Hypothetical

DubStyle311 · 03-07-2008, 11:17 PM

The year is 2010. US Forces have been precipitously withdrawn from Iraq. Following that, Al Quaeda begin using the country as a base of operations and it is known with reasonable certainty that they are planning and training for new attacks on the US.

Would you supporting using military force to resolve that situation?

Waves · 03-07-2008, 11:48 PM

how would the american people be shammed into the same war twice? of course not. two years later evidence would come out showing that al-qaeda was never there in the first place. thats my hypothetical.

say this shit happens and we invade iraq again and it turns out that we find no terrorists with official plans to attack the united states. would you be in favor of a troop withdrawal?

Prophet Saddam · 03-08-2008, 12:14 AM

Here's another hypothetical: DubStyle enlists and finally walks the walk.

Nah, impossible.

DubStyle311 · 03-08-2008, 12:16 AM

Did you think about that response at all before writing it? Whether AQ was there before 2002 or not (I think it is pretty clear they were, but that is besides the point and worthy of its own thread), it is abundantly clear they are there now.

That being said. Would you like to answer my question or not? If you would rather not answer my question, I'm curious as to why.

Edit:

This thread is probably a waste of time. I doubt anyone here save one or two people would have the balls to make a serious and thought out response.

Captdoug713 · 03-08-2008, 01:36 AM

terrorist are not a country. attack terrorist.

DubStyle311 · 03-08-2008, 01:49 AM

Care to be more specific? I really don't understand what you mean.

**Captain Cannabis** · 03-08-2008, 02:23 AM

what if americans started suicide bombing americans who you attack in that situation

Hostile · 03-08-2008, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Did you think about that response at all before writing it? Whether AQ was there before 2002 or not (I think it is pretty clear they were, but that is besides the point and worthy of its own thread), it is abundantly clear they are there now.

No it isn't. Just because the US government says it's true doesn't make it so. It doesn't make any fucking sense, for one thing. Waves' response was perfectly adequate, and mine is to say "ditto".

**Cerebro** · 03-08-2008, 04:39 AM

The issue is 'known with reasonable certainty'. Been there, done that.
I'm not particularly trusting in US Intelligence, and what the US Gov chooses to share with it's ppl as it's rationale, historically.
I'd vote 'no' as a sign of no confidence.
But if the hypothetical is assuming genuine intelligence and not smoke and mirrors, then 'yes'.

stoneric · 03-08-2008, 06:40 AM

So, would the military force used in this "hypothetical" resolve the situation the same way our present military force has resolved the current situation?

verklingen · 03-08-2008, 07:31 AM

no, because any military force can be used much more effectively for defense than for offense. that's the oldest truism in the book. we made the mistake of thinking otherwise once. anyone who thinks it again will be laughed at. i laugh at you for still thinking it. where is your head?

here's a hypothetical:

we withdraw from all foreign occupations, and begin working to solve our domestic problems. . . social, economic, whatever. then we become a strong nation with a real leg up in the world that isn't built on bullying, but instead built on cooperative trade and making a good life for our citizens. other countries catch on to this, perhaps including some arab ones which might have in the past supported al quaida type groups. those which remain in their backward ways, the same ways we abandoned when we withdrew, can be left to fight it out amongst themselves until they kill each other off or wake up. then maybe, just maybe, we might finally figure out this whole world peace thing and stop going back and forth in an endless game of king of the mountain..

Ego Tripping · 03-08-2008, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verklingen

no, because any military force can be used much more effectively for defense than for offense. that's the oldest truism in the book. we made the mistake of thinking otherwise once. anyone who thinks it again will be laughed at. i laugh at you for still thinking it. where is your head?

here's a hypothetical:

we withdraw from all foreign occupations, and begin working to solve our domestic problems. . . social, economic, whatever. then we become a strong nation with a real leg up in the world that isn't built on bullying, but instead built on cooperative trade and making a good life for our citizens. other countries catch on to this, perhaps including some arab ones which might have in the past supported al quaida type groups. those which remain in their backward ways, the same ways we abandoned when we withdrew, can be left to fight it out amongst themselves until they kill each other off or wake up. then maybe, just maybe, we might finally figure out this whole world peace thing and stop going back and forth in an endless game of king of the mountain..

This thread was over by Wave's post but now its seriously well-done.

And word @ Prophet's post.

generic_hippie · 03-08-2008, 08:35 AM

I was watching a game show on tha ABC here yesterday, a general knowledge quiz show type of deal.

I turned it off after the second Al Quaeda question, (repeating verbatim propaganda does not equal general knowledge).

Dubstyle, your country has a history of paranoia, and also a history of meeting that paranoia head on with military force directed by dishonesty and corruption.

