Seven against the world (23 Viewers)
- Thread starter Seven
- Start date
- Status
Hypothetical situation here, Andy:
terrorist succeed in another attack and slaughter 1000 Americans. But Bush is removed and America's foreign policy becomes less agressive than the one we know today.
Worth the sacrifice? I'd probably say so. Just look at the numbers. Bush has killed more people (Foreigners AND Americans) than 9/11 ever did.
terrorist succeed in another attack and slaughter 1000 Americans. But Bush is removed and America's foreign policy becomes less agressive than the one we know today.
Worth the sacrifice? I'd probably say so. Just look at the numbers. Bush has killed more people (Foreigners AND Americans) than 9/11 ever did.
Let's say the IRA blows London all to hell and the UK pulls out of Northern Ireland, then 90% of Belfast gets butchered because the British are not there to stop it. Was it worth all those lives so a piece of land the size of a postage stamp (Ulster) could become an independant cemetary?
I don't know. Ask someone who gives a crap.
I don't know. Ask someone who gives a crap.
I have been following this thread for two days and have enjoyed the fights and mudthrowing between Jaecole, Andy and yourself/or your brother.
I felt the need to write you after i saw this post.
First of all when you write a hypothetical situation to prove a point make sure there is actually some logic behind it.
A
Bush being removed after a terrorist attack? Yea right. In times of war Americans are known to stand behind their president and fully support him.
B
After a terrorist attack Americas foreign policy and specificaly their policy on terrorists would only strenghten. What makes you think it would weaken?
Now i have a question for you, what has Bush done that is so evil that slaughtering a 1000 people would "be worth it" just to get rid of him?
I thought i would get through this post without insulting you but your reasoning sounds stupid. I dont know, maybe you have some info on Bushs bad deeds that i dont have, anyway i await your answer.
Bush has made many mistakes, absolutely. The afghanistan war wasnt one of them and neither was the Iraqi.
The afghanistan war, was a neccesity. A nation striking back after being attacked is their right.
The Iraq war was a good thing but for all the wrong reasons. A tyrant like saadam huseein is no longer free to torture and murder innocent people because of the Bush administration. Of course that wasnt the reason for the war, It was oil, plain and simple. But thats another matter and im getting ahead of myself.
NOTE, I am not blind to any of Americas mistakes in the past and i dont like George Bush, in fact i think he is a nasty human being, but i dont think it would be worth even one innocent life to have him removed from office.
I felt the need to write you after i saw this post.
First of all when you write a hypothetical situation to prove a point make sure there is actually some logic behind it.
A
Bush being removed after a terrorist attack? Yea right. In times of war Americans are known to stand behind their president and fully support him.
B
After a terrorist attack Americas foreign policy and specificaly their policy on terrorists would only strenghten. What makes you think it would weaken?
Now i have a question for you, what has Bush done that is so evil that slaughtering a 1000 people would "be worth it" just to get rid of him?
I thought i would get through this post without insulting you but your reasoning sounds stupid. I dont know, maybe you have some info on Bushs bad deeds that i dont have, anyway i await your answer.
Bush has made many mistakes, absolutely. The afghanistan war wasnt one of them and neither was the Iraqi.
The afghanistan war, was a neccesity. A nation striking back after being attacked is their right.
The Iraq war was a good thing but for all the wrong reasons. A tyrant like saadam huseein is no longer free to torture and murder innocent people because of the Bush administration. Of course that wasnt the reason for the war, It was oil, plain and simple. But thats another matter and im getting ahead of myself.
NOTE, I am not blind to any of Americas mistakes in the past and i dont like George Bush, in fact i think he is a nasty human being, but i dont think it would be worth even one innocent life to have him removed from office.
TonyMontana is right there. The more that someone is externally under attack, the more people in America seem to rally around that person in defiance.
I honestly don't think it would make much of any difference who is in office. It's not like OBL said, "Hey guys, hold off on the Planes project. There's a moderately more Arab-friendly president in office. Let's wait until a real jackass comes into office and then turn it up." The WTC was first bombed with Clinton in office, as were the U.S. embassies in Africa, as was the USS (Jae
) Cole, etc.
You and I may see the big difference between a Clinton and a Bush, but I don't think the terrorists really notice much of any difference at all in the big picture of things.
Even worse would be to see 1,000 people killed and have nothing change. 1,000 innocent victims just to prove your theory wrong.
I honestly don't think it would make much of any difference who is in office. It's not like OBL said, "Hey guys, hold off on the Planes project. There's a moderately more Arab-friendly president in office. Let's wait until a real jackass comes into office and then turn it up." The WTC was first bombed with Clinton in office, as were the U.S. embassies in Africa, as was the USS (Jae
) Cole, etc.You and I may see the big difference between a Clinton and a Bush, but I don't think the terrorists really notice much of any difference at all in the big picture of things.
Even worse would be to see 1,000 people killed and have nothing change. 1,000 innocent victims just to prove your theory wrong.
++ [ originally posted by swag ] ++
TonyMontana is right there. The more that someone is externally under attack, the more people in America seem to rally around that person in defiance.
I honestly don't think it would make much of any difference who is in office. It's not like OBL said, "Hey guys, hold off on the Planes project. There's a moderately more Arab-friendly president in office. Let's wait until a real jackass comes into office and then turn it up." The WTC was first bombed with Clinton in office, as were the U.S. embassies in Africa, as was the USS (Jae ) Cole, etc.
