that hard to admit?DeathBecomesYu wrote:
Ummmmm.....because you answered the OP. Did you not? The post doesn't say "What if you were the American President? I'll prove you wrong". My question was simple, you answered it, why do I need to elaborate on your solutions? I agree with a lot of your original post, but I don't agree with the basic idea of "it is our own fault" and do nothing in return. Now, how should a U.S. president react to such an attack. I don't know....THAT IS WHY I ASKED!!!!
PS Implementing what I mentioned DOES NOT EQUATE TO doing nothing in return. You chase after the culprits with the CIA.
Does 'doing something' have to involve attacking another nation, would you not be content to target just the terrorists themselves instead of a load of civilians along with them (sorry, I meant to say collateral damage)?
Man a bomb is a bloody bomb. You drop it kkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbooooooooooooooommmmmmmm! What on earth is going to left intact? Want to stop civilian deaths? Get the intel right.lowing wrote:
I kinda was under the impression that all the money the US dumps into R&D for smart weapons proved that we do care about civillian deaths. Also the ROE that is tieing the hands of our troops behind their backs while trying to fight a war also proves we careBraddock wrote:
I still get the impression DeathBecomesYu is just looking for suggestions regarding which countries to blow up.CameronPoe wrote:
Thank you for agreeing with a lot of my original post. Was it that hard to admit?
PS Implementing what I mentioned DOES NOT EQUATE TO doing nothing in return. You chase after the culprits with the CIA.
Does 'doing something' have to involve attacking another nation, would you not be content to target just the terrorists themselves instead of a load of civilians along with them (sorry, I meant to say collateral damage)?
Minimising civilian deaths + bombs is a joke.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Yeah wtf ...it's like "no but wait, these are nice bombs!"m3thod wrote:
Man a bomb is a bloody bomb. You drop it kkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbooooooooooooooommmmmmmm! What on earth is going to left intact? Want to stop civilian deaths? Get the intel right.lowing wrote:
I kinda was under the impression that all the money the US dumps into R&D for smart weapons proved that we do care about civillian deaths. Also the ROE that is tieing the hands of our troops behind their backs while trying to fight a war also proves we careBraddock wrote:
I still get the impression DeathBecomesYu is just looking for suggestions regarding which countries to blow up.
Does 'doing something' have to involve attacking another nation, would you not be content to target just the terrorists themselves instead of a load of civilians along with them (sorry, I meant to say collateral damage)?
Minimising civilian deaths + bombs is a joke.
Why don't you compare the carpet bombing of WW2 with the surgical strikes of today. After you do so, you will not be able to maintain that argument.m3thod wrote:
Man a bomb is a bloody bomb. You drop it kkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbooooooooooooooommmmmmmm! What on earth is going to left intact? Want to stop civilian deaths? Get the intel right.lowing wrote:
I kinda was under the impression that all the money the US dumps into R&D for smart weapons proved that we do care about civillian deaths. Also the ROE that is tieing the hands of our troops behind their backs while trying to fight a war also proves we careBraddock wrote:
I still get the impression DeathBecomesYu is just looking for suggestions regarding which countries to blow up.
Does 'doing something' have to involve attacking another nation, would you not be content to target just the terrorists themselves instead of a load of civilians along with them (sorry, I meant to say collateral damage)?
Minimising civilian deaths + bombs is a joke.
Maybe because we are not in a WW2 scenario? And maybe you should stop constantly using WW2 as a pretext for dorky reasoning.lowing wrote:
Why don't you compare the carpet bombing of WW2 with the surgical strikes of today. After you do so, you will not be able to maintain that argument.m3thod wrote:
Man a bomb is a bloody bomb. You drop it kkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbooooooooooooooommmmmmmm! What on earth is going to left intact? Want to stop civilian deaths? Get the intel right.lowing wrote:
I kinda was under the impression that all the money the US dumps into R&D for smart weapons proved that we do care about civillian deaths. Also the ROE that is tieing the hands of our troops behind their backs while trying to fight a war also proves we care
Minimising civilian deaths + bombs is a joke.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
1. I would use the army power to give justice to the countries who suffer from others stupidity. For example: Ireland should have the northen Ireland and Hungary should have the border what he had before 1920.