If Al Quaeda were to attack the US, wouldn't they just be pre-emptively striking at terrorists who are intent on flying over their country and dropping bombs by the megaton to protect the american idealogically unsound belief system of profit before humanitarian interests?

LetsPlayYourWay · 03-08-2008, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

The year is 2010. US Forces have been precipitously withdrawn from Iraq. Following that, Al Quaeda begin using the country as a base of operations and it is known with reasonable certainty that they are planning and training for new attacks on the US.

Would you supporting using military force to resolve that situation?

Wow...do you still ignore the fact that your government created them and that they are YOUR tool for world domination not the Muslims.

Guess you didn't read the thread on the lord of war, the only reason the US wants Victor Bout extradited is because if he was to testify in an open court in another country the US would have no way of silencing him about all of the dealings he did with al-ciaeda and the Taliban on YOUR behalf and that of the ISI. Considering YOU put al-qaeda into Iraq if they do anything that deserves a bombing it should be Bush's Ranch or 1600 Pen that gets carpet bombed by your B-2's, not an Iraqi neighborhood.

You can ignore this, but realize that any post you make on this topic that doesn't take what i just said into account will be a post that totally ignores the facts of reality.

Waves · 03-08-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Did you think about that response at all before writing it? Whether AQ was there before 2002 or not (I think it is pretty clear they were, but that is besides the point and worthy of its own thread), it is abundantly clear they are there now.

That being said. Would you like to answer my question or not? If you would rather not answer my question, I'm curious as to why.

Edit:

This thread is probably a waste of time. I doubt anyone here save one or two people would have the balls to make a serious and thought out response.

I answered yours. of course not. i dont support military action unless a defined enemy attacks us first, and i am given a reasonable explanation as to why we should attack back. thats my personal pre-reqs for agreeing with any war.

right now we are not fighting a defined enemy and we have no defined plan. we were given a bullshit reason so i am now skeptical of my government, in the same way i would be skeptical of any other person or entity that fed me bullshit in the past. it would be a hard fucking sell thats for sure.

and im with verk. instead of being on the offensive we should be trying to figure out shit like new energy sources and how to compromise with the people we are fighting, so that we dont have to invade in the first place.

ps- AQ is not in iraq. Al qaeda-in-iraq is in iraq, and they have little or no affiliation with the actual al-qaeda that allegedly attacked us on 9/11. this is basic stuff, you should know this if your going to talk about iraq and terrorism.

pss- hypotheticals are usually a waste of time and dont deserve well thought out responses. this one included. we all see the point you are trying to make, and we all disagree.

LetsPlayYourWay · 03-09-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

This thread is probably a waste of time. I doubt anyone here save one or two people would have the balls to make a serious and thought out response.

I just did, now do you care to to rebut it with something serious (real) and thought out?

Snownuts · 03-09-2008, 10:37 AM

horray for groupthink

LetsPlayYourWay · 03-09-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snownuts

horray for groupthink

I'ts not something you should be proud to be a part of Jwonder.

-Illfaded- · 03-09-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verklingen

no, because any military force can be used much more effectively for defense than for offense. that's the oldest truism in the book. we made the mistake of thinking otherwise once. anyone who thinks it again will be laughed at. i laugh at you for still thinking it. where is your head?

says hitlers blitzkreig, the japanese suprise attack on pearl harbor or the US's offensive invasion of germany? they both have their pros and cons.

View Poll Results: Yes or No
Yes	5	23.81%
No	16	76.19%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

03-07-2008, 11:17 PM	#1 (permalink)
DubStyle311 King of all Politics Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: living on the edge Posts: 7,328 Thanks: 0 Thanked 72 Times in 62 Posts	Hypothetical The year is 2010. US Forces have been precipitously withdrawn from Iraq. Following that, Al Quaeda begin using the country as a base of operations and it is known with reasonable certainty that they are planning and training for new attacks on the US. Would you supporting using military force to resolve that situation? __________________ I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

03-07-2008, 11:48 PM	#2 (permalink)
Waves YaHookan Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: chiburbs Posts: 9,648 Thanks: 49 Thanked 234 Times in 152 Posts	how would the american people be shammed into the same war twice? of course not. two years later evidence would come out showing that al-qaeda was never there in the first place. thats my hypothetical. say this shit happens and we invade iraq again and it turns out that we find no terrorists with official plans to attack the united states. would you be in favor of a troop withdrawal? __________________ same as it ever was....same as it ever was... Last edited by Waves; 03-07-2008 at 11:51 PM.

03-08-2008, 12:14 AM	#3 (permalink)
Prophet Saddam Crazy Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: CA Posts: 16,019 Blog Entries: 11 Thanks: 2,134 Thanked 382 Times in 283 Posts	HOORAY for hypotheticals! Here's another hypothetical: DubStyle enlists and finally walks the walk. Nah, impossible.

