On different individual threads I have asked people what they would do in response to 9/11.

I know that several folks are opposed to what the President is doing. Now it's your turn to play, "If I were King, I would ...".

Now you get to fill in the blank about how you would/would have deal/dealt with 9/11.

Nox

THE SECOND that 9-11 happened, I would have said something like "isn't Iraq supposed to let in weapons inspectors in?" so that by the time I was done pulverizing Al Queda, Iraq would have decided to stop letting in inspectors, and then I could have just cause to attack saddam's towelheaded ass.
Then I would have attacked Afganistan, and after I was done with them, I would push weapons inspectors into every cave of Iraq, and back them up with 5-6 deltas each, waiting to see one trace of uranium or one place that they even hesitate to let me into, then I would smart bomb every place that bastard hides in.

BUT I WOULD WAIT FOR JUST CAUSE TO ATTACK IRAQ!!!!!!

Homer

Hmm... *brainstorming*

Investigate legal immigrants from suspect countries, deport illegal ones, completely cease immigration of certain types, completely end foreign aid to any mid-east country, threaten invasion against any country that knowingly harbors al qaeda (while supplying evidence of al qaeda guilt), but give a big reward to any country that turns them in to the US, allow air pilots to carry guns, strengthen airport security, make the central intelligence agency actually live up to the "intelligence" part and hire people who can speak the languages of other countries so that they can gather useful info and go undercover instead of jacking off in an embassy, stop supporting israel, boot out the dual-loyalists, and not attack Iraq.

If an invasion is needed, I would follow the invasion and death/capture of high ranking al qaeda with withdrawal of US bases from Saudi Arabia and attempts of even-handedness in the region. The days of being Israel's lapdog would be no more. I would not attack Iraq. An invasion would not include cluster-bombing, nor would it include allying with thuggish gangs like the "northern alliance". We'd be going in to get some criminals, not to take sides in some tribal warfare game.

I'd temporarily suspend constitutional rights to privacy in order to conduct a large scale investigation on suspects. I'd have suspects temporarily detained, but everyone who's proven innocent and released would be compensated. I wouldn't block any sort of immigration, and I'd emphasize that being a suspect isn't just being an Arab. I would, however, TEMPORARILY suspend the laws that don't allow searches without warrents, abolish the Miranda rights and several other constitutional laws prohibiting full scale investigations.

On the other side of the coin, I'd set up community programs promoting awareness of Islam. I'd make a special effort to signify that not all Muslims are terrorists, and try to spread around acceptance - in order to counter my neccesary unjust investigations.

And yeah, I wouldn't attack Iraq, and I wouldn't play "who's my friend, isn't" with Pakistan, the Taliban, and the Northern Alliance. I'd stop kissing up to the Saudis for oil, too.

Although it could be argued that if things were done my way from the beginning, there'd be no 911. If I was the king, we wouldn't have trained Arabic Terrorists in the Cold War, wouldn't have supported Islamic Radical Student groups against the Russians that soon became terrorists, I wouldn't have supported Israel, and I'd have cooperated with the Sudanese government when they offered to negotiate the extradition of several AQ terrorists they didn't. I definately wouldn't have bombed the pill factory in Sudan, causing them to angrily release these terrorists.

I'd blame it on the Mohammedans, and have them all deported. Then I'd personally lead an invasion of Pakistan, in a chariot.

iF I WAS king. lol i am
Id probly ask myself Why do ppl wanna declare a holy war Vs THe Usa.

Then get more allies in the muslum world

Then find a new power source

Then pinch myself, and wake up and bomb some muslums.

Grrr im bound to be flammed. ill go find my flame suit.

quote:

---

Then I'd personally lead an invasion of Pakistan, in a chariot.

---

You stole my idea!

I think everyone's visions of what they would do are a bit fallible basing it on the fact that they know middle-eastern terrorist groups were to blame. You have to remember that Bush didn't know Osama was behind is immediately.

