H
huskychasrs
Guest
I would know the difference between "were" and "where".
Then I would nuke 'em.
Then I would nuke 'em.
If You Where Commander in Chief What Would You Do.
- Thread starter veni vidi vici
- Start date
reefraff
Active Member
1. What is your stance on Global Politics and Terrorism?
A) We aren't the worlds traffic cop anymore. If Germany and Japan want us to continue to provide their security they can contract for our services.
B) Remove all US military operations from Saudi Arabia.
C) All foreign aid will be limited to US goods and services, no more cash payments
D) Reduce US dues paid to the United Nations to match those paid by the next highest paying member. Give the UN 6 months to move to Switzerland where it should have been in the first place. Turn the current UN headquarters into the national drug treatment center and send junkies there instead of criminal school, I mean prison, when they get busted.
2.What would you do about our economy to improve it?
1) See A through D above
2) End congressional earmarks
3) Institute flat tax
4) End corporate income taxes for US based businesses where at least 90 percent of the work force and corporate officers are subject to US income taxes
3.How would you change our Health care system?
1) Tort reform
2) Allow insurance companies to sell policies in any state
4.And would you be willing to change the Constitution by adding or removing parts of it?If so what would you add/remove?
I would force the federal government to stay within the limits allowed by the 10th amendment. There isn't room to list all the constitutional amendments and law changes that would require.
A) We aren't the worlds traffic cop anymore. If Germany and Japan want us to continue to provide their security they can contract for our services.
B) Remove all US military operations from Saudi Arabia.
C) All foreign aid will be limited to US goods and services, no more cash payments
D) Reduce US dues paid to the United Nations to match those paid by the next highest paying member. Give the UN 6 months to move to Switzerland where it should have been in the first place. Turn the current UN headquarters into the national drug treatment center and send junkies there instead of criminal school, I mean prison, when they get busted.
2.What would you do about our economy to improve it?
1) See A through D above
2) End congressional earmarks
3) Institute flat tax
4) End corporate income taxes for US based businesses where at least 90 percent of the work force and corporate officers are subject to US income taxes
3.How would you change our Health care system?
1) Tort reform
2) Allow insurance companies to sell policies in any state
4.And would you be willing to change the Constitution by adding or removing parts of it?If so what would you add/remove?
I would force the federal government to stay within the limits allowed by the 10th amendment. There isn't room to list all the constitutional amendments and law changes that would require.
jennythebugg
Active Member
resign asap, i think it would be a crappy job
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by huskychasrs
I would know the difference between "were" and "where".
Then I would nuke 'em.
Hmmm...Interesting.
Make sure never to make a common spelling mistake ..........
Incinerate a "WHOLE" country Lock,Stock,and Barrel.
Very ,Very ,Interesting .
I'm would like to hear more on your "nuke'um" strategy.Do you mean put them in the microwave or to detonate a Thermonuclear
Weapon ?
I would know the difference between "were" and "where".
Then I would nuke 'em.
Hmmm...Interesting.
Make sure never to make a common spelling mistake ..........
Incinerate a "WHOLE" country Lock,Stock,and Barrel.
Very ,Very ,Interesting .
I'm would like to hear more on your "nuke'um" strategy.Do you mean put them in the microwave or to detonate a Thermonuclear
Weapon ?
crimzy
Active Member
On the terrorism front I would have done things VERY differently than the current president. I would have concentrated our forces in Afghanistan immediately when we discovered that Osama Bin Laden was there and that he was responsible for 9/11. I would not have supplied primarily air support to the northern alliance and gone with Bush's nonsense "smoke him out" plan. I would have concentrated our troops on the mountains bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the intelligence showed Bin Laden and Al Queda to be hiding.
On a more global terrorism front, I would rely more on intelligence, special forces and strategic military strikes to all out invasion. Our money and intelligence could be used more effectively to combat terrorism by locating and taking out the leaders rather than fighting a bunch of 17 year olds who want to martyr themselves anyway. If we could do this effectively, we could eliminate the individuals who bring the organization to the groups. Without leadership, the factions would probably spend most of their time fighting each other for scraps of power.
Regarding Iraq, we did have intelligence on their alleged locations of the weapons of mass destruction. The sites targeted at the beginning of the war could have been taken out strategically over a period of time. If necessary, a small scale mission to take out Saddam could have been successful. Proceeding in such a manner would have allowed the US to maintain its international reputation and sent a clear message to Iran, N. Korea and Syria, without going to the level of invasion and unifying arab nations and Al Queda against us.
