You Are President of the United States

Originally posted by brimstone735
Hey, how'd I get sucked into this? I'm liberal.

You weren't sucked in, you volunteered, and they're not very Liberal views.

You've assumed that the people responsible are Muslims and therefore decided their most sacred site should be nuked. Do you really hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of a few?

I can only assume that when the IRA had their bombing campaign going, it would have been appropriate to nuke the Vatican?

Here is what I would do;

1. Lift all trade tarrifs with Canada in exchange for helping secure the nothern border.

2. Lift sanctions with Cuba, offer aid in exchange for helping secure the international waters off the Gulf of Mexico and deploy the surplus of surgeons they have to the affected area.

3. Develope an incentive for Mexico to assist with the south.

4. Take a hard stance against France, Germany and Russia.

5. Consult with the rest of NATO and ask for them to participate in an investigation to find those behind it, secure the Atlantic.

6. Ignore the U.N.

7. Once those responsible have been located, attack & destroy with convential means, identify countries that assisted and cut off all trade. Place trade tarrifs on those who continue to do business with suspect countries.

[edit on 7-12-2004 by crisko]

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by brimstone735
Hey, how'd I get sucked into this? I'm liberal.

You weren't sucked in, you volunteered, and they're not very Liberal views.

The IRA never used nukes, nor have they used suicide bombers. And as far as I know, the IRA never attacked France for being Defensive partners with the U.K, which would be the proper comparison between Al Queda vs the U.S. and the IRA vs the UK.

Furthermore, I never volunteered to be part of your little bushwack.

Now, back to the subjective subject. Who exactly would we be nuked by? Roaming bands of cheese wielding Swedes decide to liberate Vermont from the tyranny of Rhode Island, in which case I call for the wholesale nuclear destruction of ABBA.

But, considering that this is a "what if" kinda situation, calling for a "what if" kinda response, I went with the group voted "most lilkely to nuke an American city" in their high school year book.

Crazy, jihadist maniacs.

And yes, I am liberal. A realist, but a liberal nonethless. Because, while we may have a complete maniac for a president, American liberals have the most to lose. I don't see terrorists standing in line to attack OKLAHOMA!
Or Kansas, or Utah, or just about any other Red Republican state. What these creeps will attack is New York City, or Chicago, or L.A., or Boston or San Francisco...all of them decidedly blue.

So, on behalf of my hypothetically dead blue brothers and sisters, in said hypothetically destroyed blue city, by a hypothetical bomb, used by a hypothetical group of unknown strangers [fill in the blanks at our liesure], I am once again going with my hypothetical stock answer.

Nuke MECCA.

So, I guess it would be OK for me to base my hypothesis on the CIA or MOSSAD being the responsible parties?

In the MOSSAD case, you get to nuke Israel and solve 90% of the Middle East's problems.

Not sure how you would deal with the CIA though, I'd guess that they would wipe you out before you got a chance to do anything about it.

Originally posted by brimstone735
...
So, on behalf of my hypothetically dead blue brothers and sisters, in said hypothetically destroyed blue city, by a hypothetical bomb, used by a hypothetical group of unknown strangers [fill in the blanks at our liesure], I am once again going with my hypothetical stock answer.

Nuke MECCA.

That's of course when in a hypothetical scenario it's proven that the Saudi government is behind the WMD attack. Still, why not bomb Riyadh, Jeddah or any other Saudi cities? - at least that way we will make (in that hypothetical scenario) less enemy as the Muslim holy shrine of Mohammed is still standing, though probably more radio active.

Advocating the destruction of Mecca is almost like propagating the nuking of the Vatican because some Catholic/Christian terrorist has done something wrong somewhere around the world.

Blobber

Originally posted by Blobber

That's of course when in a hypothetical scenario it's proven that the Saudi government is behind the WMD attack. Still, why not bomb Riyadh, Jeddah or any other Saudi cities? - at least that way we will make (in that hypothetical scenario) less enemy as the Muslim holy shrine of Mohammed is still standing, though probably more radio active.

Advocating the destruction of Mecca is almost like propagating the nuking of the Vatican because some Catholic/Christian terrorist has done something wrong somewhere around the world.

Blobber

If it's a proven foriegn government behind the attack, I fully support nuking them. But, it's my hypothetical situation, and in my hypothetical situation, it's conceivable that a small group of Islamic Jihadists without any national affiliation (A private group, without government backing) might detonate a nuclear weapon on American soil.

