|
| Thread: Whats good for the US. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
JapanGamer
Known Hero
|
posted October 23, 2008 04:41 AM |
|
|
Whats good for the US.
I heard a song called ++++ USA today and it got me thinking, what can we do to make things better? We'll my only main solution would be to double the cost and wages, so that people boguarding money would have it's value cut in half. It seems complicated to some I'm sure but if the dollar value went down and wages went up that's nearly a new beginning to the economy. This would also bring in that old plan to get rid of pennies.
But enough of my idea, whats yours?
Edit:
I have more ideas but they adopt a whole new original form of government that most people wouldnt agree with, when all they really want is something that counts in their voices.
Theres a lot of bigoted people everywhere. I'll admit war in Iraq wasnt the greatest way to go about things but what other option was there? To not hunt down all of those terrorist leaders and let them strike again 5 6 years later? Have we been attacked since then, no. Will we again? Maybe, and I know being there spreads hate and things like that, but what else could we have done? I'm not asking in the form of, "theres no better choice than what we're doing" I'm litteraly asking, what were our other options?
Edit complete 
____________
Pictures of god
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 04:46 AM |
|
|
100% inflation is an awesome idea! Yeah, it'd definitely get those rich people! Zimbabwe tried it and look how great they are. I guess the US is too controlled by the rich to try that, though. 
Quote:
I'll admit war in Iraq wasnt the greatest way to go about things but what other option was there
Not attacking? 
Quote:
To not hunt down all of those terrorist leaders and let them strike again 5 6 years later?
There were no terrorists in Iraq at the time of Saddam Hussein. In fact, he exterminated Muslim extremists, and they hated him. Now, thanks to us, there are powerful radical Muslim militias in Iraq. And we made more people hate us.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JapanGamer
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 04:55 AM |
|
|
Oh, well wherever the terrorists were, Baghdad Iran Kuwait wherever we found them. Uh I went off topic in my first post my bad.. Well not really I guess, because I'm asking whats best for the US and this involves the war on terror as well.
We shouldn't have touched Iraq I see this now but we did, so now what? I wish that senator friend of mine didn't blot out the little people like us, he totally shook my hand and said definitely then did nothing.
____________
Pictures of god
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 05:10 AM |
|
|
Nobody knows what is really best for this country or any country for that matter. The leaders do what they believe is best and try to keep the country going one more day/month/year. If we're lucky, they don't manage to screw everything up. Unfortunately, the executive and legislature have been clumsy the last eight years.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 05:34 AM |
|
|
JapanGamer:
The terrorists were in Afghanistan. We chased them out, though.
Which Senator are you referring to?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JapanGamer
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 05:38 AM |
|
|
|
My bad, this guy he is something else, a state representative or running for senator, I'm not even sure.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 05:49 AM |
|
|
Herein lies your problem. You don't ask members of state governments or candidates for such offices about foreign policy. Most of the time, they have absolutely no influence on it. (At least, not in an official capacity.) So there's no real point in talking to them about it. Now, if you were to talk to your Senators or representative, maybe things would be different. In fact, Feingold and Kohl both want to get out of Iraq. But Paul Ryan doesn't.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 08:04 AM |
|
|
Didn't you get what's currently happening in Afghanistan? They are still warring there. And Iraq won't be different.
Anyway, you cannot fight terrorism with a big army. I mean, the Brits tried it in Ulster and failed, the Spanish tried it with the Basques and failed, the Russians trying it with the Tchetchennians and fail, the Turks tried it with the Kurds and failed and the US will fail with Afghanistan and Iraq as well - which they should have known as well, since they should have learned their lesson in Vietnam that you cannot bomb guerilla units to death even if you know the country they are hiding in.
If you really want to get rid of terrorists it has to be done covertly, in terrorist fashion, you might say. You need the best intelligence and highly mobile small cells of determined (suicide) fighters who can infiltrate an area and ambush a hidden camp. But of course you cannot propagate this publicly, so for the public it would look like you'd do nothing.