The above measures, even if unsuccessful, would have allowed the US to escalate it's military involvement at anytime as necessary. Bush was too impatient to declare to the world that there was "a new sheriff in town". He created an environment where the world had to choose sides. His military action and his personal behavior may eventually have the effect of starting another world war. Not to get into Bush because I know that this is not the point of this thread, but this is where I would have done things differently.
On a more global terrorism front, I would rely more on intelligence, special forces and strategic military strikes to all out invasion. Our money and intelligence could be used more effectively to combat terrorism by locating and taking out the leaders rather than fighting a bunch of 17 year olds who want to martyr themselves anyway. If we could do this effectively, we could eliminate the individuals who bring the organization to the groups. Without leadership, the factions would probably spend most of their time fighting each other for scraps of power.
Regarding Iraq, we did have intelligence on their alleged locations of the weapons of mass destruction. The sites targeted at the beginning of the war could have been taken out strategically over a period of time. If necessary, a small scale mission to take out Saddam could have been successful. Proceeding in such a manner would have allowed the US to maintain its international reputation and sent a clear message to Iran, N. Korea and Syria, without going to the level of invasion and unifying arab nations and Al Queda against us.
The above measures, even if unsuccessful, would have allowed the US to escalate it's military involvement at anytime as necessary. Bush was too impatient to declare to the world that there was "a new sheriff in town". He created an environment where the world had to choose sides. His military action and his personal behavior may eventually have the effect of starting another world war. Not to get into Bush because I know that this is not the point of this thread, but this is where I would have done things differently.
1journeyman
Active Member
Crimzy, this thread is not about bashing the current President. Feel free to do that in one of the other threads currently hot. This thread is to discuss what you would do.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
On the terrorism front I would have done things VERY differently than the current president. I would have concentrated our forces in Afghanistan immediately when we discovered that Osama Bin Laden was there and that he was responsible for 9/11. I would not have supplied primarily air support to the northern alliance and gone with Bush's nonsense "smoke him out" plan. I would have concentrated our troops on the mountains bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the intelligence showed Bin Laden and Al Queda to be hiding.
The U.S. tried this once with an Indian by the name of Geronimo in the southern Rockies. They never caught him.
This is a great question I will be back to answer it later when I have more time.
On the terrorism front I would have done things VERY differently than the current president. I would have concentrated our forces in Afghanistan immediately when we discovered that Osama Bin Laden was there and that he was responsible for 9/11. I would not have supplied primarily air support to the northern alliance and gone with Bush's nonsense "smoke him out" plan. I would have concentrated our troops on the mountains bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the intelligence showed Bin Laden and Al Queda to be hiding.
The U.S. tried this once with an Indian by the name of Geronimo in the southern Rockies. They never caught him.
This is a great question I will be back to answer it later when I have more time.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
On the terrorism front I would have done things VERY differently than the current president. I would have concentrated our forces in Afghanistan immediately when we discovered that Osama Bin Laden was there and that he was responsible for 9/11. I would not have supplied primarily air support to the northern alliance and gone with Bush's nonsense "smoke him out" plan. I would have concentrated our troops on the mountains bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the intelligence showed Bin Laden and Al Queda to be hiding.
I dont believe logistics or planning would have made that much of a difference,nor do i believe capturing Bin Laden would have put a stop to anything."I would be nice to see Bin Ladens head on a stick" however.I think invading Afghanistan was the only option at attempting to plug the biggest part of the hole .
At the very least it sent a message to the rest of the world."1.We are not going to stand down and surrender. 2. We will bring war to your doorstep."
I do agree with increased Intel.,espionage,and even assassination's,but i don't think escalation by broadening the battlefield would be beneficial at this point.But to Deescalate would be suicidal.
And yes there is a "New Sheriff in Town" The old one "United Nations" was a joke ,filled with agendas, political BS and corruption. The UN has lost its ability to function the way it was intended.
I actually believe that we need to turn up the heat a bit more now and not wait till something else happens."Best Defence is a Good Offence."
On the terrorism front I would have done things VERY differently than the current president. I would have concentrated our forces in Afghanistan immediately when we discovered that Osama Bin Laden was there and that he was responsible for 9/11. I would not have supplied primarily air support to the northern alliance and gone with Bush's nonsense "smoke him out" plan. I would have concentrated our troops on the mountains bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the intelligence showed Bin Laden and Al Queda to be hiding.