You and I may see the big difference between a Clinton and a Bush, but I don't think the terrorists really notice much of any difference at all in the big picture of things.
Even worse would be to see 1,000 people killed and have nothing change. 1,000 innocent victims just to prove your theory wrong.
TonyMontana is right there. The more that someone is externally under attack, the more people in America seem to rally around that person in defiance.
I honestly don't think it would make much of any difference who is in office. It's not like OBL said, "Hey guys, hold off on the Planes project. There's a moderately more Arab-friendly president in office. Let's wait until a real jackass comes into office and then turn it up." The WTC was first bombed with Clinton in office, as were the U.S. embassies in Africa, as was the USS (Jae
) Cole, etc.You and I may see the big difference between a Clinton and a Bush, but I don't think the terrorists really notice much of any difference at all in the big picture of things.
Even worse would be to see 1,000 people killed and have nothing change. 1,000 innocent victims just to prove your theory wrong.
I honestly don't see why Americans would still stick by George W. Bush. What has the guy done right TBH? The war in Iraq was totally unacceptable and IMO only a breeding ground for future terrorists. Not only did Iraq provide some perfect training, it spread hatred around the world as well.
So in the long run it would be a lot better if Bush was removed. Of course I we're only speaking hypothetically and I'm not sure he would be removed after another attack on big scale. But I'm pretty sure that's what most Europeans would do with their leaders since it's pretty clear that he only made matters worse.
You havent got a clue what you are talking about. Seriously, not a clue.
1. The casualty argument is weak and full of holes, I remeber seing Iraqi people celebrating the day they tore down the huseein statue. Also figures show that 75% of the iraqi population was greatfull for the removal of Saadam. Of course there are other figures that show that 90% of the population wanted the Americans to leave directly after removing him.
Also a casualty argument is in black/white, meaning that it doesnt take into consideration all other aspects of the war and only concentrates on the deathcount. With your reasoning Europe should of just let Hitler take over without putting up a fight.
The Iraq war was good at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons.
All of the countries in the world agree Sadaams removal was a good thing.
Except for some muslim nations.
however they feel it should of been done ten years ago and he should never of had power from the start. America put him in power and sold him weapons. This is one of the many mistake done by america throuh time. But dont think for one second it was wrong to remove him. Sure it would be great to do so without the cost of lives, but Sadaam wouldnt abdicate and go into exil, he had that opportunity and he didnt take it. This was the only way for him to be removed.
Sadaams wars put together has had ten times the deathcount then that of the recent Iraqi war.
You assumptions are ridicoulusly wrong. Who feeds you this stuff?
1.Removin a president after a terrorist attack wouldnt happen(there are circumstance where it could, but this isnt one of them) simply because it sends out all the wrong messages to the terrorist and the rest of the world.
They terrorists would probaly only strengthen by any country removing their president after an attack and would get the feeling that what they are doing is actually working. Not to mention they would take this as a sign of weakness and probably only go on with their stupid senseless "holy war". The rest of the world would interpret this as a sign of weakness as well and the country would lose power in the UN, and as i already mentioned a nation under attack stand by their leader.
Think of Tony Blair and the terroristattack in England.
Youre whole argument is full of holes and viewed from one point of view only. Too see the big picture you can never go solely on stats, just like in soccer it doesnt paint a Picasso.
Peace
1. The casualty argument is weak and full of holes, I remeber seing Iraqi people celebrating the day they tore down the huseein statue. Also figures show that 75% of the iraqi population was greatfull for the removal of Saadam. Of course there are other figures that show that 90% of the population wanted the Americans to leave directly after removing him.
Also a casualty argument is in black/white, meaning that it doesnt take into consideration all other aspects of the war and only concentrates on the deathcount. With your reasoning Europe should of just let Hitler take over without putting up a fight.
The Iraq war was good at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons.
All of the countries in the world agree Sadaams removal was a good thing.
Except for some muslim nations.
however they feel it should of been done ten years ago and he should never of had power from the start. America put him in power and sold him weapons. This is one of the many mistake done by america throuh time. But dont think for one second it was wrong to remove him. Sure it would be great to do so without the cost of lives, but Sadaam wouldnt abdicate and go into exil, he had that opportunity and he didnt take it. This was the only way for him to be removed.
Sadaams wars put together has had ten times the deathcount then that of the recent Iraqi war.
You assumptions are ridicoulusly wrong. Who feeds you this stuff?
1.Removin a president after a terrorist attack wouldnt happen(there are circumstance where it could, but this isnt one of them) simply because it sends out all the wrong messages to the terrorist and the rest of the world.
They terrorists would probaly only strengthen by any country removing their president after an attack and would get the feeling that what they are doing is actually working. Not to mention they would take this as a sign of weakness and probably only go on with their stupid senseless "holy war". The rest of the world would interpret this as a sign of weakness as well and the country would lose power in the UN, and as i already mentioned a nation under attack stand by their leader.
Think of Tony Blair and the terroristattack in England.
Youre whole argument is full of holes and viewed from one point of view only. Too see the big picture you can never go solely on stats, just like in soccer it doesnt paint a Picasso.
Peace
- Status