After reading about this a couple of days ago, and glancing at this thread, and thinking about terrorists and loonies in general (and getting frustrated/upset), I asked myself the following question (for which I really didn't have a good answer):

If I were president, what would I do to counter terrorism?

So Massassi, what can be done?

I would make every day a juhannus!

I haven't thought too much about what I would do, so my ideas are pretty far from being well thought-out, but part of it is that I would stop meddling in middle eastern affairs. That includes backing Israel over others in the region. No more taking sides in **** that isn't our business. I wouldn't condemn israel and slobber all over the muslim countries in the region, either, I just wouldn't take sides.

Also, no more torture. Enough said.

As far as preventing attacks at home, I'd push for increased police and community involvement, but NOT increased government power, meaning no more patriot act and similar infringements of our rights.

To be honest, there isn't much that can be directly done about terrorism except regular police work, public awareness, and improved international relations.

I'm pretty sure I would be a crappy President, but since it will never happen I'll propose some radical changes. I'd like to see what would happen if the United States pulled out of World Affairs. I'm not saying stop all communications/aid ect, I'm saying let the United Nations run the show. Granted the United Nations hasn't been effective at anything ever, but its time that organization justified its existence.

Stuff Like:

-All US Military bases on Foreign soil would be shutdown and troops return home, presumably reassigned to counterterrorism within the United States.
-CIA would be reduced to it's basic gathering INTEL function, making no attempt to interfere with the politics of other countries.
-I would politely suggest the United Nations relocate their Headquarters, we no longer want the direct association or risks involved with hosting it.
-I'm hoping some of those changes would allow for a reduced military budget. More money for other domestic projects. Although it still needs to be large enough to smackdown anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Hopefully if we remove our presence/influence, terrorists will find other targets. I am sure there will still be terrorist attacking the US simply for publicity ect, but we will have more resources monitoring our domestic weakspots maybe fewer people will die.

Aren't you glad I'm not in charge?

I basically like your plan, except for the US military being assigned to counter-terrorism within our borders. Big no-no in my book. That's what the various local and state police are for. The last thing we need is humvee convoys doing checkpoints and patrols down our city streets.

If I were president I think I'd be there 5 minutes before someone realises I'm Scottish and I'd be thrown out of power.

I dunno, look at Obama. He's Kenyan and he's still president.

(Please note winky icon. Please please. For the children)

By the same token most of your former presidents are British/Irish then.

[And the colonpee. See the pretty colonpee?!]

As a Canadian I would first

I would probably spend most of my time doing things calculated to arouse the ire of talk show hosts and bloggers, all for my own personal amusement.

I'd sit up late watching Fox news shouting, "Dance my puppets, DANCE!" and laughing maniacally.

I'd arrange for a terrorist organization affiliated with the CIA to conduct a large scale attack on the American seats of political, financial and military power. The American people would be galvanized behind my rule, and with congress, military leaders and the leaders of industry out of my way I would be free to expand my power into all areas of American life.

The plan is foolproof unless one or more of the targets avoids destruction, in which case I will just declare war on a couple of nations at random.

I wouldn't take the goddamn job. You're automatically granted a stupid level of celebrity and have to live in constant fear for your life. You get next to no authority but you're still America's scapegoat because most people have no clue what their president actually does. The job ages you 5 years for every 1 you spend in office and you don't make nearly enough money for the kind of work you're doing.

Presidents are either stupid or they're saints.

I think it'd be easier to change the world as a captain of industry.

Riiiight, because that wouldn't descend into a witch hunt.

Agreed.

Right, because having police SUV convoys doing checkpoints is so much better...

Darn, beat me to it.

I would stop interfering with other countries.

I'd star world war 3. I think the world would be a better place with a free north korea, without a radical muslim Iran, without hugo chavez, just to name a few things that need be eradicated. Mainly their governments.

Once we have these international threats resolved, I'd resign.

