You just won the 2004 election (16 Viewers)

Layce Erayce

Senior Member
#1
Aug 11, 2002
9,116
#1
(lets pretend thats true)

If so, how would you deal with terrorism in general? Namely:

a) Would you have a hard-and-fast policy regarding terrorism or would you play it by ear?

b) Would you consider giving in to the terrorists demands? Under what conditions?

c) What do you feel is the best way to stifle terrorism worldwide?

d) Would you involve yourself in dealing with minor terrorist activities in other countries?
 

Buy on AliExpress.com
ßöмßäяðîëя

ßöмßäяðîëя

The Krazyman
#2
Apr 12, 2004
77,165
#2
You know what I would do, I would build a massive dome over the whole continental US so that no terrorist punks could fly planes into us.

Ohh I would never work with terrorists, that gets you nowhere.

I would probably help out other terrorists that backed me so that we could like suicide bomb Arab restaurants in Jordan or some no name place like that. "President Burke pumped his fist today at the sight of his bomber blowing up in a car bomb."

NO, I would be come like the chinese, total isolationists, or I would take over the whole world, first taking a bunker buster to IcuboRosonero's house in Rome.
 
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
#3
Mar 16, 2004
115,986
#3
a) I would play it by ear most likely, not being overly opinionated either way.

b) Hell friggin no. That's the one thing you cannot do if you want to stop terrorism. It will just make the terrorists strive further to accomplish their goals, since they exposed a weakness. Also, I think there is something morally wrong with helping terrorists achieve their goals.

c) To take it out as silently as possible, trying to keep military involvement to a minimum. I'll elaborate on this one at another time; 1am here :lazy:

d) well it depends. I would certainly not take action if a bomb were to go off in Mongolia, but in England I would offer help if wanted.

And by the way, I would do away with any activity in Israel. I would not support the actions of Israel nor the Palestinians, just leave them alone to do their thing. Not really much sense in helping two groups of 'terrorists' now is there..
 
Martin

Martin

Senior Member
#4
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
#4
++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++
(lets pretend thats true)

If so, how would you deal with terrorism in general? Namely:

a) Would you have a hard-and-fast policy regarding terrorism or would you play it by ear?

b) Would you consider giving in to the terrorists demands? Under what conditions?

c) What do you feel is the best way to stifle terrorism worldwide?

d) Would you involve yourself in dealing with minor terrorist activities in other countries?
Click to expand...
a) I would concern myself with trying to find the people responsible for the specific attack and they would get their day in court just like any US citizen commiting homicide gets (or should get) a trial.

b) No, that only goes to strengthen the people in power of those organizations.

c) To put it simply: stop being terrorists. Stop sponsoring terrorism worldwide like the US has since the Second World War would be a start. Stop vetoing every single UN resolution that goes towards disarmament and against US interests. Stop supporting Israel.

d) It depends on whether that terrorist action had anything to do with US policy in that country. If the British embassy in Nigeria was attacked due to British support for US policy, then it would be responsible to get involved in the situation.
 
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
#5
Mar 16, 2004
115,986
#5
Actually, if I was elected President, I would pull all of our troops out of every other country in the world except for Germany. That way, we won't "influence" other cultures too much. Let everybody fend for themselves.
 
IncuboRossonero

IncuboRossonero

Inferiority complex
#7
Nov 16, 2003
7,039
#7
++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++
(lets pretend thats true)

If so, how would you deal with terrorism in general? Namely:

a) Would you have a hard-and-fast policy regarding terrorism or would you play it by ear?
Click to expand...
Simple policy: EITHER YOUR WITH US or YOUR WITH THE TERRORISTS.

++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++
b) Would you consider giving in to the terrorists demands? Under what conditions?
Click to expand...
Under no conditions. Not everyone has the luxury of being a mediocre fish in a big pond like Spain.

++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++
c) What do you feel is the best way to stifle terrorism worldwide??
Click to expand...
Adopt a foreign policy PLAN and STICK to it even if you step on peoples toes.

++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++
d) Would you involve yourself in dealing with minor terrorist activities in other countries?
Click to expand...
Quote: "Why would I spend a 100,000.00 missle on a ten dollar tent?"
 
IncuboRossonero

IncuboRossonero

Inferiority complex
#8
Nov 16, 2003
7,039
#8
++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
Actually, if I was elected President, I would pull all of our troops out of every other country in the world except for Germany. That way, we won't "influence" other cultures too much. Let everybody fend for themselves.
Click to expand...
If there is one nation to monitor its Germany.
 