I dont believe logistics or planning would have made that much of a difference,nor do i believe capturing Bin Laden would have put a stop to anything."I would be nice to see Bin Ladens head on a stick" however.I think invading Afghanistan was the only option at attempting to plug the biggest part of the hole .
At the very least it sent a message to the rest of the world."1.We are not going to stand down and surrender. 2. We will bring war to your doorstep."
I do agree with increased Intel.,espionage,and even assassination's,but i don't think escalation by broadening the battlefield would be beneficial at this point.But to Deescalate would be suicidal.
And yes there is a "New Sheriff in Town" The old one "United Nations" was a joke ,filled with agendas, political BS and corruption. The UN has lost its ability to function the way it was intended.
I actually believe that we need to turn up the heat a bit more now and not wait till something else happens."Best Defence is a Good Offence."
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I'll get a PO box set up and let yall start contributing to my political ambitions
Of course, since I'm from Texas and support the current President I'm sure I would receive my share of hate mail as well.
Imho, the greatest issue our country faces is the 2 party system. The founding fathers never envisioned this occuring (which is why the Constitution originally called for the Vice President to be the candidate that came in second place in the Presidential election. Can you imagine Kerry as President Bush's Vice President?) I believe it was the 12th amendment that called for the Vice President to run on the President's ticket.
As a nation, myself included, we're too polarized. Granted, my side is correct
but still we are too polarized; and it's getting worse with each election.
While it's fairly easy to write a list of things I would do as Commander in Chief, the much greater question would be "how would you get those things done in the current political climate?"
Well, I haven't seen anyone secede yet...
I'll get a PO box set up and let yall start contributing to my political ambitions
Imho, the greatest issue our country faces is the 2 party system. The founding fathers never envisioned this occuring (which is why the Constitution originally called for the Vice President to be the candidate that came in second place in the Presidential election. Can you imagine Kerry as President Bush's Vice President?) I believe it was the 12th amendment that called for the Vice President to run on the President's ticket.
As a nation, myself included, we're too polarized. Granted, my side is correct
While it's fairly easy to write a list of things I would do as Commander in Chief, the much greater question would be "how would you get those things done in the current political climate?"
Well, I haven't seen anyone secede yet...
darthtang aw
Active Member
First off let me say this. I would not make a good president. Countries (all) that violated international law would NOT recieve aid nor business from the U.S.A. This would most likely crash our economy for a bit and make world view truly hate us, but I feel to be taken seriously one must make some sacrifices to show your conviction. The American people would learn this through me the hard way. My poll rating would be in the 25% I believe.
1. What is your stance on Global Politics and Terrorism?
I sort of touched on this with my openning paragraph, however I feel our presence is needed in the world politics and economy. Without it we stop paying attention and then get blind sided...Things like Pearl Harbor occur and dictators rise up gaining more power if a check is not in place.
As for Terrorism, Hunt them down and kill them. Borders would be patrolled, I would pull the troops from Germany to Patrol or own borders. I knopw there is a law that was passed saying we can't pull our troops from Europe, but I would get that appealled. This border patrol would not cost the govt. anything as we are already paying 75,000 troops to hang out in Germany/ Europe.
I would also increase the import tax on goods from foreign countries. This would be used to increase the numbers of ships searched through customs at the harbors.
Iraq, I would pull the troops from baghdad to the borders of Iraq and see if things calm down like many say it would. If it got worse or stayed the same, our troops would go in again. I would continue this till people of the region learned to stop fighting. If things did calm down once we pulled back to the border, I would tip my hat to the dems and pull our boys. If they were wrong, well the next election would take care of that.
I could go on all day about this, but that is a start.
2.What would you do about our economy to improve it?
Nothing, the economy governs itself as long as people are allowed to market their own products and ideas. Once government starts playing economists then the economy screws up....everytime.
3.How would you change our Health care system?
I don't think I would change much. Right now most states have a program for children to receive healthcare if their parents don't have it for them. I might expand this so the fed would help fund it a bit more. But as far as providing for adults,
I would increase the amount of care and doctors on hand at VAs for our military, retired or active.
4.And would you be willing to change the Constitution by adding or removing parts of it?If so what would you add/remove?
The constitution needs no changing. However I would require it be taught as a course in high school as so many interpret it in the wrong manner and use it for defense of rights not granted.