Obviously this is good because war genertes jobs, thus solving the unemployment problem.

I'd also increase social programs, and improve education. Take our dependance of petrol and transform it into cleaner energy, while at the same time selling our petrol to undeveloped countries, to cover the transformation.

I'd also fund stem cell research and advance space exploration, and other sciences.

Ta da.

You're both correct, except that is not the kind of involvement I meant. The idea is that LOCAL police are much more in tune with the people in their own areas. They also are bound by a whole lot of laws (at least, they used to be) regarding illegal search and seizure and not infringing on peoples' rights. By "community involvement" I meant more like education and training for the community to better identify and respond to incidents, not calling the cops on your brown foreign neighbor. Even so, like I said, the idea behind LOCAL police is that it's more likely/easier for local police to handle that situation lawfully. Even if some redneck "witch hunt" calls in his indian neighbor for being a "muslim terrorist", the police shouldn't really be able to do much with that anyway.

Not that anyone really takes you seriously, but...pay attention to world news much?

I'd swat flies everyday!
no no
I'd swat terrorists like flies!

Here, let's destroy a fantasy.

The major military powers of Earth are currently engaged in a thermonuclear standoff. So... which world were you going to start World War 3 with?

Without North Korea and Iran the media would just focus on a different pair of dictatorships. There are plenty to choose from.

Hugo Chavez earned the popular vote under international scrutiny. He is the legitimately-elected leader of Venezuela. You'd usurp him? Why do you hate democracy?

And their infrastructure, and their economies.

So you'd instigate huge destabilizing changes around the world and then quit without finishing anything.

This reasoning is fallacious. The jobs generated by war are low-paying, and conscription (which would be necessary for your world war) displaces prime demographic consumers resulting in deflation. Furthermore, the co-opting of the American industrial base (whatever's left, anyway) to support the military, like in WW2, results in a massive decrease in the production of luxuries and other consumer goods.

The economic recovery before WW2 was a special case. There were indicators that the Great Depression was ending on its own, and due to heavy industry and a vast wealth of resources (neither of which exist anymore) they were able to make gigantic profits off of the Europeans while Americans were still strongly opposed to the war.

Which?

To what end?

The United States Military is the world's single largest consumer of oil. What will be powering your war machine for World War 3?

It's not economical to make most ships nuclear powered when it is possible to build a reactor small enough, and it's impossible to make most ships, any aircraft or any land vehicles nuclear powered. If you're talking about electrically powered military vehicles it's a logistical nightmare, because now you have to somehow make "portable" nuclear reactors (the absolute smallest on the market being the size of a three-story house, and decidedly not portable) and haul them to every battleground, praying to God that nobody accidentally fires an RPG at the retarded thing.

If undeveloped countries have the money to buy oil why are they undeveloped?

The US government already does and always has funded stem cell research. The US government also already does and always has funded fetal stem cell research using existing strains. The only stem cell research that hasn't been funded involved gathering new fetal stem cells, usually because the old strains are losing viability.

Using what money?

So far you've started World War 3. Adjusted for inflation, WW2 cost the United States about $3 trillion. Obviously, however, war costs have inflated a bit since a "small" skirmish over a region the size of California has cost the United States $680 billion. I think I'd be generous if I guessed that WW3 would cost the United States $12 trillion.

You've attacked North Korea, which will increase the cost of electronics enormously. South Korea is an enormous supplier of ICs and the country effectively holds a monopoly on memory chips and TFTs, with most of those manufacturing facilities within the range of North Korea's artillery.

You've attacked Venezuela and deposed their legitimately elected leader. Venezuela accounts for about 11% of American oil imports, and they are the world's #7th ranked exporter of oil.

You've attacked Iran, the #4th ranked exporter of oil.

You've given away American oil to countries that already have enormous debts to developed nations.

You've increased spending on social programs. Currently just Medicare and Social Security account for $42 trillion unfunded liabilities.

You've increased spending on education, which probably won't do anything.