2. I would stop sending billions of dollars every year to israel. I would give the bill so they had to repay all that billion what we gave them.
3. Would stop acting over the world like the king or dictator.
2. I would stop sending billions of dollars every year to israel. I would give the bill so they had to repay all that billion what we gave them.
3. Would stop acting over the world like the king or dictator.
I think it is a valid comparison, we did what technology allowed 60 years ago, and do to advancements in that tehnology, civilian deaths have been greatly reduced as much as today's technology allows. Tomorrows technology will reduce it even farther. The point being, the US is always striving to improve this technology. So please either argue that what I said is false, or move on.m3thod wrote:
Maybe because we are not in a WW2 scenario? And maybe you should stop constantly using WW2 as a pretext for dorky reasoning.lowing wrote:
Why don't you compare the carpet bombing of WW2 with the surgical strikes of today. After you do so, you will not be able to maintain that argument.m3thod wrote:
Man a bomb is a bloody bomb. You drop it kkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbooooooooooooooommmmmmmm! What on earth is going to left intact? Want to stop civilian deaths? Get the intel right.
Minimising civilian deaths + bombs is a joke.
I'm not denying the US is developing better technology to minimise civilian death. But my point is stark. A bomb is a hugely destructive device and unless the much fabled selective killing is developed, the damage caused by such armament will be colossal regardless of how much technology went into developing ze bomb.lowing wrote:
I think it is a valid comparison, we did what technology allowed 60 years ago, and do to advancements in that tehnology, civilian deaths have been greatly reduced as much as today's technology allows. Tomorrows technology will reduce it even farther. The point being, the US is always striving to improve this technology. So please either argue that what I said is false, or move on.m3thod wrote:
Maybe because we are not in a WW2 scenario? And maybe you should stop constantly using WW2 as a pretext for dorky reasoning.lowing wrote:
Why don't you compare the carpet bombing of WW2 with the surgical strikes of today. After you do so, you will not be able to maintain that argument.
How do you minimise the amount of civilian death a 5000lb bomb can inflict? Better technology or dropping it at the right place and right time?
Intel > technology
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
i would create (by me i mean by workers) the worlds biggest structure, for the sole purpose of providing a breeding ground enabaling me to harvest my world dominating turabn malitia. i would then hold contests, fight contests in which the victorious wins a grand prize. there would be leagues, championships and levels of competition. because this building would be the largest ever seen, it would hold many many ticket holders. tickets would be charged, fairly, although still expensive. to stop greenpeace pissing me off the building would be environmentally friendly(alternatively i would just slay them where they stand)
once i had made billions of dollars out of this money making scheme i wuld somewhat feel the need to invest my money in destroying all nuclear weapons. initial ideas on doing this are to send specialy trained special ops in to dissarm them when its dark. killing many terrorists in the process. unless they surrender thier nukes, and offer themselves in order to be used as scientific testors. testing only the most hazadorous chemicals. this will thereby stop animal testing. i will lower the amount vehicle pollution by creating an eco friendly substitute for fossil fuels.
money will not be an issue either as the minimum wage will be increased to $15.50 an hour.
to solve conflict between countrys i will offer salvation in the from of money, food and free health insurance and dental check ups. i will also hire clones of humans (which WILL HAVE BEEN possible) by the time i am even old enough to be president to build structures and make the world a happy place.
anything i have missed out?
other than...i am a jack ass.
once i had made billions of dollars out of this money making scheme i wuld somewhat feel the need to invest my money in destroying all nuclear weapons. initial ideas on doing this are to send specialy trained special ops in to dissarm them when its dark. killing many terrorists in the process. unless they surrender thier nukes, and offer themselves in order to be used as scientific testors. testing only the most hazadorous chemicals. this will thereby stop animal testing. i will lower the amount vehicle pollution by creating an eco friendly substitute for fossil fuels.
money will not be an issue either as the minimum wage will be increased to $15.50 an hour.
to solve conflict between countrys i will offer salvation in the from of money, food and free health insurance and dental check ups. i will also hire clones of humans (which WILL HAVE BEEN possible) by the time i am even old enough to be president to build structures and make the world a happy place.
anything i have missed out?
other than...i am a jack ass.