Feel free to add anything else you feel is an issue.
Please don't feel it necessary to criticize present or past Presidents.Just state what you would do.
1. What is your stance on Global Politics and Terrorism?
I sort of touched on this with my openning paragraph, however I feel our presence is needed in the world politics and economy. Without it we stop paying attention and then get blind sided...Things like Pearl Harbor occur and dictators rise up gaining more power if a check is not in place.
As for Terrorism, Hunt them down and kill them. Borders would be patrolled, I would pull the troops from Germany to Patrol or own borders. I knopw there is a law that was passed saying we can't pull our troops from Europe, but I would get that appealled. This border patrol would not cost the govt. anything as we are already paying 75,000 troops to hang out in Germany/ Europe.
I would also increase the import tax on goods from foreign countries. This would be used to increase the numbers of ships searched through customs at the harbors.
Iraq, I would pull the troops from baghdad to the borders of Iraq and see if things calm down like many say it would. If it got worse or stayed the same, our troops would go in again. I would continue this till people of the region learned to stop fighting. If things did calm down once we pulled back to the border, I would tip my hat to the dems and pull our boys. If they were wrong, well the next election would take care of that.
I could go on all day about this, but that is a start.
2.What would you do about our economy to improve it?
Nothing, the economy governs itself as long as people are allowed to market their own products and ideas. Once government starts playing economists then the economy screws up....everytime.
3.How would you change our Health care system?
I don't think I would change much. Right now most states have a program for children to receive healthcare if their parents don't have it for them. I might expand this so the fed would help fund it a bit more. But as far as providing for adults,
I would increase the amount of care and doctors on hand at VAs for our military, retired or active.
4.And would you be willing to change the Constitution by adding or removing parts of it?If so what would you add/remove?
The constitution needs no changing. However I would require it be taught as a course in high school as so many interpret it in the wrong manner and use it for defense of rights not granted.
Feel free to add anything else you feel is an issue.
Please don't feel it necessary to criticize present or past Presidents.Just state what you would do.
crimzy
Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
I dont believe logistics or planning would have made that much of a difference,nor do i believe capturing Bin Laden would have put a stop to anything."I would be nice to see Bin Ladens head on a stick" however.I think invading Afghanistan was the only option at attempting to plug the biggest part of the hole .
At the very least it sent a message to the rest of the world."1.We are not going to stand down and surrender. 2. We will bring war to your doorstep."
I do agree with increased Intel.,espionage,and even assassination's,but i don't think escalation by broadening the battlefield would be beneficial at this point.But to Deescalate would be suicidal.
And yes there is a "New Sheriff in Town" The old one "United Nations" was a joke ,filled with agendas, political BS and corruption. The UN has lost its ability to function the way it was intended.
I actually believe that we need to turn up the heat a bit more now and not wait till something else happens."Best Defence is a Good Offence."
I had a slightly different interpretation of your question. I believed that you were asking what we would do prior to the mess we find ourselves in now. I agree with you that there really is no "right" answer because we have been placed in such a bad position. At this point, I would pull our troops out sooner rather than later but I know people will disagree. Any decisions made now are simply minimizing the damage caused by previous mistakes.
As to your first point, regarding Afghanistan, I believe that you misinterpreted my point. We did not invade Afghanistan and we did not send an effective message to the world. In fact we used very few ground troops and relied on the Northern Alliance to get Bin Laden. We provided primarily air support. The "smoke him out" nonsense was that Bush thought that the fighting with the Northern Alliance would bring Bin Laden out of hiding. Our response in the months after 9-11 was much weaker than our approach to Iraq.
I dont believe logistics or planning would have made that much of a difference,nor do i believe capturing Bin Laden would have put a stop to anything."I would be nice to see Bin Ladens head on a stick" however.I think invading Afghanistan was the only option at attempting to plug the biggest part of the hole .
At the very least it sent a message to the rest of the world."1.We are not going to stand down and surrender. 2. We will bring war to your doorstep."
I do agree with increased Intel.,espionage,and even assassination's,but i don't think escalation by broadening the battlefield would be beneficial at this point.But to Deescalate would be suicidal.
And yes there is a "New Sheriff in Town" The old one "United Nations" was a joke ,filled with agendas, political BS and corruption. The UN has lost its ability to function the way it was intended.
I actually believe that we need to turn up the heat a bit more now and not wait till something else happens."Best Defence is a Good Offence."