Oh god.

I was actually not serious... I was trying to be sarcastic. Sorry, only had 2 hours of sleep last night.

Judging by the other things you have said in other threads, I think you were completely serious.
It's ok to be wrong, Just accept what's right.

Jon`C, I think SF_GoldG_01 could be onto something.

If his plan is to fix the system by tearing it down completely and starting from scratch. Global bankruptcy. It's possible a quick crash could be less damaging than patchwork fixes that delay and prolong a global economic depression. The massive death brought by WW3's nuclear fallout would also help resolve the current growing population problem.

His campaign slogan could be: Sacrifice now for a better future.

I don't think this is what I'd like to be known for...

If I were president..


..I'd still post on Massassi.

While I'm on the subject:

Military aid gives the United States a huge amount of influence over Israel. That influence is the only thing preventing Israel from launching a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran. Fairly recently, Israeli bombers have been turned back by an American fighter intercept - they were on the way to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel is really ****ing dangerous. Taking an idealogical stand against choosing sides in the Middle East is trading the chance of another 9/11 for the certainty of nuclear war.

Whoa, really? Do you have links?



Well, it's better than what you have going now.

I remember there being a more reputable source for it, but: http://willthomasonline.net/willthomasonline/Israeli_Nuclear_Strike_Turned_B.html

January 7, 2007 is the same day Israeli top-secret plans to use nuclear bunker busters on Iran were leaked.

Well, I'd still be a Zionist but probably due to some democracy or whatever I guess I should do nothing in case some Middle Eastern Trash state actually succeeds in some more serious attack against Israel, maybe say "PEACE BROTHERS PEACE" and/or "HEY IRAN LETS BE FRENDS".

OR just launch those killer satellites and try to re-establish the era when every country who wanted to succeed in something had to suck up to America, more noticeably than today. Worked for the Soviet Union, too!

The problem is, a lot of people don't have the land, food, and things that they want and / or need. This will create hate and tension, and eventually conflict. Other people have insane agendas. Such as, wiping out an entire race? No middleground there.

Now this is information I did not know. However, this is exactly the reason that I dislike the fact that we "support" israel. In my limited view, they're just as guilty as anyone else. You're right. They're really dangerous. Apparently even more so than I thought.

The situation is really unfortunate, because most Israelis actually are innocent. A bunch of terrorists lured them to Israel with lies of a peaceful life.

Here's an example of what Israelis think of their leaders: http://www.wanted.org.il
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057351.html

My initial solution was to nuke most of the middle east either overtly, or smuggle the bombs in and detonate them with "terrorists".

But I decided that would really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really suck for everybody. That's where the question came from.

I also tend to be Zionist and have sympathy for Israel and think Jerusalem in the hands of any other country would be a travesty.

Of course, when I speak of Israel being guilty I do not collectively refer to every person in the country. I mean, look at the government of Iran vs. the people right now.

It's one of those situations that has no easy answer, and no real moral high-ground. That's part of the reason I wish we could just wash our hands of it...but of course, nothing is ever so simple.

Can you imagine? Heh...

[New Thread]

[Title] Chinese Ambassador

"The Chinese Abassador just left my office. What an ***. Quick Massassi, let's do a photoshop game with the Ambassador's face!"

Those are some good websites, Jon`C. ...yet I'd still say that Israel's motives are not that evil-intentioned as those of Iran for instance (come on, comparing Israel's human right violations to theirs - or just about any other country in the region - is really unfair) and that I support an actual western democracy(-in-progress) instead of the worse alternatives (yet with richer resources). So yeah, I'm not ashamed of being a Zionist

And even then this conflict will just go on for eternity but I will actually be disappointed with the U.S. if they let Israel down. Which of course isn't really that likely but who knows...

Bleh, politics give me rabies... where's Sine Nomen when I need him! Or Captain`Ramen ... or Spook.... Anyone? I should get back to TODOA really.