03-08-2008, 12:16 AM	#4 (permalink)
DubStyle311 King of all Politics Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: living on the edge Posts: 7,328 Thanks: 0 Thanked 72 Times in 62 Posts	Did you think about that response at all before writing it? Whether AQ was there before 2002 or not (I think it is pretty clear they were, but that is besides the point and worthy of its own thread), it is abundantly clear they are there now. That being said. Would you like to answer my question or not? If you would rather not answer my question, I'm curious as to why. Edit: This thread is probably a waste of time. I doubt anyone here save one or two people would have the balls to make a serious and thought out response. __________________ I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

03-08-2008, 01:36 AM	#5 (permalink)
Captdoug713 Thats my fucknjobasshole! Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: North America Posts: 1,121 Thanks: 40 Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts	terrorist are not a country. attack terrorist. __________________ leaf: Don't step on the grass, Sam "Freedom in general may be defined as the absence of obstacles to the realization of desires." "War is when the government tells you who the bad guy is, revolution is when you decide that for yourself." :

03-08-2008, 01:49 AM	#6 (permalink)
DubStyle311 King of all Politics Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: living on the edge Posts: 7,328 Thanks: 0 Thanked 72 Times in 62 Posts	Care to be more specific? I really don't understand what you mean. __________________ I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

03-08-2008, 02:23 AM	#7 (permalink)
Captain Cannabis i hate emus Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: trapped in a computer Posts: 10,037 Thanks: 248 Thanked 209 Times in 139 Posts	what if americans started suicide bombing americans who you attack in that situation __________________ fuck the monkeys

03-08-2008, 04:39 AM	#9 (permalink)
Cerebro Oz Outdoor Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: White Plume Mountain Posts: 2,047 Thanks: 1 Thanked 68 Times in 56 Posts	The issue is 'known with reasonable certainty'. Been there, done that. I'm not particularly trusting in US Intelligence, and what the US Gov chooses to share with it's ppl as it's rationale, historically. I'd vote 'no' as a sign of no confidence. But if the hypothetical is assuming genuine intelligence and not smoke and mirrors, then 'yes'. __________________ The Prophet - Kahlil Gibran

03-08-2008, 06:40 AM	#10 (permalink)
stoneric bougeman Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 2,125 Thanks: 0 Thanked 154 Times in 120 Posts	So, would the military force used in this "hypothetical" resolve the situation the same way our present military force has resolved the current situation?

03-08-2008, 07:31 AM	#11 (permalink)
verklingen what is Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the foundation of heaven on earth Posts: 5,440 Thanks: 153 Thanked 428 Times in 244 Posts	no, because any military force can be used much more effectively for defense than for offense. that's the oldest truism in the book. we made the mistake of thinking otherwise once. anyone who thinks it again will be laughed at. i laugh at you for still thinking it. where is your head? here's a hypothetical: we withdraw from all foreign occupations, and begin working to solve our domestic problems. . . social, economic, whatever. then we become a strong nation with a real leg up in the world that isn't built on bullying, but instead built on cooperative trade and making a good life for our citizens. other countries catch on to this, perhaps including some arab ones which might have in the past supported al quaida type groups. those which remain in their backward ways, the same ways we abandoned when we withdrew, can be left to fight it out amongst themselves until they kill each other off or wake up. then maybe, just maybe, we might finally figure out this whole world peace thing and stop going back and forth in an endless game of king of the mountain.. __________________ you can't explain the rules of tennis to a dog, but he runs after it and plays with it...like the dog playing with the ball, we don't have the necessary tools needed to interpret the afterlife..until we get there, then a whole new universe is given to us. Perhaps 200 billion light years away, there's the next phase of our existance..Remember you cannot destroy energy, which is all we are... -matthew munari rip matt

03-08-2008, 08:35 AM	#13 (permalink)
generic_hippie question authority Join Date: May 2003 Location: 20 km's from Nimbin, Australia Posts: 4,180 Thanks: 61 Thanked 190 Times in 139 Posts	I was watching a game show on tha ABC here yesterday, a general knowledge quiz show type of deal. I turned it off after the second Al Quaeda question, (repeating verbatim propaganda does not equal general knowledge). Dubstyle, your country has a history of paranoia, and also a history of meeting that paranoia head on with military force directed by dishonesty and corruption. If Al Quaeda were to attack the US, wouldn't they just be pre-emptively striking at terrorists who are intent on flying over their country and dropping bombs by the megaton to protect the american idealogically unsound belief system of profit before humanitarian interests? __________________ All we are saying is give POT to everybody all the time...

03-09-2008, 10:37 AM	#17 (permalink)
Snownuts Salty Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 325 Thanks: 28 Thanked 18 Times in 8 Posts	horray for groupthink