1- Put Al-Sadr in power in Iraq and Get out. He will take care of the al-qaida problem America have created by removing Saddam.
2- Send all 150 000 soldiers over to the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, cross into Pakistan and find Ben Laden.
3- Once Ben Laden and his HQ are destroyed, Send all 150 000 soldiers over to the border between Lebanon and Israel
4- Give an ultimatum to Israel to free the palestinian people and to surrender their nuclear arsenal
5- Since the response of Israel will be "f*ck off", invade Israel, remove the zionist regime, hang Olmert and bring back all the Israelis to the united states and give them California. Remove all the californians and put them in ghetto surrounded by checkpoints.
6- Stop sending money to every nation in the middle east. No more military aid, no more humanitarian aid,
7- Leave Iran alone
2- Send all 150 000 soldiers over to the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, cross into Pakistan and find Ben Laden.
3- Once Ben Laden and his HQ are destroyed, Send all 150 000 soldiers over to the border between Lebanon and Israel
4- Give an ultimatum to Israel to free the palestinian people and to surrender their nuclear arsenal
5- Since the response of Israel will be "f*ck off", invade Israel, remove the zionist regime, hang Olmert and bring back all the Israelis to the united states and give them California. Remove all the californians and put them in ghetto surrounded by checkpoints.
6- Stop sending money to every nation in the middle east. No more military aid, no more humanitarian aid,
7- Leave Iran alone
You are not understanding my point at all. Think about it, I asked what others would do...why? Because the next president or the next will be in a situation where he will have to make choices with pressure from many sides...so what the hell will he do. He will have to piss a lot of people off, but which ones.Braddock wrote:
I still get the impression DeathBecomesYu is just looking for suggestions regarding which countries to blow up.CameronPoe wrote:
Thank you for agreeing with a lot of my original post. Was it that hard to admit?DeathBecomesYu wrote:
Ummmmm.....because you answered the OP. Did you not? The post doesn't say "What if you were the American President? I'll prove you wrong". My question was simple, you answered it, why do I need to elaborate on your solutions? I agree with a lot of your original post, but I don't agree with the basic idea of "it is our own fault" and do nothing in return. Now, how should a U.S. president react to such an attack. I don't know....THAT IS WHY I ASKED!!!!
PS Implementing what I mentioned DOES NOT EQUATE TO doing nothing in return. You chase after the culprits with the CIA.
Does 'doing something' have to involve attacking another nation, would you not be content to target just the terrorists themselves instead of a load of civilians along with them (sorry, I meant to say collateral damage)?
Secondly, where the hell have I ever said to go in a bomb/ kill anything. Look at my posts, I have always maintained that people keep an open mind and if I was president to get people together and figure it out. Leave the political BS out of it, get back to what is right for our country. The only problem is that if such an attack (nuclear or dirty bomb) where hundreds of thousands of people are killed and a group like Al-qaida comes forward and takes responsibility...then how should U.S. or other foreign countries react or even help us?
Because of how the international community looks at the U.S. now, the future President will be between a rock and a hard place. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't know what would happen, I don't how we should react and I don't know how the international community would react to such an attack and at how we would react. Do you see my points now?
I'd shoot pink for making the song 'dear mr. president'.
If I were the American President, I would still get flamed no matter what I did and people would still hate me regardless.
Therefore, while in office, I'd try to implement a better political system and get our government back on its feet. And although I'd be republican, I'd be way more concerned with domestic policy rather than foreign. How are we supposed to help other countries when we, ourselves, are in such shit shape?
