You're in charge

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe a modern version of Sherman's march on Atlanta would do nicely in the M.E. The civilians are the ones who back the terrorists up-either by direct voluntary cooperation or by being intimidated by the bad guys. So, knock all the buildings down, destroy all the crops and make everyone dependent on us for their very lives, not to mention their next meal.

I too have a knee jerk reaction to bomb the places flat, and then pick up my bat and go home, but thats how the Taliban took control of Afghanistan. Wouldn't want that to happen again.
 
Stop falling over ourselves to defend Israel, and Israel's actions. Stop arming them. Supporting them. Helping them. Treat them no different than we do any other extremist middle eastern countries.

For the record, this has nothing to do with the Jewish, and everything to do with the Israelis. There is a differnce, and I don't care what religion the people of Israel are.
 
Ditch the Federal Government. All of it. Immediately. Let the individual States work out their own destinies and subdivisions, secessions, Unions or Federations, if any.

Sure, it might suck; but there is nothing to be salvaged from the Constitutional Experiment that one or another -- usually most-- of the States haven't already got. And it denies the Bad Guys du jour their target.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, David, slash and burn! That's why the people of the South still hate yankees, 140 years later. The fat cats funded BOTH sides so they could take over when the smoke cleared. Gung Ho, Hooraa, kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!! BS! What if someone invaded YOUR homeland and destroyed YOUR family and YOUR home for what YOUR government did? Would you fight back? Would YOU or your descendants EVER forgive the aggressors? Would you fight back ANY way you could? Quit listening to the BS and THINK. War is not a bumper sticker.
Roberta X, keep fighting the good fight! Thomas Jefferson said we only have the rights we are willing to fight for. Check out this web site, I think you will like it (and understand it):http://freedomtofascism.com/

badbob
 
two points

A couple o' points.

1. You can't kill OBL! He is intrinsic to the war on terror! Read 1984 and just substiture OBL for "Goldstein" in the story and you'll get the idea.

2. Repeat this to yourself many times. Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. If you think he did, you're wrong. Just repeat the previous sentence until it sinks in.
 
"That's why the people of the South still hate yankees, 140 years later."

If you care to go over and hold hands with that pack and sing kumbya, have at it. I'd be careful around the fellas with the dull knives, however.

As for me, I don't lose any sleep over whether the terrorists like me or not. I DO want them to fear and dread us. I want them and every other tin pot dictator to know without doubt that every time they bring harm onto our soil that there are terrific consequences to pay.

I see you have issues with Sherman's march, but you cannot deny that his tactic was very effective. His aim was not a hearts and minds campaign. He knew the local populace would or were supporting the confederate military. In order to cut off the supplies, he purposely declared war on the civilian populace.
I don't think it is a wise tactic to use when you are trying to unite a divided nation, but it was the fastest way to stifle the confederate military. Pretty much what has been done to our enemies in every successful war this country has ever fought since that time.

From what I can see from here, and having been in the M.E., there is a group of nations over there who denounce the terrorists to the western world, yet give a wink and a nod to the terrorists.

In my mind, if you are going to fight the war, go all the way.

As to what I would do if we were invaded, well, based on my previous military experience and my knowledge of the Texas hill country from years of hunting there, thats where I will be. I don't expect quarter and don't give quarter, either.
 
As for me, I don't lose any sleep over whether the terrorists like me or not. I DO want them to fear and dread us. I want them and every other tin pot dictator to know without doubt that every time they bring harm onto our soil that there are terrific consequences to pay.
Click to expand...

Yet where do we draw the line between bringing harm onto our soil and not wishing to be under the control of our government? How many legitimate democracies have we replaced with crackpot dictators? Ever see the world map of every country we've had (arguably) more influence (and troops) than we should have in another sovereign nation?

(tinfoil time) If the opec cartel decided that it would be in their interests to do business in the euro instead of the dollar, and it would bring us (closer?) to economic ruin, should we intervene militarily? And can anyone tell me why this isn't a remote possibility? Not trying to be a naive kook, I just don't actually know. (but would like to hear anyone else's take on that hypthetical situation)

And it's hard to be a fan of complete and total war when the people leading us into battle seem to have been hemorraging credibility and integrity since ww2 (or maybe Korea, but surely 30 years later we can all collectively admit that vietnam was a mistake).
 
Last edited:
I take your point, Mr Busterbury. Yes, this country and many others have replaced governments in an effort to get this or that done. We sure didn't invent that kind of behavior, but it didn't and does not make it right.

Hitler was put into office by a democratic administration by people who were elected and thought they could control him. A democracy does not guarrantee peace, but it seems to lean that way, mostly.

For me, I have no problem with going to war with the terrorists and the governments who back them. This middle east mess has been cussed and discussed for better than a half a century. There has been treaties, wars, threats, conferences, summits from here to Christmas trying to get something lasting. To no avail.

We are just one of the latest countries who have felt the heat from backblast. I don't think that sitting back and leaving it be is going to solve a thing. Yet, I am not certain that a limited war will take us where we are wanting to go.

