What is the proper response to a terrorist attack?

Actually my military schooling was done in the United States Army. You might have heard of them, the most deadly and powerful military force in the history of man. There I was taught, "Find the enemy. Kill the enemy." Trying to understand them didn't quite make the syllabus.

That involves rewards for loyalty and punishment for betrayal. The fate of a village or town should hinge on whether they're for us or against us.

Are we talking about domestic policy or overseas policy? Because Democrats get those two mixed up, insisting we need to Mirandize enemy combatants we capture.

Thank you. I didn't even go to college.

Yes.

Human nature 101. Fear is stronger than hate.

Unfortunately it's the only language they understand. The Nevils like you throughout history have proven that appeasement fails as a strategy of dealing with bad people. Deterance speaks louder than handing out candy and hoping we can make people like us. It's what kept the Roman Empire for so long, knowing that loyalty was lavishly rewarded while treachery was mercilessly punished. And far from what's popularly believed, people preferred Pax Romana to the alternative.




Judging by the actions of the Clinton administration when it came to foreign policy, I find that doubtful.[/QUOTE]

 

Nah, to the likes of him they're all savage Jihadis-right down to the babies (who are Jihadis in waiting). You can't talk to these people and think you're going to get a rational response. It's kill, kill, kill; you know, the Christian way...

 

Thank heavens you cleared that up! Here I was afraid they were immortal beings invulnerable to conventional instruments of war. Now that you assure me they're people, I can rest confident that they die like everyone else.

 

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, all that awesome power and you got your arses handed to you by a bunch of peasants in pyjamas-in Vietnam. And a decade on and all your awesome power is getting you absolutely nowhere in Afghanistan. You did beat the mighty Grenadans though, I'll grant you that...

 

Yes, I strongly remember John F. Kennedy nuking the Russians to smithereens before they had a chance to nuke us fir-

No, wait, he didn't kill a single Russian, actually. He...he...TALKED TO THEM and averted total nuclear war and the destruction of the world.

 

Then neither will victory. Good luck securing your interests in a place where everyone hates your guts.

Yes, agree with us or die. Thats really gonna make you look like the good guys.

Elimination of foreign based threats that have arrived on the domestic front.

Your welcome.

So your willing to commit genocide then?

So if someone nuked your children. I'm sure you'd cower in fear? If I understand humans at all, I know a lot of people would want revenge.

I am not an appeaser, despite the fact that you desperately want to classify me as one. Sometimes an ironclad response comes in handy (i.e: it would have done the world some good if America jumped into world war II from the get go, and crushed hitler). Its not about handing out candy. Its about standing for a set of moral principles, being compassionate yet knowing wisely that sometimes military force has its place. That's how you build a good image in the world. That's how you can actually be greeted as liberators, when you stand for the kind of principles that exemplify good character.

 

He threatened them with nuclear annihilation with the Jupiter missiles we had staged in Europe, the "knife at the throat". Your rendition of history leaves something to be desired. JFK won precisely because appeasement wasn't an option and Soviet compliance was not optional.

 

Nice to see you ignoring the part about a foreign power murdering your children. I guess it's too much to hold people to the same standard.

 

You're not proposing threats, you're proposing outright genocide of entire nations. That is what is being discussed.

By the way, it's because of Neville Chamberlain that Europe and the world was saved from Hitler. If he hadn't kept Hitler's eye off Britain and western Europe as long as he did, Hitler would have steamrolled them all and we never would have been able to stop him.

Your rendition of Chamberlain's strategy leaves much to be desired.

 

Wrong. I'm proposing threats. The follow through on those threats are an unfortunate corollary to non compliance. No soldier wants war and I'm no exception.

Wrong. Hitler never had the capacity to steamroll over the UK. The Battle of Britain was proof that the British people were indominable, no matter what time in history they were attacked.

Being a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) isn't a strategy.

 

And exactly where do we nuke? There are Muslims all throughout the world and if you do not get them all then those that are not nuked will join the ranks of the terrorists once you start dropping nukes.

 

That's the difference between Americans and our enemies. We don't make our children targets by hiding our military personnel and assets among civilian homes during a time of war. We actually cherish the safety of our civilians. They do not.

 

Mecca would be a good place to start. Sends a strong message.

 

Wrong again. No person is invulnerable. Britain was still recovering from WWI and didn't have the money or weapons or manpower to fight off Hitler. Even after they finally struck at him under the leadership of Churchill, it was good ol' Winnie that kept them afloat.

Neither is being a god(*)(*)(*)(*) monster just like the people you claim to be better than.

 

You're a fool is what you are. Right now the radicals are a small minority. You nuke their holiest sites and you risk radicalizing TWO BILLION.

If you were ever put in charge of this country, you would have the whole world destroyed in your first day.

 

You really think we'll run out of bullets?

 

Actually Hitler even stated that Chamberlin cost him a whole year by working out a peace. While it did give Hitler some territory it did not provoke an attack like he wanted. That whole year England increased its capabilities to make war. It is a debated issue but I believe there are some grounds in claiming Chamberlian helped prevent Hitler from being able to attack England directly.

 

No, but if we start nuking every country that tells us no we will quickly run out of friends, and whether you are too delusional to recognize it or not, we need them.

 

"They?" The terrorists you propose we kill do not speak for all muslims. How about the millions of civiliians who do not wish to have the Taliban or Al Qaeda hide in their midsts? These are the same millions who are turned against america by your barbarity, and who will be slaughtered if you ever had your way.

 

[/QUOTE]

There is something you must know, the United States has not fought a free standing army worth it's weight since World War II. Beating up on antiquated Soviet tanks from the 60s with the M1A2 Abrams is like a UFC fighter taking on a 5 year old child. Fighting an insurgent force in Afghanistan that still uses old horse cavalry against predator drones is awesome. I'm glad that the officers core of the military is not full of war mongers and poor decision makers like yourself, otherwise we would be pressing the shiny red button at our nuclear silos every time someone threw a rock at an American embassy (which btw I know you find completely okay).

 

"They?" The terrorists you propose we kill do not speak for all muslims. How about the millions of civiliians who do not wish to have the Taliban or Al Qaeda hide in their midsts? These are the same millions who are turned against america by your barbarity, and who will be slaughtered if you ever had your way.

 

So, who would you want us to violently punish?

 

[/QUOTE]

There is something you must know, the United States has not fought a free standing army worth it's weight since World War II. Beating up on antiquated Soviet tanks from the 60s with the M1A2 Abrams is like a UFC fighter taking on a 5 year old child. Fighting an insurgent force in Afghanistan that still uses old horse cavalry against predator drones is awesome. I'm glad that the officers core of the military is not full of war mongers and poor decision makers like yourself, otherwise we would be pressing the shiny red button at our nuclear silos every time someone threw a rock at an American embassy (which btw I know you find completely okay).

 

Is the message that "I would like all Muslims to rise up and attack" what you are going for? If your goal is to increase terrorism then sure thats a great plan. In fact the extremists would love for this to happen. The goal should be too deminish terrorism not increase it.


Do you have any ideas that can lower the amount of terrorists recruits? Because invasions, bombs, and nukes either do not work or will not work. You cannot scare a person ready to die for his cuase with death. It is painfully obvious that what we are doing now is failing.

 

blame whatever country has something you want and blow them to hell and take it from them in the name of democracy! Yeh! Thats what Im talkin bout

on the other hand if you have plenty of time undermine their economy.