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
#9
Mar 16, 2004
115,986
#9
++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++
andy your a reasonable person. dont let opposing views get to you.
Click to expand...
I'm not letting them get to me, I'm just wondering how the world would cope without all our involvement....
 
Tom

Tom

The DJ
#17
Oct 30, 2001
11,726
#17
1) I'd look at what terrorists actually posed a serious threat to the country and western civilisation as a whole, and take them out. Saddam would be left alone, go after the terrorist networks, and don't move on to another target until the first one is dead or captured.

2) No chance, though I'd have no problem conversing with them, if it helped understand what exactly they wanted

3) Ultimately its to remove the cause for them to resort to terrorism, whatever that may be depends on the individual circumstance. This however is very hard to achieve without giving into the terrorists and this ain't gonna happen. So really its about having people on the ground undercover, getting information about leaders wherabouts and organising swift and effective assassinations. Hit straight to the heart of terror and it will peter out into a harmless bunch of thugs causing trouble.

4) Not really unless help was asked for. No need to meddle in other countries affairs unless it is requested. Then you'd analyse the situation and see if its gonna be in your interests to help out
 
OP

Layce Erayce

Senior Member
Thread Starter #18
Aug 11, 2002
9,116
  • Thread Starter
    • Thread Starter #18
    ++ [ originally posted by Paolo_Montero ] ++
    1) I'd look at what terrorists actually posed a serious threat to the country and western civilisation as a whole, and take them out. Saddam would be left alone, go after the terrorist networks, and don't move on to another target until the first one is dead or captured.
    Click to expand...
    You pinpointed the exact problem with the Iraq war. Very good.

    ++ [ originally posted by Paolo_Montero ] ++
    2) No chance, though I'd have no problem conversing with them, if it helped understand what exactly they wanted
    Click to expand...
    Again, hit the nail on the head. If we want others to respect or at least consider what we say we have to do the same. If they dont, we have passed the "global test"- we will have a genuine reason to resort to force since peaceful dialogue has not worked and that is clear for all to see.

    ++ [ originally posted by Paolo_Montero ] ++
    3) Ultimately its to remove the cause for them to resort to terrorism, whatever that may be depends on the individual circumstance. This however is very hard to achieve without giving into the terrorists and this ain't gonna happen. So really its about having people on the ground undercover, getting information about leaders wherabouts and organising swift and effective assassinations. Hit straight to the heart of terror and it will peter out into a harmless bunch of thugs causing trouble.
    Click to expand...
    Agree on the first point- they need to learn to use their voice to make their needs known. Id like to add that they will only do that if their voices are actually heard and they KNOW that their voices are being heard. That is just one of the several options they have to resort to instead of terrorism.

    I disagree on the assasination attempts because if we do that to them, whats gonna stop them from doing it back to us? In fact their assasination attempts on our leaders, (if they choose to do so) will be a just response. But then again, its a helluva lot more practical and efficient than wasting time, money, work, manpower and the lives of our soldiers......hmm...

    ++ [ originally posted by Paolo_Montero ] ++
    4) Not really unless help was asked for. No need to meddle in other countries affairs unless it is requested. Then you'd analyse the situation and see if its gonna be in your interests to help out
    Click to expand...
    There I would disagree not because you are wrong, but because of my personal preference that the US should intervene even if only to help others because not only will this improve foreign relations, it will also give the player-haters less to complain about. Anti-American propaganda(including the kind that is used to recruit terrorists) will be rendered useless if people see the integrity of the US upheld.

    We think very much alike. You know what they say about great minds...:D
     
    Torkel

    Torkel

    f(s+1)=3((s +1)-1=3s
    #19
    Jul 12, 2002
    3,537
    #19
    ++ [ originally posted by DukeVonEggwaffle? ] ++
    (lets pretend thats true)

    If so, how would you deal with terrorism in general? Namely:

    a) Would you have a hard-and-fast policy regarding terrorism or would you play it by ear?

    b) Would you consider giving in to the terrorists demands? Under what conditions?

    c) What do you feel is the best way to stifle terrorism worldwide?

    d) Would you involve yourself in dealing with minor terrorist activities in other countries?
    Click to expand...
    b) No, don't think so. As Tom said I could gladly have a dialogue with them, but that's very unlikely, as that's not the way it's done.

    c) Keep a low profile, cut down on costly international operations and rather hand out more foreign aid instead. Try to be more open towards international organizations like the UN and NATO.

    d) Yes, if supported by NATO.
    ++ [ originally posted by Martin ] ++
    Stop supporting Israel.
    Click to expand...
    ++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
    And by the way, I would do away with any activity in Israel.
    Click to expand...
    And how would you do this? Doesn't sound very realistic does it?
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 16)