How exactly do you deter a group without borders?

You find their weekness and exploit it to your own advantage. In which case, it's about real estate. Protect our real estate by threatening the only real estate an "Islamic terrorist group without borders" would value.

I swear to God, sometimes I dislike hippies as much as I dislike conservatives.

Originally posted by Koka
In the MOSSAD case, you get to nuke Israel and solve 90% of the Middle East's problems.

That's anti-semetic, and this is where you and I stop chatting.

Originally posted by crisko

6. Ignore the U.N.

]

Yeah good plan just ignore a orginisation with acess to the entire western worlds medical facilities.
of course america doesnt need the UN,geneva,international law or even good allies.....the evidence lays before you.
I dont hate the US i hate ignorant people who dont want peace they want thier country in charge running everything.

LOL! Devilwasp, please, before you call someone else ignorant, use spell check!

The U.N. is a corrupt organization that picks and chooses its battles worse than a mugger, and when it does something it is usually tantamount to nothing. The only reason we should NOT ignore it is because we are the chief supporter of that wretched and incompetent organization.

I hate it when ignorant people think that incompetence gathered together in an "organization" is more effective.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
LOL! Devilwasp, please, before you call someone else ignorant, use spell check!

its 22 past midnight iv been up since god knows and im tired and my stupid cola is shizeny!I dont care about spell checking !

The U.N. is a corrupt organization that picks and chooses its battles worse than a mugger, and when it does something it is usually tantamount to nothing.

Says the country with a clean white sheet of curruption.....i think not

The only reason we should NOT ignore it is because we are the chief supporter of that wretched and incompetent organization.

really? Mind running along to the white house and asking what GWB is doing then?
This one of the US's sneaky stealthly squirrel tactics?

I hate it when ignorant people think that incompetence gathered together in an "organization" is more effective.

So i take it korea was a NATO mission huh?

Perhaps we are missing the entire history of so called "terrorism." In fact almost every "terrorist incident," has been an internal matter, but blamed on external forces. Nazi troops dressing up as Polish troops created an incident, when Poland was invaded. Go back to Rome burning, most historians think it was Nero and his idea of urban renewal as well as persecuting Christians. People go on and on with the same theme, and everyone falls for it, hook, line, and sinker. You know the saying insanity is doing the same thing that you have already been doing, over and over again, and expecting a different result. Is an exposed flaw read by too many leaders as a recommendation for future action?

Given that, my earlier thread indicates a solution to a hypothetical situation, where an internal shadow government is found responsible beyond a reasonable doubt. Since at least a preponderence of evidence indicates this may well have been what happened on 911, then all that follows in legislation is a false premise. It is only a pretext to every nutty extremist idea anyone on the so called right but is really corporate, elitist, facist, has ever had. Suspending habeus corpus for all practical purposes permanently, trial without jury, not being able to phone home. All these things are a nightmare, what people do in a banana republic from hell.

So do too many of us act like the propaganda stories from Fox News, the lies, are the rock solid basis of laws and actions?

I expected better out of this site, you know some writing closing to the truth rather than more propaganda from the extremes. You asked the hypothetical, and I gave it to you, explaining in depth the problems of those who act with truth in power, namely they are dead meat as quick as the selfish greedy and criminal facists can do it. I said retire to a secure facility, get some real security, and think about dropping at least some micro nukes on the shadow government tyrant traitors who would do this kind of thing.

All you come up with is "get the osamas," or "nuke Noth Korea," or some other Fox news stereotype. Has all thinking died? Will people continue on this board to act in ignorance while claiming to "deny ignorance." I already answered your question, find the real crooks, even if they were right under your nose.

Please comment.

[edit on 7-12-2004 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Are We Missing the Point?

SkipShipman,

I wanted to thank you and apologize.
Apologize for skipping you over with your original post. Somehow I got sidetracked trying to prevent my thread from being highjacked. I remember getting ready to reply and comment then things happened.

And now for the Thank you for spending a considerable amount of time brainstorming and presenting you ideas in a clear and articulate way. I'm sure there are many here that don't agree with you but sure are happy you are there to debate.

Now on to the Purpose of the thread......