I had a slightly different interpretation of your question. I believed that you were asking what we would do prior to the mess we find ourselves in now. I agree with you that there really is no "right" answer because we have been placed in such a bad position. At this point, I would pull our troops out sooner rather than later but I know people will disagree. Any decisions made now are simply minimizing the damage caused by previous mistakes.
As to your first point, regarding Afghanistan, I believe that you misinterpreted my point. We did not invade Afghanistan and we did not send an effective message to the world. In fact we used very few ground troops and relied on the Northern Alliance to get Bin Laden. We provided primarily air support. The "smoke him out" nonsense was that Bush thought that the fighting with the Northern Alliance would bring Bin Laden out of hiding. Our response in the months after 9-11 was much weaker than our approach to Iraq.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
On the terrorism front I would have done things VERY differently than the current president. I would have concentrated our forces in Afghanistan immediately when we discovered that Osama Bin Laden was there and that he was responsible for 9/11. I would not have supplied primarily air support to the northern alliance and gone with Bush's nonsense "smoke him out" plan. I would have concentrated our troops on the mountains bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the intelligence showed Bin Laden and Al Queda to be hiding.
On a more global terrorism front, I would rely more on intelligence, special forces and strategic military strikes to all out invasion. Our money and intelligence could be used more effectively to combat terrorism by locating and taking out the leaders rather than fighting a bunch of 17 year olds who want to martyr themselves anyway. If we could do this effectively, we could eliminate the individuals who bring the organization to the groups. Without leadership, the factions would probably spend most of their time fighting each other for scraps of power.
Regarding Iraq, we did have intelligence on their alleged locations of the weapons of mass destruction. The sites targeted at the beginning of the war could have been taken out strategically over a period of time. If necessary, a small scale mission to take out Saddam could have been successful. Proceeding in such a manner would have allowed the US to maintain its international reputation and sent a clear message to Iran, N. Korea and Syria, without going to the level of invasion and unifying arab nations and Al Queda against us.
The above measures, even if unsuccessful, would have allowed the US to escalate it's military involvement at anytime as necessary. Bush was too impatient to declare to the world that there was "a new sheriff in town". He created an environment where the world had to choose sides. His military action and his personal behavior may eventually have the effect of starting another world war. Not to get into Bush because I know that this is not the point of this thread, but this is where I would have done things differently.
You mean unilaterally attacking Iraq, for the WMD's "that don't exist?"
Asking the UN and Congress twice, isn't gun ho.
We really know why the UN didn't go for it. Does anyone remember the Oil for Food program.
With friends like these who need enemies you know.
I guess to me this sounds like clinton all over again. It is clear that this didn't work. Even if it was his "obsession".
On the terrorism front I would have done things VERY differently than the current president. I would have concentrated our forces in Afghanistan immediately when we discovered that Osama Bin Laden was there and that he was responsible for 9/11. I would not have supplied primarily air support to the northern alliance and gone with Bush's nonsense "smoke him out" plan. I would have concentrated our troops on the mountains bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the intelligence showed Bin Laden and Al Queda to be hiding.
On a more global terrorism front, I would rely more on intelligence, special forces and strategic military strikes to all out invasion. Our money and intelligence could be used more effectively to combat terrorism by locating and taking out the leaders rather than fighting a bunch of 17 year olds who want to martyr themselves anyway. If we could do this effectively, we could eliminate the individuals who bring the organization to the groups. Without leadership, the factions would probably spend most of their time fighting each other for scraps of power.
Regarding Iraq, we did have intelligence on their alleged locations of the weapons of mass destruction. The sites targeted at the beginning of the war could have been taken out strategically over a period of time. If necessary, a small scale mission to take out Saddam could have been successful. Proceeding in such a manner would have allowed the US to maintain its international reputation and sent a clear message to Iran, N. Korea and Syria, without going to the level of invasion and unifying arab nations and Al Queda against us.
The above measures, even if unsuccessful, would have allowed the US to escalate it's military involvement at anytime as necessary. Bush was too impatient to declare to the world that there was "a new sheriff in town". He created an environment where the world had to choose sides. His military action and his personal behavior may eventually have the effect of starting another world war. Not to get into Bush because I know that this is not the point of this thread, but this is where I would have done things differently.
You mean unilaterally attacking Iraq, for the WMD's "that don't exist?"
