New Draft For War On Terror

[cybergrunt69]

edit: arguing in political threads is pointless. removing this post 'cause it don't matter to anyone. OCC is a computing forum, this post's OT, so goodbye.

Edited September 28, 2005 by cybergrunt69

[shiznit]

Verran, I simply asked for some kind of counter to my plan, took me 3 pages of asking to get one. 

 

at least you can give one without repeating what an idiot I am for giving my opinion.  that's what made me use big colors and text.  shiznit took enough prodding along to get said reply.  you on the other hand are willing to give a fight to me.  keeping the thread intersting and valid.

550737[/snapback]

 

So what is your grand scheme oh mighty pundit of all things political? I've now asked you 3 times (even in big red letters - shall I color them blue ).

[bigred]

my grand scheme? holy shiznit... you already bashed it, called me stupid, crazy, a war monger... because of my plan.

 

my plan is to use a show of force that no one can argue with or oppose. a simple tactic the romans, greeks, and even the mogols employed thru out history. this is how and why it works.

 

like the 3 listed above we have technology, wealth, and a culture that allows us to think freely thus advancing the first 2 items. we have an organized millitary, who is trained to the highest standards, the best equipped, with the most supplies. we have a defined goal (terror is not a goal). and from there the simple "either you're with us or against us" policy is put in play. fair trade, money flows, no one gets killed, protection for those who ask for it, and we all freely exchange ideas. those who don't like this policy and wish to use violence against us... well we just give it right back in a a manner that makes others think twice about doing the same... sort of making option A (join us) look even better than option B (DIE).

 

look what Lybia did when we took Iraq and Afganistan's gov'ts out. Lybia who has been a long time Anti American gov't with open support for terroism, who pushed for WMD's and a nuclear project, suddenly decided it was better to do as the Americans wish, and low and behold we turn around and start sending them aid to further develope thier country in both an economic and intilectual manner. no Lybians or Americans had to die for this end did they?

Edited September 26, 2005 by bigred

[Verran]

like the 3 listed above we have technology, wealth, and a culture that allows us to think freely thus advancing the first 2 items.  we have an organized millitary, who is trained to the highest standards, the best equipped, with the most supplies.  we have a defined goal (terror is not a goal).  and from there the simple "either you're with us or against us" policy is put in play.  fair trade, money flows, no one gets killed, protection for those who ask for it, and we all freely exchange ideas.  those who don't like this policy and wish to use violence against us...  well we just give it right back in a a manner that makes others think twice about doing the same...  sort of making option A (join us) look even better than option B (DIE).

550753[/snapback]

Here's the problem with this plan, as I see it....

 

This plan will include nuking pretty much every major city in the US. I understand that's not what you mean, but you do realize that we have terrorists in every major city in our own country, right? So attacking every country that houses terrorists means starting right here.

[Nerm]

Here's the problem with this plan, as I see it....

 

This plan will include nuking pretty much every major city in the US.  I understand that's not what you mean, but you do realize that we have terrorists in every major city in our own country, right?  So attacking every country that houses terrorists means starting right here.

550760[/snapback]

 

You don't nuke your own people. You find out who the terrorist are and take care of them in a more subtle way lol.

[cybergrunt69]

edit: arguing in political threads is pointless. removing this post 'cause it don't matter to anyone. OCC is a computing forum, this post's OT, so goodbye.

 

 

 

never mind

Edited September 28, 2005 by cybergrunt69

[bigred]

valid point! clean up your own streets too. I agree with that. but a nuclear weapon is no the only weapon. I'm all in favor of the CIA / NSA and other organiztions like that being allowed to take out the trash at home too. they can be just a lethal to a person as a thermonuclear explosion.

 

 

of course I was also in favor of just taking Saddam and his top goons out via a a covert snatch and grab with minimal collateral damage... or at least a single round from a high powered weapon taking his head off... but hey, what ever works.

 

shiznit... what verran just did there is called "debating". point - counter point. he's pointed out a flaw in my idea so we can fix things like that. eventually with this type of work you can actually find a better solution that involves both sides of the debate's plans.... it's call comprimise.

Edited September 26, 2005 by bigred

[NCC10281982B]

I think whet he ment by nuking was going after all these nations would cause terrists to nuke our cities.

 

The option of leaving iraq does exist. But that option has got soem major issues attached to it.

[bigred]

I think it's far too late to walk away from rebuilding iraq.

 

I believe it'll be much like Germany, Japan and Italy after WWII. we beat em down, he smashed a LOT of important things. we rebuilt it, now they're allies and aid in the golobal community every day. Iraq has that same potential... and maybe even more so than those 3.

 

 

 

BTW the whole nuclear weapons debate was not over blowing up cities with them. it was over thier use in underground bunker busting aplications... in no way would I use an air burst (above ground) blast as anything outside of a last option.

Edited September 26, 2005 by bigred

[Verran]

You don't nuke your own people. You find out who the terrorist are and take care of them in a more subtle way lol.

550763[/snapback]

Well we can't really start nuking ourselves.  Use the big guns on their off-shore homelands where there's more of them in smaller areas, and use smaller grab-and-go methods in the civilized countries.  People disappear all the time, right?

 

To send the message though, they have to be grabbed where the public can see it, and we need to see it on the news that the bad guys are getting removed.

550765[/snapback]

Ah... wouldn't that be great?

 

Problem is, we don't know where they are here, just like we don't know where they are in Iraq. If we knew where they were hiding here, then yeah, everything would be great. But we don't.

 

My point is that we house terrorists just like many other countries do (unwillingly). So if we're just going to start nuking first and asking questions later, then why should we be an exception to our own rule?

[bigred]

no body ever said start nuking.... also there is a HUGE differnece between willing and unwilling shelter to terrorists.

[NCC10281982B]

I think it's far too late to walk away from rebuilding iraq. 

 

I believe it'll be much like Germany, Japan and Italy after WWII.  we beat em down, he smashed a LOT of important things.  we rebuilt it, now they're allies and aid in the golobal community every day.  Iraq has that same potential...  and maybe even more so than those 3.

BTW the whole nuclear weapons debate was not over blowing up cities with them.  it was over thier use in underground bunker busting aplications...  in no way would I use an air burst (above ground) blast as anything outside of a last option.

550775[/snapback]

 

True. Well said.