I agree with many of the posters with immediate actions in sealing the borders and preventing any more attacks from occuring. I would shut down highways and authorize it strictly for medical, government, search and rescue, and military personel. Safety of the American public would be top priority and would employ all means until i felt satisfied.

Launch investigations and after all means are exhausted then final decisions would be made on the couse of action.

Nuking an enemy or race in retaliation prematurly because they are your enemy is not a good course of action. You must find of your enemys the one the actualy commited the criminal act.

Lets get this nuking stuff in dumbed down terms .....

Your neighbor cuts off your finger so you retaliate by slaughtering a whole town. But keep in mind its not even your town, its the town 100 miles up the road because that town does not like you....... Neighbor is fine and well and.............this is getting carried away....... don't make much sense to do this.......you get the point.

Realistically chances are if this situation were to occur you would see the suspension of the United States constitution indefinetly. Fear breeds power and humans have known that for thousands of years.

There are many elements in the world that want absolute power and will do anything to achieve it. America is under attack by these invisible forces and with good reason.

The United States is very RICH, very INFLUENTIAL, and militarily very POWERFULL.

Wealth------Power------Influence.

Isn't this what most people want in their everyday lives?

Don't think that NWO stuff can't happen for it has already started.

Remember Fear breeds power, and power breeds wealth and influence and then you have a dictatorship.

-Reason

P.S. lots of good ideas guys!

Originally posted by REASON

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Are We Missing the Point?

SkipShipman,

I wanted to thank you and apologize.
Apologize for skipping you over with your original post. Somehow I got sidetracked trying to prevent my thread from being highjacked. I remember getting ready to reply and comment then things happened.

And now for the Thank you for spending a considerable amount of time brainstorming and presenting you ideas in a clear and articulate way. I'm sure there are many here that don't agree with you but sure are happy you are there to debate.

Lets get this nuking stuff in dumbed down terms .....

Your neighbor cuts off your finger so you retaliate by slaughtering a whole town. But keep in mind its not even your town, its the town 100 miles up the road because that town does not like you....... Neighbor is fine and well and.............this is getting carried away...

.... don't make much sense to do this.......you get the point.

P.S. lots of good ideas guys!

Thanks for your reply, yet of course I was not referring to the orignal post, but the responses among many to it.

One of the great moral advancements in religious-political thought was "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." That meant exactly what it said, you don't blow up a town if you lost a tooth there. But Jesus advanced us morally to put an end to the cycle of violence. He said things such as "forgive 7x77," and "love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you."

Surely with all the advanced thought that has happened we should not have to return to the first moral advance of proportionate response? I often hear draconian things from people who say they are "born again Christians," favoring the death penalty to such a great extent that it ends up killing innocent retarded people who "confessed."

Well the issues for Christians are not in one camp or another but what Jesus said, and even what is eloquently said in the Torah or as Christians cite the Old Testament.

I did not of course suggest that a bunker inhabiting President should necessarily "nuke the shadow government," but think about it. He might also think in Megatons for stubborn elements who will not surrender or commit de facto cival war for their miserable sell out kleptocratic dictatorship.

Thanks again for your acknowledgment, yet of course I am referring generally to most of the responses here, which I have perhaps found a bit brusquely substandard in the thoughfulness or articulation department. For the harsh tense of criticism I might apologize, for lack of better terms conceivable here.

Originally posted by SkipShipman
One of the great moral advancements in religious-political thought was "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." .....

Sad that this is the Prefered standard.

You speak of higher thinking not possesed by the masses.
Our founding fathers of the United States created the electoral college so that the uninformed, uneducated person could not install a official in the executive office that was not fit for the position.

Yet we see these days poeple not fit for power or offices that run this great country.

I am glad I created this thread yet also saddened.
Glad for there are many with good ideas that if dropped in the office would do a good job.

Saddened that also there are many that would literally end the world in fiery murderous vengance.

Good Luck to us all.

-Reason

We need to stop these fascists before they drag the whole world down.No one shall forcibly decide my destiny, not least any neo-con monkey.

Originally posted by brimstone735

Originally posted by Koka
In the MOSSAD case, you get to nuke Israel and solve 90% of the Middle East's problems.

That's anti-semetic, and this is where you and I stop chatting.

You my friend are talking from a hole in your lower back.

You don't have a valid argument as it pinpoints the fact you harbour deep resentment toward Muslims, case in point, you making assumptions about the origin of the terrorists, and then accusing me of anti-semetism just because I hold Israel (and the UK and US) responsible for all the trouble which is occuring in the Middle East.

