Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
So if some Brazillian outcast, trained by crack Arintinian death squads, living in Mexico said "I will kill Americans", what is the correct scale of response?
1> Nuke the city the person is in.
2> Ignore the crazy dumb-fuck.
3> Place all people you suspect are mexicans or mexican sympasizers in concentration camps.
4> Invade and occupy Venezuala.
|
I would employ "splinter cells" to investigate. If we found credible plans to kill Americans, I would take pre-emptive action to disrupt those plans and send a message the their commrades. This almost sounds like a Tom Clancy plot.
Quote:
Now suppose the person mananged to kill 5 Americans. 50 Americans. 500 Americans. 5000 Americans.
Now suppose 20 years pass. You occupied Venezuala (and currently have about twice as many armed forces there as the Venezualian government does), and supported a revolution in Mexico in order to kill the person who killed the 5 Americans. You are supporting dictators in the vast majority of latin american states.
|
I would not occupy Venezuala. I am now of the opinion that occupying Iraq is a mistake.
Quote:
A Venezualian who the USA trained to be a Mexican revolutionary shoots the vice president, saying "Venezualia will be free!". The assasin gets away, smuggled away by Mexicans. What do you do?
1> Nuke Argentina.
2> Track down and arrest the killer.
3> Invade Cuba.
4> Build a wall between Bolivia and Paraguay.
5> Say that the Venezualian terrorist hates freedom, and occupy Argentina.
|
If the action was an act of war on the part of the governments of enemy nations. I would use laser directed smart bombs to strike military and government targets to overthrow the government(s). Again sending a message - If you f*** with us, there will be consequences, so don't f*** with us.
Like I wrote earlier, my tendency would be to over-react, like Bush. My tendency is also to get fixated, like Bush. I would need Congress or my wife to keep me under control. If Congress or my wife feeds my aggression, then they failed when I needed them most. To me Bush has done everything he said he would do. congress has failed and is continuing to fail, because they have the power to snap Bush out of his fixation.
Quote:
|
Your family is in more danger from automobies than it is from terrorists. By orders of magnitude. Massive orders of magnitude.
|
That is why I drive. I am a control freak, in addition to other problems I have.
Quote:
|
Your family is in more danger from an oppresive government than terrorists. Oppressive governments have killed many times more people than any act of any foriegn power in any time in history.
|
That is why I support the 2nd amendment.
Quote:
|
So are you willing to say "the government can put anyone away for as long as they want, with no appeal, 100% secrecy, and I'll support them"? And if so, why do you hate your family so much that you want to increase government oppression?
|
Terrorist don't have Constitutional rights in my view.
Quote:
|
Replace "suspected terrorists" with "anyone the government wants".
|
I agree, its a fine line. But like they say - If my aunt had balls and a penis, she would be my uncle.
Quote:
|
Do you have any problem with the government being able to hold anyone they want, torture anyone they want, and do it on any scale they want to?
|
Yes. I think war is different than criminal activity.
Quote:
|
Do you care more about being national top dog, or do you care more about the wellbeing of your family?
|
Family, and freedom.
Quote:
|
The only nukes aimed at the USA are in Russia, last I checked. Russia is not threatening to fire them. Between 1988 and 2000, Russia was quite reasonably friendly with the USA.
|
Perhaps, N. Korea. Perhaps Iran. Perhaps China. Perhaps terrorists have a few. Perhaps Cuba has one from 1950. No one has ever totally accounted for the nukes from the USSR, so who knows where they are pointed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
ace....you say you have a "reality based", POV, but we can't discuss or debate anything...because you refuse to let data....facts....dent your "reality":
ace, I showed you, in this Oct., 2006 post, why your claims of "deficit" reduction were grossly misleading, and could be claimed to be false:
|
Please revisit the thread. We agreed on some points and disagreed on others. The deficit is misleading because it doesn't measure all federal government spending. But they consitently measure it wrong, dating back decades.
Also national debt numbers are misleading as well as trade deficit numbers. Where we differ is on the significance of it, not the factual numbers.