Now, you may think about those in power what you want, but most of them - especially those you do NOT see on television are not nearly as dumb as some of them look like. So what is obvious for you and me, will be obvious for them as well. Conclusion: the war in Iraq may have any purpose, but if there is one purpose it doesn't have then it's fighting terrorism. That much is clear.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 01:56 PM |
|
|
Actually, terrorism can be fought with a big army. And it can be fought the way you describe. The problem with the US effort is that it's doing something in between the two, and it doesn't work. Terrorism can be fought with a big army with it going to various villages, burning them to the ground, and massacring the residents. That'd be pretty effective, albeit inhumane.
The problem with the US army is that it's too expensive. There is too much spending per soldier for it to be effective in a situation such as Iraq. To fight there, one either needs covert operations or a huge mob.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 01:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Terrorism can be fought with a big army with it going to various villages, burning them to the ground, and massacring the residents. That'd be pretty effective, albeit inhumane.
And that'll lead to more terrorism
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 02:06 PM |
|
|
Not if you kill them all.
IIRC, that's basically what the Bolsheviks did in Chechnya, and it was pretty effective.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 02:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not if you kill them all.
And you know some people don't like this and may revolt as terrorists (maybe even some Americans) etc...
You think the world is that simple? You can't control people like that
Do you think that exterminating all germans in WW2 would make Nazis extinct? LOL. People will always have ideologies and "take sides", who's to say that an american might not become a nazi if that were to happen?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 02:37 PM |
|
|
I think you fail to see the point of my post which is the suggestion that the high-ups are not dumb enough to actually believe, that sending an army to Iraq and kill Saddam will solve the terror problem.
Which leads to the conclusion that the war must have another, completely different purpose and that the terrorist bla-bla is just an excuse.
|
|
JapanGamer
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2008 07:09 PM |
|
|
|
I am under the impression that Husein was a pretty bad yet powerful guy who would at least sell WMDs to terrorists.
|
|
MrCash
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2008 11:48 PM |
|
|
But Hussein didnt have any WMD's. The UN investigated it and our recent invasion confirmed it.
He was an evil tyrant, I wont dispute that. But he didnt have anything to do with the terrorsits.
|
|
JapanGamer
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 27, 2008 12:04 AM |
|
|
He may have had access to them because of many reasons 1 being he was so powerful, and if he did havve access do you think he would give it to the good people who wouldnt use it? Do you think he wouldnt aid terrorists?
I know near nothing about politics and the war but this little bit I can make a strong guess at.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 27, 2008 12:10 AM |
|
|
He was so powerful that his government collapsed a few weeks after the invasion.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JapanGamer
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 27, 2008 12:29 AM |
|
|
Question, who thinks if Saddam Hussein was still alive he wouldn't aid the terrorists with all of his money for WMD's or at least good weapons.
He had more power than anyone else in Iraq (or whatever country he was in) if I'm not mistaken.. had he had a better government it wouldn't have crumbled, but that doesn't mean he didn't have the power to find WMD's. He had a lot of power, a lot of gold and money and he used dirty tactics to stay safe like women and children lined up outside of his mansion with butter knives.
I think it was good for the US to take this guy into jail. To bad he had to die. Or maybe not.
____________
Pictures of god
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 27, 2008 01:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Question, who thinks if Saddam Hussein was still alive he wouldn't aid the terrorists with all of his money for WMD's or at least good weapons.
I don't. He exterminated radical Muslims en masse.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JapanGamer
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 27, 2008 01:13 AM |
|
|
|
I put to much faith in my country, I always assumed he was a bad guy against the US and a co leader in a conspiracy, but maybe I am wrong. Whats best for this country? A complete revolution? Maybe, or maybe we can hope for the nxt legislation/president and everything.
|
|
|
|