Whats next in your "I don't know how to argue my point" bag of tricks accuse me of paedophilic activity....??

You my friend would have been one of the finger pointers in the witch hunts.

Turn the coin over, there is another side.

In regards to the first post I would not attack any country...

I would automatically assume that it was a retaliation terrorist attack from a group or people that had been affected by different US attacks or policies in the past.

After all people do not do things like crash planes into buildings for no reason.

Revenge can wait a lifetime, you wait in maybe 10-20+ years attacks might happen on the US that were a direct result of the criminal action America in taking in Iraq now. People can hold onto their angry for a long time.

And I can bet the US responce will be something like "WTF WHY? WHAT DID WE DO?"

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Johnny Redburn]

Originally posted by REASON
Years pass and what seems to come out of nowhere is a terrorist attack on a city in the United States. A major city is completly destroyed. A nuclear device has been detonated.

...You are President.....what would you do?

I've thought about this sort of situation before. Admittedly, I have a God Complex, and plans for World Domination someday, so you need to bear this in mind for my answer. There are also a huge number of X-Factors involved here, such as the threat level from other nations and the degree of civil unrest afterward. So, I will have to make a number of assumptions.

After such a tragedy on American soil, there would doubtless be a huge backlash towards whatever ethnic group the press had posted up as their primary suspect. If this were in the near-future, then most likely, it would be those of Middle-Eastern descent (this is not a personal accusation, just stating the obvious assumption, since they're the ones with the most reason to be mad at us right now). However, it could be any group at all, even Whitey... so we'll just call them Minority Group X.

Minority Group X would not the the only ones to suffer the civil backlash... doubtless there would be those who resemble Group X closely enough to be caught up in the confusion and mass-hysteria.

Now here would be a very tough choice, because if history has taught us anything, it has shown that kicking America is like throwing rocks at a hornet's nest. We're a warmongering nation, I'm afraid. I'm not proud of that fact, but I'm not ashamed of it either... It's just one of those facts of life--as a nation, we can't go 25 years without being in some kind of war...it's just not natural for us to be in a state of peace.

But do I really want to start WWIII with nukes?

Nahh... Why use Nukes when we have "clean bombs" that can eradicate an entire population and leave structures intact?

My mentality would probably be along the lines of this:

* THE HOMEFRONT - I'd address the nation immediately, without a teleprompter, and with open questions. Any reasonable questions I couldn't answer by the press, I would assure them I'd have answers as soon as possible, and then I'd make a point to find them out. If there were some things, for security reasons, that I couldn't answer, I'd simply say so, instead of dodging the questions or buttering it up.
I'd then go before the nation and state that all looters, rioters, and such will be shot on site, invoking the old rules of Marshall Law. If people want to hate each other on their own time, that's fine, as Americans, they have the freedom to hate whoever they want, even me, but I'll be damned if they're going to start tearing up my country.

To enforce this, emergency funding would be provided to all state troopers to deputize as many as were needed, with the ability to trickle-down to local police departments for faster response. National Guard would be deployed to places known for rioting in the past, such as Los Angeles, New York, and Dallas.

* THE HUNT - I'd give my agents free reign to use ANY AND ALL means neccesary to track down the appropriate parties. If this meant throwing the Geneva Convention out the window, or outright assassinations, I'd grant them the immunity needed to find out "Who Dunnit" and get proof. Fabricated proof would not be allowed. Full cooperation with organizations like INTERPOL would be put into effect. Any nation that offered to share their intelligence would be allowed, but it would all be taken with a grain of salt. After all, they might implicated anyone they want.

If no proof of any one person or organization or country could be found, at all, I'd begin the Road to Peace and Isolation. Otherwise, To War!!!

OPTION #1 - TO WAR!!! - With the proof we needed to narrow it down to a particular group, we'd find out which country it came from and inform them they are no longer fit to govern their country until this group was eradicated. No mucking about, all our troops would be pulled from their posts, around the world, so we would have sufficient numbers to invade. A message around America would be circulated that, while anti-war protests are fine and legal, interfering with military action is not, and anyone who wishes to fly and use themselves as a human shield against the enemy in protest against war will be considered nothing more than landscape. No compensation will be given to their family, and the human shields would go down in the books as traitors, assuming the missiles stop to ask names. To the world, I would announce the proof of the attack, the reason for the invasion, and I would invite our allies to join in, but if they chose not to get involved, I would understand, and no hard feelings would be given... our armed forces and technology are more than sufficient against one country at a time, allies or not.