Asking the UN and Congress twice, isn't gun ho.
We really know why the UN didn't go for it. Does anyone remember the Oil for Food program.
With friends like these who need enemies you know.
I guess to me this sounds like clinton all over again. It is clear that this didn't work. Even if it was his "obsession".
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
I had a slightly different interpretation of your question. I believed that you were asking what we would do prior to the mess we find ourselves in now.
I should have been more specific .What you call a mess i would call a situation still unfolding. i suppose historians will make that conclusion in time.
Originally Posted by crimzy
I agree with you that there really is no "right" answer because we have been placed in such a bad position.
I still wouldnt call our position "Bad".I still see it as unfolding.
Originally Posted by crimzy
At this point, I would pull our troops out sooner rather than later but I know people will disagree. Any decisions made now are simply minimizing the damage caused by previous mistakes.
This manuver was tried once before and ill quote Bin Laden "Paper Tiger" He thought we would run at the sight of casualties.Is he right?
Originally Posted by crimzy
As to your first point, regarding Afghanistan, I believe that you misinterpreted my point. We did not invade Afghanistan and we did not send an effective message to the world. In fact we used very few ground troops and relied on the Northern Alliance to get Bin Laden. We provided primarily air support.
I guess it it how you would interpret War and its objectives.I don't think you necessarily need to put One Million boots on the ground to achieve your objective.
Originally Posted by crimzy
The "smoke him out" nonsense was that Bush thought that the fighting with the Northern Alliance would bring Bin Laden out of hiding. Our response in the months after 9-11 was much weaker than our approach to Iraq.
I think the use of an allie such as the Northern Alliance was key to removing the Taliban regime from power.Lets not forget what happened to the Soviet Union when they went it alone.I certainly dont think we though Bin Laden would come riding in on a horse carrying the Taliban/Al Qaeda flag with a sword drawn willing to fight to the death. The 2 fronts you speak of required different approaches but i would leave that up to the ones best qualified to determine.
I had a slightly different interpretation of your question. I believed that you were asking what we would do prior to the mess we find ourselves in now.
I should have been more specific .What you call a mess i would call a situation still unfolding. i suppose historians will make that conclusion in time.
Originally Posted by crimzy
I agree with you that there really is no "right" answer because we have been placed in such a bad position.
I still wouldnt call our position "Bad".I still see it as unfolding.
Originally Posted by crimzy
At this point, I would pull our troops out sooner rather than later but I know people will disagree. Any decisions made now are simply minimizing the damage caused by previous mistakes.
This manuver was tried once before and ill quote Bin Laden "Paper Tiger" He thought we would run at the sight of casualties.Is he right?
Originally Posted by crimzy
As to your first point, regarding Afghanistan, I believe that you misinterpreted my point. We did not invade Afghanistan and we did not send an effective message to the world. In fact we used very few ground troops and relied on the Northern Alliance to get Bin Laden. We provided primarily air support.
I guess it it how you would interpret War and its objectives.I don't think you necessarily need to put One Million boots on the ground to achieve your objective.
Originally Posted by crimzy
The "smoke him out" nonsense was that Bush thought that the fighting with the Northern Alliance would bring Bin Laden out of hiding. Our response in the months after 9-11 was much weaker than our approach to Iraq.
I think the use of an allie such as the Northern Alliance was key to removing the Taliban regime from power.Lets not forget what happened to the Soviet Union when they went it alone.I certainly dont think we though Bin Laden would come riding in on a horse carrying the Taliban/Al Qaeda flag with a sword drawn willing to fight to the death. The 2 fronts you speak of required different approaches but i would leave that up to the ones best qualified to determine.
phunckie
Member
Originally Posted by Jovial
1. I would start by making border security a priority and enforcing the laws that already exist. This has direct impact on national security and the economy. Im concerned about the infleune China currently has on our economy.
2. I believe most people benifit from smaller government and are smart enough to make their own financial and economic decisions without big brother having to step in and legislate every aspect of our lives. Smaller government, fewer taxes.
3. Don't have an answer for the health care issue, am still studying the options. I dont understand why it must be so prohibitively expensive, I suppose this some how ties into capitalism.
4. Concur with Journeyman on this.
Sounds like you might want to check out Ron Paul.
These are some of the major points of his campaign.....
1. I would start by making border security a priority and enforcing the laws that already exist. This has direct impact on national security and the economy. Im concerned about the infleune China currently has on our economy.
