Toronto Escorts

What Would You Do?.....

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Mcluhan said:
I wouldn't be in there in the first place. It was moronic. Now you are asking me to put myself in the shoes of the moron and make his decision. I would say to the moron, pull out. Your first loss is your best loss - eat it and move on.

Do you have a similar logic system behind the moron's decision to buck that advice and stay? If so, let's hear it.
I will simplify the question

On September 12, 2001 you are the President of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. Yesterday terrorists attacked in NYC, Washinton DC, and in PA. (this part is history and you can not will that changed with bullshit if you were prez it never would have happend) Today you have decisions to make. What would you do?
 

lenharper

Active member
Jan 15, 2004
1,106
0
36
I would identify and methodically destroy the enemy who attacked (much like the mossad did with the people who took the israeli's during the munich olympics) as opposed to "open a second front" where the collateral damage to my nation is the creation of more people who will vow vengeance upon me.

I would not declare open war on a culture "this is a battle between 'good' and 'evil' " as your president did. I would have "fought dirty" and covertly as opposed to trying to sell the idea that a conventional war and invasion of a country was going to "solve" the problem of terrorism unless there was a clear identifable state named "Terrorististan."

and thirdly I would not have used fear as a platform in a grubby election camaign and continually keep my country of "elevated" and "high" terrorist alerts that firstly scare people and then bring about complacency when the warniings never bear fruit.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
lenharper said:
I would identify and methodically destroy the enemy who attacked (much like the mossad did with the people who took the israeli's during the munich olympics) as opposed to "open a second front" where the collateral damage to my nation is the creation of more people who will vow vengeance upon me.

I would not declare open war on a culture "this is a battle between 'good' and 'evil' " as your president did. I would have "fought dirty" and covertly as opposed to trying to sell the idea that a conventional war and invasion of a country was going to "solve" the problem of terrorism unless there was a clear identifable state named "Terrorististan."

and thirdly I would not have used fear as a platform in a grubby election camaign and continually keep my country of "elevated" and "high" terrorist alerts that firstly scare people and then bring about complacency when the warniings never bear fruit.
I agree with you that methodically removing the enemy is a good idea. However would open inaction have been preceived as weakness?

I do agree that kerry's use of fear was indeed dirty.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Mcluhan said:
Precisely the type of intellectual dishonesty that stains your breed.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I don't think so.

But hey you have yet to answer the original question.
 

lenharper

Active member
Jan 15, 2004
1,106
0
36
The perception of inaction would only come from American voters. American politicians and diplomats can easily make it clear to leaders who are both pro and against the US that the response to an attack on their soil is going to be anything but inactive.

As for Kerry using fear as a tactic, of course he did, but so did the Repubicans. If you are going to ask for answers at least have the courtesy to try and respond intelligently.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
lenharper said:
The perception of inaction would only come from American voters. American politicians and diplomats can easily make it clear to leaders who are both pro and against the US that the response to an attack on their soil is going to be anything but inactive.

As for Kerry using fear as a tactic, of course he did, but so did the Repubicans. If you are going to ask for answers at least have the courtesy to try and respond intelligently.
Well thought out answers and yes the 2004 election was indeed one where fears were played to by both parties. If I had been the one to say that a debate would have ensued as to who did what when. But by you correcting me and saying it we can hopefully advoid that debate.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
lenharper said:
The perception of inaction would only come from American voters. American politicians and diplomats can easily make it clear to leaders who are both pro and against the US that the response to an attack on their soil is going to be anything but inactive.

As for Kerry using fear as a tactic, of course he did, but so did the Repubicans. If you are going to ask for answers at least have the courtesy to try and respond intelligently.
fear is the favorite tool of all media and most politicians
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
The real problem with the US is that it has convinced itelf that it is entitled to extend its power over the entire planet. It is as if they have a divine right to put American interests ahead of any other county's. This power- drunk foreign policy is typically cloaked in the justifying mythology of America fighting to "free the people" - ie: helping them achieve freedom from communism, freedom from terrorism, freedom from oppression etc. This obsession with freedom, however, does not extend to countries of no significance or benefit to the US ie: Somalia, Darfur, Rwanda etc. It is almost always directed at county's of stategic importance ie: Cuba, Central America, Viet Nam, Korea, the ME.

So the answer is simple: The US should rethink its place in the world. I know that the US was a major contributor to world peace and stability once they finally decided to help out in WWII and, afterwards, during the early stages of the cold war. But, by the time the Soviet Union had imploded and the risk of the cold war becoming a nuclear holocaust had diminished, the US' imperialist / interventionist foreign policy had become an impediment to world peace and stability. Things have a way of evolving into their opposites, crossing that invisible line where they cease to be part of the solution and, instead, become part of the problem. US power and world dominance has migrated that full circle so it is time for them to rethink their "might makes it right" approach to the rest of the planet. Cases in point: Viet Nam and Iraq. Neither of those should have happened. They didn't help world stability or world peace or freedom of the population. Viet Nam didn't gain freedom because the US had been there and neither will Iraq.
 

