Im saying if you where asked to vote on this.
2006-10-31 15:19:52 · 7 answers · asked by duc602 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Not the way Bush did I would level the country that sent them.
2006-10-31 15:37:42 · answer #1 · answered by Mojo Seeker Of Knowlege 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It would depend on the nature of the attack and the options presented. Depending on the latter, I may instead propose my own solution instead of voting in favor of other options, but my philosophy in choosing a course of action would be to bring them pain in the most effective way possible, and let the generals and admirals do what they're paid to do using the resources they deem necessary.
2006-10-31 23:49:01 · answer #2 · answered by Ivallinen Roisto 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A vote? Well OK. A vote has only 2 outcomes or results as in an election.
So the choices are to vote NO to retaliation with a result of continued and possible total devastation to our way of life. OR....
Yes to retaliation. Swift, decisive and total thus disallowing the aggressor to ever...ever attack us again. I hope that is clear enough.
What would your vote be? VICTORY or Defeat.
That's why we don't vote on this or any type of attack on our country.
2006-10-31 23:36:41 · answer #3 · answered by iraq51 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Let Iran and Syria know that whatever happens to us happens to them many times over. For each American lost in a terror attack there will be thousands of Iranians and Syrians that will pay the price. Starting at the top and taking out most of the corrupt politicians and religious zealots that run those countries.
2006-10-31 23:23:46 · answer #4 · answered by old codger 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
no more pussie footing. fire for effect. stop the hearts and minds BS. go for the jugular. low yield earth penetrating warheads onto hardened nuclear and military sites in Iran and N Korea. then conduct high altitude fly overs by B2 liberty's over damascus. and any other capital which espouses the death to the west attitude. the gloves come off. we stopped winning wars when we started concerning ourselves with public image over tangible battlefield domination. We have the means to destroy their countries, cultures and terror friendly civilizations off the map, we merely lack the will to do so. They have the will to wipe our countries, cultures and democratic civilizations off the map, but simply lack the ability to do so. Why dont we take them out before they acquire that will from Iran or N korea. If you hadnt noticed it by now boys and girls, thats why we are in Iraq. we didnt want to RISK the chance he would spirit those weapons away to terrorists, to attack us. call Bush what you will, but he wouldnt risk us being hit again, never forget.
2006-10-31 23:27:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well, we know which people chose to ignore the bombings at the US embassies in Africa by Al Qaida. Same people who were in power when the USS Cole was bombed. I don't know, go figure.
Clinton.... one in a long line of liberal appeasers. Almost as bad as the Neville Chamberlin of the 70's - Billy Carter and his "head in the sand" approach to the bastards in Iran who took the Americans hostage. Yes, those ******** Democrats have a great track record when it comes to dealing with transgressions against the US.
Have another drink, drive your car around Chappaquidick, and get a BJ by Monica BlewClintsky.
2006-10-31 23:28:33 · answer #6 · answered by 2007_Shelby_GT500 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I'd vote to handle it the same way as before. Payback is a b*tch.
2006-10-31 23:22:27 · answer #7 · answered by scruffycat 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