2. I believe most people benifit from smaller government and are smart enough to make their own financial and economic decisions without big brother having to step in and legislate every aspect of our lives. Smaller government, fewer taxes.
3. Don't have an answer for the health care issue, am still studying the options. I dont understand why it must be so prohibitively expensive, I suppose this some how ties into capitalism.
4. Concur with Journeyman on this.
Sounds like you might want to check out Ron Paul.
These are some of the major points of his campaign.....
crimzy
Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
This manuver was tried once before and ill quote Bin Laden "Paper Tiger" He thought we would run at the sight of casualties.Is he right?
Fighting for death, without just cause, is not courage... it's stupidity. Did Bin Laden hurt your feelings by calling you a name? Is it pride that makes you want to sacrifice American soldiers?
Do you want justice? Do you want to fight the terrorists that attacked us? They had really no problems surviving in the mountains, crossing between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We really only put forth a half-hearted effort to get them anyway. But we are concentrating solely on Iraq and not worrying about Afghanistan.
The reality is that, in the beginning of this conflict, the alleged WMD locations could have been easily taken out strategically with air support. Saddam could also been annihilated with an aggressive air strike. Very clean, very few casualties. And our war should be in Afghanistan. Why would the Northern Alliance care whether Bin Laden was brought to justice or not? He has sat in the same mountains since 9/11 and, based on the recently released video, it appears that he is still there.
It's disgusting to me that no one really wants this guy's head on a plate anymore but you are so concerned with making sure that Iraq has the type of government that we choose. All I ever hear from the other side is "...it doesn't matter anymore if we get Bin Laden or not..." This is a backwards opinion... just blind faith in the nonsense...
This manuver was tried once before and ill quote Bin Laden "Paper Tiger" He thought we would run at the sight of casualties.Is he right?
Fighting for death, without just cause, is not courage... it's stupidity. Did Bin Laden hurt your feelings by calling you a name? Is it pride that makes you want to sacrifice American soldiers?
Do you want justice? Do you want to fight the terrorists that attacked us? They had really no problems surviving in the mountains, crossing between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We really only put forth a half-hearted effort to get them anyway. But we are concentrating solely on Iraq and not worrying about Afghanistan.
The reality is that, in the beginning of this conflict, the alleged WMD locations could have been easily taken out strategically with air support. Saddam could also been annihilated with an aggressive air strike. Very clean, very few casualties. And our war should be in Afghanistan. Why would the Northern Alliance care whether Bin Laden was brought to justice or not? He has sat in the same mountains since 9/11 and, based on the recently released video, it appears that he is still there.
It's disgusting to me that no one really wants this guy's head on a plate anymore but you are so concerned with making sure that Iraq has the type of government that we choose. All I ever hear from the other side is "...it doesn't matter anymore if we get Bin Laden or not..." This is a backwards opinion... just blind faith in the nonsense...
jovial
Member
Originally Posted by phunckie
Sounds like you might want to check out Ron Paul.
These are some of the major points of his campaign.....
I like Ron Paul. Im a conservative libertarian and agree with a lot of what he has to say. Unfortunately I dont think he has much of a chance.
Good grief Crimzy, why not just run for president.
Sounds like you might want to check out Ron Paul.
These are some of the major points of his campaign.....
I like Ron Paul. Im a conservative libertarian and agree with a lot of what he has to say. Unfortunately I dont think he has much of a chance.
Good grief Crimzy, why not just run for president.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
Fighting for death, without just cause, is not courage... it's stupidity. Did Bin Laden hurt your feelings by calling you a name? Is it pride that makes you want to sacrifice American soldiers?
Bin Laden wasnt calling me names .He was refering to the USA
when it withdrew from Somalia.And we know what happened after that.We sent the wrong message and we paid a price.Pride?Naaa! I want to be free of fear that i will be attacked for being American.I was all for "Live and Let Live"until My Country came under attack.
Originally Posted by crimzy
Do you want justice? Do you want to fight the terrorists that attacked us? They had really no problems surviving in the mountains, crossing between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We really only put forth a half-hearted effort to get them anyway. But we are concentrating solely on Iraq and not worrying about Afghanistan.
Do you really believe we are no longer searching for Terrorist in Afghanistan? Maybe we dont hear about the search for Bin Laden because there is no more stupid reporters running around in the mountains asking questions and being killed.There is a thing called Covert Operations.It seems our media cant keep a secret.