Therefore, while in office, I'd try to implement a better political system and get our government back on its feet. And although I'd be republican, I'd be way more concerned with domestic policy rather than foreign. How are we supposed to help other countries when we, ourselves, are in such shit shape?
and I never said a bomb DIDN"T go BOOM!!, my post stated, CORRECTLY, that the US does care about civilian deaths and are spending money to try and improve the casualty figures in a war. So, now that you have agreed with me, there really isn't much more to talk about.m3thod wrote:
I'm not denying the US is developing better technology to minimise civilian death. But my point is stark. A bomb is a hugely destructive device and unless the much fabled selective killing is developed, the damage caused by such armament will be colossal regardless of how much technology went into developing ze bomb.lowing wrote:
I think it is a valid comparison, we did what technology allowed 60 years ago, and do to advancements in that tehnology, civilian deaths have been greatly reduced as much as today's technology allows. Tomorrows technology will reduce it even farther. The point being, the US is always striving to improve this technology. So please either argue that what I said is false, or move on.m3thod wrote:
Maybe because we are not in a WW2 scenario? And maybe you should stop constantly using WW2 as a pretext for dorky reasoning.
How do you minimise the amount of civilian death a 5000lb bomb can inflict? Better technology or dropping it at the right place and right time?
Intel > technology
Intel is only as good as the people that you gather it from.
http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm
This would probably be my guide....lmao j/k
Pull out of Iraq, say "SCREWW YOU" to the leaders, and have them on reserve. I would then wait until we finish our ABL. I would have them patrol the skies 24/7. Then I would order Napalm Strikes on Iran and North Korea, and a mountain for the hell of it. I would then carpet bomb Iran for 444 days, and North Korea for 2. The North Koreans don't feed most of their citizens, so I paratroop booby-trapped food into the country. When the army comes to confiscate it, I would see it through a UAV and detonate it. If civilians actually DO eat it, then I'd let them be happy. They might help us fight "The Honorable Leader". So North Korea's done, now back to Iran. They've probably launched thier only nuke, which was shot down by one of the ABLs. After the 444 days are up, I'd Napalm it for another 20. Eventually, their country will be nothing more than a moon, and they'll fall on their knees, cry "WHY DID YOU LET THIS HAPPEN ALLAH!!". Eventually, most of them would lose faith and surrender. For those who don't, guess what, more Napalm! After our show of military power against the two nations, oil prices would go down, the rest of the Middle East wouldn't want to be our next targets, right? So, we buy more bombs and napalm, and bomb all of the suspected terrorist sites. Even the mountains, until they look like the moon. If China or any other country says anything about it, then our army which we did not deploy into North Korea or Iran, will take care of them.
This would probably be my guide....lmao j/k
Pull out of Iraq, say "SCREWW YOU" to the leaders, and have them on reserve. I would then wait until we finish our ABL. I would have them patrol the skies 24/7. Then I would order Napalm Strikes on Iran and North Korea, and a mountain for the hell of it. I would then carpet bomb Iran for 444 days, and North Korea for 2. The North Koreans don't feed most of their citizens, so I paratroop booby-trapped food into the country. When the army comes to confiscate it, I would see it through a UAV and detonate it. If civilians actually DO eat it, then I'd let them be happy. They might help us fight "The Honorable Leader". So North Korea's done, now back to Iran. They've probably launched thier only nuke, which was shot down by one of the ABLs. After the 444 days are up, I'd Napalm it for another 20. Eventually, their country will be nothing more than a moon, and they'll fall on their knees, cry "WHY DID YOU LET THIS HAPPEN ALLAH!!". Eventually, most of them would lose faith and surrender. For those who don't, guess what, more Napalm! After our show of military power against the two nations, oil prices would go down, the rest of the Middle East wouldn't want to be our next targets, right? So, we buy more bombs and napalm, and bomb all of the suspected terrorist sites. Even the mountains, until they look like the moon. If China or any other country says anything about it, then our army which we did not deploy into North Korea or Iran, will take care of them.