We would make token efforts at not killing civilians, but a Swordfish-approach would be taken to insurgents. I would make it well known, across the country, that ANY insurgency would be dealt with in such horrible terms as to make it unthinkable. If we came in and occupied a city, and we got another Fallujah (sp?), I'd pull the forces out, and bombard the city with oxygen bombs, killing everyone inside. This would happen, city after city, until either the thought of firing at my soldiers became such a horrible fear that the resistance was quelled, or until there were no cities left to destroy, and the road was clear to our real enemy...the organization that bombed us.

We would attempt to take as many of them alive as possible, but the rules of engagement would be lethal if at all neccesary. Any survivors of the evil organization would be brought back to America. As soon as we obtained them, if there was any government or cities left in the country we invaded, we'd offer no assistance. That would only encourage them to allow it to happen again. We would instead leave the promise that we will never again bother them, provided no more attacks come from their country. Their punishment for allowing such an organization to exist on their soil has already happened, and the end of it is that they must rebuild with no assistance from us.

The Evil Org members taken alive would be made into a TV spectacle so horrific that it would make even the most hardened terrorist blanch. The Geneva Convention would have already been thrown out by this point, so we'd set up a sattelite broadcast, synchronized around the world with whomever wants to carry it, and live streaming on the intranet. Some members would be tortured in ways not even conceivable by a sane mind... others would be thrown into a room with the survivors of the victims. Perhaps a new Reality Show would come from this, and once a week you'd see what happens to the next terrorist.

Then, once every last member was dead, we'd begin the Road to Peace and Isolation...

OPTION #2 - ROAD TO PEACE AND ISOLATION - All international policing and involvement with the practices of other governments would cease. Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan, South Korea and North Korea... all these places would be left to their own devices. I would remove all excuses for future terrorists to target us. As we left, the message around the world would be "Fine, we're no longer going to do anything to your country other than trade. Other than financial arrangements, you're on your own. Therefore, the next attack that happens will be seen as an act of war by the country it originated from, and that country will be obliterated. Not occupied...obliterated." We'd keep our armed forces up through their terms, to help rebuild America. Once their terms were up, I'd cut them into a number reasonable enough to take on any one country, and dump the excess money into unmanned weapons of mass destruction, because I'd mean it.

So far, we're talking about one month's worth of time. Like I said, no mucking about, or worrying about collateral damage, civilian casualties, or even basic human rights. Once a nuke goes off on our soil, all bets are off. With our resources and a disregard for those things, a lot can be done, very very quickly.

Anyway, that would leave me my entire term of office to begin building my enormous army of unmanned weapons, and with the money saved from having our troops overseas now entirely into military research, we would be so technologically superior as to make anyone else look like primates in comparison. Work on everything from zero point energy to antigravity to flying robots with laser beams and everything-proof shields would be created.

I would then enact a Constitutional amendment to forbid the U.S. from taking any military action outside of its own country, unless an attack against the United States was waged, at which point the U.S. would have full unlimited authority to destroy the dirty bastages what did it. Military Alliances with outher countries would end, replaced with new trade treaties. The entire focus of the U.S. would be shifted away from War and move toward Research, Commerce, and Production (in that order). The only way anyone would be able to have a beef with us is if they attaked us...

...then I'd begin to enact my plans for World Domination.

[edit on 12/8/2004 by thelibra]

If i was the president of the united states fitst i would attempt to ascertain the perpertrators of such an attack. Unlike the current president, i would make absolutely sure who the attack was organised and funded by.

Then i would look for all the non nuclear alternatives before even considering using atomic bombs. I would appeal to the rest of the world for help and unity.

When the perpertrator was absolutely clear, no question, absolutely none, i would evacuate all our nationals from that country and request that there was a cease fire and talks.

If this was denied, i would hold a referendum with the american people wheter or not to go to war though i would structure the questions in such a way that there was no other alternative.

I would then, after consulting my cheifs of staff, declare war and use non nuclear weapons to obliterate missile silos, subs, aircraft bases and all military installations. I WOULD NOT PERPOSEFULLY KILL CIVILIONS.

Tm