I would immediately shut down any air traffic. After that I'd have customs shut off the borders, and have any passengers who arrived overseas to be held for questioning. So basically I would do the same up until the situation with Iraq. I wouldn't declare war. I'd ask out allies to make it a group effort to situate troops within Iraq, and make sure that the destruction of those mass-destruction weapons occurs. Also the troops would be there to make sure the Inspectors got in. Sadaam, and his lackeys wouldn't like it, but if they made any move against the troops there war would erupt. Knowing this (being the coward he is) he would eventually back off. Then I would continue with the war on terrorism actually giving each country that harbors/promotes terrorists/terrorism a chance before I strike.

I would send jail inmates over to fight them, and when they eventually turned against us, I would bomb them a whole lot. I would also bomb Florida. I don't really like Florida.

I might be kidding, I can't tell. I am having a bad week.

I would have crushed 'em right after their horseshit in Yemen and in Africa, so it never would have happened. But if it did (to appease Nox), then I would do most of what Mouse said, except withdraw from the Saudi bases and the part about being even-handed (that's kind of a contradiction isn't it Mouse?)

...and I'd execute AuntNasty for being dangerously ignorant (national security and all).

quote:

---

It's good to be King - Tom Petty

---

Of course he knew immediatly. It was on the news that afternoon.

I'm talking about who was behind it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UbiloZ
I wouldn't declare war. I'd ask out allies to make it a group effort to situate troops within Iraq, Sadaam, and his lackeys wouldn't like it, but if they made any move against the troops there war would erupt. [/B]

---

UbiloZ

I know that the subject of this thread is utopical in itself, but still:

To go into Iraq with troops, against the will of the Iraqi government, is called invasion. Invasion is part of what is called war!

To invade or attack a country without an official declaration of war, is considered worse than to do it after such a declaration has been made. Teh outrage after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour is one example of that.

Sorry to have been forced to correct Your Majesty!

Your humble servant; FoxLeonard

I'm also talking about who was behind it...

Fox, it wouldn't be considered an act of war for the fact we would be doing it for peace. He would have to comply, or else then we would be at war. Sadaams a coward, so he would comply with our demands. It's merely a precautionary measure. And btw we wouldn't be "Invading" Iraq. You have to differ between "Invading" and "Stationing" troops. There's a difference. Regia, they had speculations that afternoon. It wasn't until weeks later that they had concrete proof as to who was behind it.

UbiloZ

I�m far from an expert on this, so I aknowledge that I could be wrong and you could be right.

That said, I still wonder if it�s possible to station troops within a disagreeing country, and let those same troops be a "potential threat"; i.e. they would go into action if the weapons inspectors are not obeyed, as you seem to imply. Wouldn�t this be considered an action of war, also before they go into action I mean?

UN troops are stationed in different countries, but they are not a "potential threat" in the sense you seem to imply.

Your use of Regia as an example doesn�t help much, as I don�t know what you�re talking about. Help me and inform me out of my ignorance, please!

Wiecny kwiat wtadza! FoxLeonard

i would
1) give every passenger on every plane a box cutter
2)pull troops out of saudi arabia and stop giving egypt and isreal military support.
3)get rid of the CIA and start a new foreign intel agency that doesn't fund our enemies.
3)pull out of all international economic treaties.
4)give massive funding to alternative energy research.
5)deport everyone in the US with ties to terrorist groups.
6)offer amnesty for illegal imigrants from all countries.

Damnit I promised myself I would quit and go to bed hours ago... Fox sorry if this is a little bit jumbled.

The only disagreeing is the question should we let Sadaam have weapons? Chances are like most countries they only want mass-destructions weapons as a defense measure. If we're giving ten nuclear weapons to ecuador why can't sadaam have his? My view is we should all dismantle weapons of mass-destruction, and stick to conventional warefare. Because no one wins in a nucelar of biological war. The only thing the troops would be there for is an intimidary presence. The inspectors would be obeyed most defintely. They wouldn't start planting semtex around the inspections sites the momeny the inspectors demands weren't obeyed. But if action was taken agains US troops we probably would go to war. But have our troops there in the first place isn't an act of war. It's not even an agressive act at all.

quote:

---

UN troops are stationed in different countries, but they are not a "potential threat" in the sense you seem to imply

---

???? I only said the UN would take no part in this war. And if Bush relys on the UN to take action all they will rely on is diplomatic talks, and sanctions. Pacifism is their acquired flavor.

