What Would You Do?.....
- Thread starter BiggieE
- Start date
BiggieE, I like you better.BiggieE said:
The USA recieved all of these above things for Afganistan.
The USA was not defending itself, be clear, the USA was striking back at a known target that had hit aggressively.
The USA should consider, unless you prefer rogue nation staus, all of those above considerations.
The USA is not alone on this island and I believe that many of its citizens prefer to play with the rest instead of being voted off.
Last time I checked totalitarians got executed on this island planet
Papa, I have amended my respose (above) to exclude any insults.blitz said:
Please respond per your question that I detail below:
"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?"
I would have gotten as much current intellegence as I could and act swiftly as possible. As we know based on intellegence Afganistan was a stronghold for a then little known faction known as Al-quida. I would not have respected boundries as clearly as Bush has when it came to capturing OBL. As for Iraq? While I believe that sooner or later it would have become a traing ground for terrorists I would have waited to attack untill I had more then one motive for going in. As I have stated in previous posts I am not a fan of modern war. I am a clear to the victor goes the spoils kinda guy. And would right now be building VEGAS EAST in Iraq.blitz said:
Papa,
You were not asked to answer your own question. Geez!
I challenged you to respond to my focused answer (sans insults) of your focused question.
How hard is that? Really?
Stay focused, one thread/issue at a time.
I'm kewl cuz I can see MNF too.
You were not asked to answer your own question. Geez!
I challenged you to respond to my focused answer (sans insults) of your focused question.
How hard is that? Really?
Stay focused, one thread/issue at a time.
I'm kewl cuz I can see MNF too.
I might have been thrown by your post my question. I did indeed ask a question rooted in historical fact. And you answered it based on what is politicaly correct. But the question was one that offered a chance to give a clear alternative response to the action of 9-11-01. I was honestly hoping for an answer that would give alternative senerios. For 4 years Consertivitives have heard how wrong BUSH is yet not once has anyone offered a clear and succinct response to the question of how else it could have been handled.blitz said:
By your response you support the actions aginst the al quida. Yet you only would have waited complete and unchallanged support. Yu likely would not have gone into Iraq. I think many share this. Would you have once it proved out as a trainging center for terrorism? Or would asking husan to end it have worked?
Yes! I, we, all agree, however unfortunate, that the USA needed to smack up Afganistan. Where ya been? Where's the rebuild? Where's the goodies? Where's OBL?papasmerf said:
If you think, as I gather from your post, that you'd get an Iraq green light then you are just a goofy goof.
You posted a scenario that was real, I posted a reasonable response that was real...so where we at now! Why's it all a mess?
Shouldn'a been there
Shouldn'a been there with no real plan other than "total victory"
Total Victory doesn't exist anymore, the population of this planet is way too exposed to media and opinion. "Hey, I rake rice and I have an opinion" that exists and it will hurt you forever.
Let me ask you about the Marshall Plan, why has this administration f'd it already? It's too easy or is it arrogance or fear or stoopid?
blitz said:
I can not answer as to why the government does or does not do something. I can only give my personal opinion. The MArshall Plan is from 1947. I suspect that any plan which requires nations to buy from the USA and only allow US vessels ship them, in exchange for AID or relief. Would be decried as protectionist. And seen world wide as a threat aginst the Asian and EU markets. I would personaly like to see a plan like this implimented. It would create jobs here and bolster or economy. But like I said or implyed. Would you?
The Marshall Plan did many things for stability with an invading power that would leave a current administration in Iraq.papasmerf said:
The US administration has assumed all along that Iraqis and Baathists are wrong and that they could instill a better administration.
People are employees. Everywhere. Gimme a check, thankee, what are the rules boss?
The US policy has been to eliminate ALL government infrastructure. WTF.
Let the people that know help you build and reform.
Are these crazy Iraqi's worse than Nazi's? So many needlessly ostracized.
What is wrong with these stupig US ijits making policy?
The answer is as simple as the question. You find out who attacked NYC and you strike back. That isn't in question. You got off track when you went after Iraq instead of Afghanistan, when you arbitrarily widened your war on terror to include your wish list of places that it would be nice to change or bomb or destroy or whatever it was they thought they could get away with in Iraq.papasmerf said:
How many former NSDAP members were left in goverment positions after 1945?blitz said:
How much of the former goverment structure was left in place? The one after the Weimarer Republik? (and even there was some changes)
If you make that comparisson, than you have to take in account a Newsweek article from 1947 or 48, which painted a devastating picture of postwar Germany.
It was difficult then, why would it be less diffcult today, with the added weight of religion?
Considering the lack of measurable progress in rebuilding infrastructure, oil production, monthly casualties etc., it probably wouldn't make much of a difference. The country is going to implode as soon as the US leaves so they'd be better off doing it sooner than later. What about the US securing access to Iraqi oil? Will the US benefit monetarily from this little venture or is that a write off as well?danmand said:
if they would leave without that, that would dissprove some conspiracy theories...right???slowpoke said:
It would depend on what the US had initially forseen when it targetted Iraq. If they'd never planned to be "compensated" for their unsolicited expertise in WMD locating, democratization, nation building or dictator capturing, that would go a long way towards disproving those conspiracy theories. But if they've arranged huge oil concessions for US companies and shut out the French and the Russians, then the US will look like shit on a stick as they stroll away from a badly damaged Iraq. If they can't rebuild and democratize Iraq or prevent it from descending into civil war and religious extremism, then the US had better walk away empty handed.langeweile said:if they would leave without that, that would dissprove some conspiracy theories...right???
Now wait a minute..if i wouldn't be so lazy today i would go back an repost every single post from you (and others), that proclaimed the war in Iraq was about oil?? Now it's not?WoodPeckr said:Not at all!!!
All it would prove is that Team 'w' bungled yet again!!!........
You are confusing me....which is not difficult..