Originally Posted by crimzy
The reality is that, in the beginning of this conflict, the alleged WMD locations could have been easily taken out strategically with air support. Saddam could also been annihilated with an aggressive air strike. Very clean, very few casualties. And our war should be in Afghanistan. Why would the Northern Alliance care whether Bin Laden was brought to justice or not? He has sat in the same mountains since 9/11 and, based on the recently released video, it appears that he is still there.
From the looks of that hole they dug Saddam out of ,ide say it would take a pretty smart Smart Bomb to have found him. Our war in Afghanistan has been a major success.We did complete one of the main objectives,to rid Afghanistan of Taliban Rule thus depriving terrorist a host country.Bin Laden if he is still alive, is on the run and i don't believe he is still calling anyshots.If he is in Afghanistan ,i have confidence our troops will find him.
Originally Posted by crimzy
It's disgusting to me that no one really wants this guy's head on a plate anymore but you are so concerned with making sure that Iraq has the type of government that we choose. All I ever hear from the other side is "...it doesn't matter anymore if we get Bin Laden or not..." This is a backwards opinion... just blind faith in the nonsense...
I personally would love to see him captured and brought back to the states. I think a Public Execution would be outstanding.
Justice would be served,but it wouldnt stop the terrorism.
Fighting for death, without just cause, is not courage... it's stupidity. Did Bin Laden hurt your feelings by calling you a name? Is it pride that makes you want to sacrifice American soldiers?
Bin Laden wasnt calling me names .He was refering to the USA
when it withdrew from Somalia.And we know what happened after that.We sent the wrong message and we paid a price.Pride?Naaa! I want to be free of fear that i will be attacked for being American.I was all for "Live and Let Live"until My Country came under attack.
Originally Posted by crimzy
Do you want justice? Do you want to fight the terrorists that attacked us? They had really no problems surviving in the mountains, crossing between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We really only put forth a half-hearted effort to get them anyway. But we are concentrating solely on Iraq and not worrying about Afghanistan.
Do you really believe we are no longer searching for Terrorist in Afghanistan? Maybe we dont hear about the search for Bin Laden because there is no more stupid reporters running around in the mountains asking questions and being killed.There is a thing called Covert Operations.It seems our media cant keep a secret.
Originally Posted by crimzy
The reality is that, in the beginning of this conflict, the alleged WMD locations could have been easily taken out strategically with air support. Saddam could also been annihilated with an aggressive air strike. Very clean, very few casualties. And our war should be in Afghanistan. Why would the Northern Alliance care whether Bin Laden was brought to justice or not? He has sat in the same mountains since 9/11 and, based on the recently released video, it appears that he is still there.
From the looks of that hole they dug Saddam out of ,ide say it would take a pretty smart Smart Bomb to have found him. Our war in Afghanistan has been a major success.We did complete one of the main objectives,to rid Afghanistan of Taliban Rule thus depriving terrorist a host country.Bin Laden if he is still alive, is on the run and i don't believe he is still calling anyshots.If he is in Afghanistan ,i have confidence our troops will find him.
Originally Posted by crimzy
It's disgusting to me that no one really wants this guy's head on a plate anymore but you are so concerned with making sure that Iraq has the type of government that we choose. All I ever hear from the other side is "...it doesn't matter anymore if we get Bin Laden or not..." This is a backwards opinion... just blind faith in the nonsense...
I personally would love to see him captured and brought back to the states. I think a Public Execution would be outstanding.
Justice would be served,but it wouldnt stop the terrorism.
triga22
Active Member
1. What is your stance on Global Politics and Terrorism? Keep fighting and killing terrorists. Use the Air-Force more.
2.What would you do about our economy to improve it?Export more than import. FDA should check more than 1% of what comes in. Stop depending on forigen countries.
3.How would you change our Health care system?Not much
4.And would you be willing to change the Constitution by adding or removing parts of it?If so what would you add/remove?Nothing
5. Block the borders! Export all illegals.
2.What would you do about our economy to improve it?Export more than import. FDA should check more than 1% of what comes in. Stop depending on forigen countries.
3.How would you change our Health care system?Not much
4.And would you be willing to change the Constitution by adding or removing parts of it?If so what would you add/remove?Nothing
5. Block the borders! Export all illegals.
H
huskychasrs
Guest
Nuke 'em...all of 'em. They want their 76 virgins, let's arrange the meeting.