America has been dealing with this issue in one form or another since Klinghoffer was pushed off the Achille Lauro into the Med, and through a collection of administrations, has given the bad guys every reason to believe we will not act decisively. Lebanon, the USS Stark, USS Cole, the NY bombings, Somalia-the list goes on and on.

The problem is not going away any time soon, and a conventional war is not going to fix it quickly. There is a lot of bad decisions which have been made prior to the invasions, and the inertia which all large governments carry does not help.

If anything has been proven lately, its that terrorists can never be negotiated with any more than a group of thugs launching a home invasion. Maybe you surrender money, your wife and daughter, or whatever and they leave you alone-but maybe not.

Does the free world have the stomach for the fight, and if not now, when and what will it take to get us there? Do we wait for them to get powerful enough for another bloody world war such as I or II? Will they suddenly go conventional if given enough power and attack under a flag as in the old days? If not, do we sit back and take the hit?

What worries me most is that a continuing level of limited war will ruin what I consider to be a finely trained and equipped military, and those who serve will be treated badly because of innuendo and complete falsehoods. I got a belly full of that garbage during my service and wish it on nobody.

To the people getting shot at, there is no such thing as a "limited war."

Good question on OPEC going Euro. I believe we are still their biggest buyer of oil, even with China and India coming on strong. If you were in it for the money and control, as OPEC seems to be, would you ruin your biggest customer in order to cause their downfall? What happens to China, India and all the rest of the countries who make a whole lot of money by importing their goods to Americans who no longer have the money to buy that product?
 
I have two suggestions:

1. Forget about the Middle East. The simplest solution to the problem is to annex Canada and Mexico. That will give us enough energy reserves to last well into the next century (Canada has over 1 trillion bbls of crude in the Alberta tar sands, Mexico may have up to 100 million bbls that they can't get to because their cash cow Pemex doesn't have the technology or money). It will also eliminate the NAFTA dispute and the illegal immigrant problem; Canadians and Mexicans will become US Citizens. Our elderly will no longer be drug smugglers and will be able to get their prescriptions from Canada legally. The Mexicans will love the idea as it will raise the standard of living for 97% of the population to our poverty level. While Canada might balk at this, our military is bigger than their military.

OR

2. Fire Field Marshall Rumsfeld. Let the military do their job!!!!.

It looks like the lessons of Vietnam were lost.
 
1. Forget about the Middle East. The simplest solution to the problem is to annex Canada and Mexico. That will give us enough energy reserves to last well into the next century (Canada has over 1 trillion bbls of crude in the Alberta tar sands, Mexico may have up to 100 million bbls that they can't get to because their cash cow Pemex doesn't have the technology or money). It will also eliminate the NAFTA dispute and the illegal immigrant problem; Canadians and Mexicans will become US Citizens. Our elderly will no longer be drug smugglers and will be able to get their prescriptions from Canada legally. The Mexicans will love the idea as it will raise the standard of living for 97% of the population to our poverty level. While Canada might balk at this, our military is bigger than their military.
Click to expand...

As far as helping our foreign energy problem this is a good idea, I suppose. It at least helps stave off the inevitable. I'm just curious where you're getting the idea that it would really solve any other problems.

Allowing the elderly to get their 'scrips from Canada legally? If we were to annex Canada then I think it's more likely that the US pharmacutical companies would then exert their influence up there, so rather than our citizens reaping any benefit we'd just be screwing the Canadians. It's not like there's something mythical about the land under Canadians' feet that makes 'scrips cheaper there...they're only cheaper because it's a different nation under a different government. Annex them and that would go away.

Then there's the idea that annexing Mexico would do much of anything to solve the immigration problem. Our country can barely absorb the steady stream of Mexicans we're taking in now...making 100 million of them US citizens would somehow help? Sure, it would probably help raise the standard of living for the average Mexican...but even with the added natural resources it would probably also lower the standard of living for the average American. Especially those who are already poor. So it would be more like the poor in America and the poor in Mexico meeting somewhere in the middle; I don't think you'd make many friends with this idea, except maybe for the higher-ups in the energy industry [EDIT: and, of course, the poor in Mexico...].

And before anybody tries it, Canada only has about 30 million people, so it isn't like any higher standard of living there would "cancel out" the damage from absorbing Mexico. Not to mention that one could argue that part of the reason poverty isn't as much of a problem in Canada is because their GDP, while lower per capita than the US, is more evenly distributed...due in part to the fact that Canadians make our "tax and spend" Democrats look downright fiscally conservative. That would, of course, also change if we annexed them...so expect their cities to more closely resemble ours within a few decades as far as crime and poverty goes.

Though in fairness it would fix the whole NAFTA mess.

2. Fire Field Marshall Rumsfeld. Let the military do their job!!!!
Click to expand...

Amen, but only if you fire King Bush II as well.
 
R.e. #1 I WAS KIDDING! :rolleyes: sheesh!

Rumsfeld's just taking orders, we need to replace the captain(s) of the ship, not just the first mate
Click to expand...

Yeah, your right, the Dark Lord,and the Cowboy gotta go too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top