As for Regia I was referring to VeneFrigus. He needs to start posting more on here as well as LIA.

Nox? What's with your one posts, and then leaving. Trying to keep up with your enigmatic legend? It'd be nice if you actually participated once in a while.

UbiloZ

I should also have gone to bed, etc...

Nope, it�s not jumbled and now it makes sense!

On the other hand I jumbled what I wrote about UN troops. I meant it as a comparition to what you seemed to imply aboyt your stationed troops.

As I understand you now, you mean they should function in aproximately the same way as UN troops and not as what I called a "potential threat".

After this I�m even more sorry to have kept you awake!

Have a good days sleep!

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-24-2002).]

First off, I would be out of Saudi Arabia by dawn, let them fend for themselves, if you want to put conditions on your help for me while saying I should do everything to help you, you are someone I do not need.

I would use the existing laws to protect the citizens of the US, we never need new laws unless something changes, helping others to kill my citizens is not a 'new' thing.

Tomorrow there would be a new rule, if you help me then I help you. If you don't help me, I help your enemy. Foreign aid to any country that doesn't toe the line would be stopped by lunchtime. Any country that isn't a 'stand-up' country would have no access to the American Market, and I mean NO access, not so much as a toothpick sold within the confines of the US or any of its protectorates. Any country that did business with the aforesaid country would be suspect, and would have its access jepordized.

Retaliation would be swift and severe for any act against anything under my protection. My only reservation would be to use nukes, ONLY as a last resort. Up till that, carpet bombing would be the mainstay. Complete and total obliteration of the enemy where ever they may hide, if even one gets away, send in the 'special squad' and hunt him to ground, then kill him. Strike extreme fear into the hearts of your enemy, make the punishment so severe that even insane people would say "no way, I don't want a piece of that action."

There would be only one punishment for terrorism, death by.....fill in the blank.

The UN is some sort of Uber-Nation. Conventional rules don't apply to it, and the whole world is its territory.

To all those that support a Saudi withdrawal:

It's a good practice to maintain a military presence throughout the world; for quick deployment when the need arises. The US will not find all such locations to be philosophically palatable, but a presence is necessary just the same.

I can think of several allies that I'd shit-can before the Saudis.

If I were king... I don't know, nuke the middle east. I mean, how many human beings does a planet really need?

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
I would have crushed 'em right after their horseshit in Yemen and in Africa, so it never would have happened. But if it did (to appease Nox), then I would do most of what Mouse said, except withdraw from the Saudi bases and the part about being even-handed (that's kind of a contradiction isn't it Mouse?)

...and I'd execute AuntNasty for being dangerously ignorant (national security and all).

[QUOTE]It's good to be King - Tom Petty

---

[/QUOTE]

Yes! Someone with a clue!!!

Clinton should have ordered the removal of the Taliban in 1998.

The Taliban were just a sympathetic government that allowed Al Queda to have a base of operations in Afghanistan. While I agree that they should've been viciously excised from the Earth, it still would have taken a separate action to destroy Al Queda.

Another popular misconception is that the US trained and armed Al Queda. The US assisted the Mujahadeen, which were fighting the Soviets, but Bin Laden assembled Al Queda out of the remnants of that war, after they had withdrawn, so it wasn't a direct measure of support by the US.

Some analysts say that the Taliban was Bin Laden's puppet government, used to wrest the poppy production from the clan war-lords; for funding purposes. Hence the eagerness of the Northern Alliance types to ally themselves with the US, in order to get it back.

Osama Bin Laden himself was trained by the CIA in the United States as a student of the Mujahadeen. The foundations of AQ were created in the US. The terrorists recieved their training in the US. We didn't say "We;re gonna train them to become itnernational terrorists that attack civilian targets in the name of Allah," but where else did they get their skills?

The Northern Alliance want control of Afganistan so they can control opium distribution so they can have the money. I'm sick of hearing crap about the Northern Alliance between some sort of human rights factios trying to redeem Afganistan from the evil Taliban. The Northern Alliance had been so oppressive durring the civil war that people welcomed the Taliban.