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0
langeweile said:
fear is the favorite tool of all media and most politicians
Oh you mean, like the mushroom clouds and the chemical weapons that Saddam could use against the US within 45 minutes of deciding he wanted to?

Wake up and smell the coffee.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
slowpoke said:
The real problem with the US is that it has convinced itelf that it is entitled to extend its power over the entire planet. It is as if they have a divine right to put American interests ahead of any other county's. This power- drunk foreign policy is typically cloaked in the justifying mythology of America fighting to "free the people" - ie: helping them achieve freedom from communism, freedom from terrorism, freedom from oppression etc. This obsession with freedom, however, does not extend to countries of no significance or benefit to the US ie: Somalia, Darfur, Rwanda etc. It is almost always directed at county's of stategic importance ie: Cuba, Central America, Viet Nam, Korea, the ME.

So the answer is simple: The US should rethink its place in the world. I know that the US was a major contributor to world peace and stability once they finally decided to help out in WWII and, afterwards, during the early stages of the cold war. But, by the time the Soviet Union had imploded and the risk of the cold war becoming a nuclear holocaust had diminished, the US' imperialist / interventionist foreign policy had become an impediment to world peace and stability. Things have a way of evolving into their opposites, crossing that invisible line where they cease to be part of the solution and, instead, become part of the problem. US power and world dominance has migrated that full circle so it is time for them to rethink their "might makes it right" approach to the rest of the planet. Cases in point: Viet Nam and Iraq. Neither of those should have happened. They didn't help world stability or world peace or freedom of the population. Viet Nam didn't gain freedom because the US had been there and neither will Iraq.

RETHINK????????

Here I will simplify the question.

On September 12, 2001 you are the President of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. Yesterday terrorists attacked in NYC, Washinton DC, and in PA. (this part is history and you can not will that changed with bullshit if you were prez it never would have happend) Today you have decisions to make. What would you do?
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
TOVisitor said:
Oh you mean, like the mushroom clouds and the chemical weapons that Saddam could use against the US within 45 minutes of deciding he wanted to?

Wake up and smell the coffee.
Ok

But first you answer the original question.

Oh and I want a shot of expresso in mine and get me a hard roll with butter too.
 

blitz

New member
Nov 25, 2003
1,488
0
0
Toronto
papasmerf said:
RETHINK????????

Here I will simplify the question.

On September 12, 2001 you are the President of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. Yesterday terrorists attacked in NYC, Washinton DC, and in PA. (this part is history and you can not will that changed with bullshit if you were prez it never would have happend) Today you have decisions to make. What would you do?
Senate approval - Approval of allies - UN approval - Beat the hell out of Afganistan - Capture OBL - Rebuild Afganistan - Add goodies - Leave - Say thank you - Done.

Get blown, then have hot sex with a 22 y/o EE for two days.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
blitz said:
Senate approval - Approval of allies - UN approval - Beat the hell out of Afganistan - Capture OBL - Rebuild Afganistan - Add goodies - Leave - Say thank you - Done.

Get blown, then have hot sex with a 22 y/o EE for two days.
Looks good on paper.
 

blitz

New member
Nov 25, 2003
1,488
0
0
Toronto
The expected response.

Much like your ideas do in vapour.

You assed the question. Note the exceptions from today's current affairs.

"Thank me" for getting snagged in the Rapala thread.
 

BiggieE

Guest
Jan 29, 2004
609
0
0
Rochester, NY, USA
blitz said:
Senate approval - Approval of allies - UN approval - Beat the hell out of Afganistan - Capture OBL - Rebuild Afganistan - Add goodies - Leave - Say thank you - Done.

Get blown, then have hot sex with a 22 y/o EE for two days.

.....why does the USA need Allied or UN approval to defend itself?.......
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
blitz said:
The expected response.

Much like your ideas do in vapour.

You assed the question. Note the exceptions from today's current affairs.

"Thank me" for getting snagged in the Rapala thread.

You gave a response rooted in hindsight. You said you would capture OBL yet you offered not plan for it. You gave politicaly correct ask for permission from the world answers. Yet you did not offer a plan or even any insight as to why you would have attacked the Afagans. What you offered is the smoke of history past.

What you said did look good on paper because there was not grit in the words or action in the writings.
 

blitz

New member
Nov 25, 2003
1,488
0
0
Toronto
papasmerf said:
You gave a response rooted in hindsight. You said you would capture OBL yet you offered not plan for it. You gave politicaly correct ask for permission from the world answers. Yet you did not offer a plan or even any insight as to why you would have attacked the Afagans. What you offered is the smoke of history past.

What you said did look good on paper because there was not grit in the words or action in the writings.
Idiot, you asked a question rooted in hindsight and stated that it could not be altered due to its factual nature. What's your problem? Don't like the answer? Idiot.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
blitz said:
Idiot, you asked a question rooted in hindsight and stated that it could not be altered due to its factual nature. What's your problem? Don't like the answer? Idiot.
WOW TWO count them TWO insults.:rolleyes:

How did I know that would happen?

The question states history

now is your chance to propose a viable alternative solution.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
papasmerf said:
WOW TWO count them TWO insults.:rolleyes:

How did I know that would happen?
Because you're finally learning?
 
Toronto Escorts