Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Would you vote for this presidential candidate?


CicncyKid

Would you vote for this presidential candidate?  

107 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning.

As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation.

Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes.

Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, make the poll and the post match so we know how to vote!

I would not elect someone like this, not out of fear, but because i do not believe those tactics are proper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning. As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation. Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes. Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

What were were voting on?I voted on the poll question and not the bottom of the fearful question.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops... I read the post, and answered the question at the bottom rather than what the poll asked... at least one yes vote is :flawwed:

We can all agree that this is a game of GGs and BGs right?
I have found a loophole in the rules of the game of politics that allows me, as a citizen, to create TWO NEW ROLES WITHIN THE GAME!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning. As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation. Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes. Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

Uhh...yeah. In case you missed it, we basically already did this from 2001-2008. The last thing we need is a Bush/Cheney administration on steriods.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning. As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation. Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes. Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

Uhh...yeah. In case you missed it, we basically already did this from 2001-2008. The last thing we need is a Bush/Cheney administration on steriods.
Uhh... no we didn't.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning. As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation. Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes. Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

Uhh...yeah. In case you missed it, we basically already did this from 2001-2008. The last thing we need is a Bush/Cheney administration on steriods.
Bush/Cheney were peacenicks compared to what the OP described.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning.

As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation.

Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes.

Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

Uhh...yeah. In case you missed it, we basically already did this from 2001-2008. The last thing we need is a Bush/Cheney administration on steriods.
Bush/Cheney were peacenicks compared to what the OP described.
Buckfast is pretty much on the list at this point.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning.

As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation.

Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes.

Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

Uhh...yeah. In case you missed it, we basically already did this from 2001-2008. The last thing we need is a Bush/Cheney administration on steriods.
Bush/Cheney were peacenicks compared to what the OP described.
Buckfast is pretty much on the list at this point.
theres a list? :tinfoilhat:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning. As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation. Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes. Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

Uhh...yeah. In case you missed it, we basically already did this from 2001-2008. The last thing we need is a Bush/Cheney administration on steriods.
Bush/Cheney were peacenicks compared to what the OP described.
Exactly. If that is what I described then I failed. This candidate would be nothing like these two.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning.

As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation.

Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes.

Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

Uhh...yeah. In case you missed it, we basically already did this from 2001-2008. The last thing we need is a Bush/Cheney administration on steriods.
Bush/Cheney were peacenicks compared to what the OP described.
Buckfast is pretty much on the list at this point.
theres a list? :thumbup:
Yes. You aren't on it, obviously.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we have a Constitution, Supreme Court, Senate, and a House of Representatives, even if such a President were elected he would be powerless to take the vast majority of actions described in the OP. The only way he could accomplish them is by becoming a dictator.

Therefore, the question really should be:

Would you support a dictatorship in the United States of America?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning. As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation. Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes. Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

Uhh...yeah. In case you missed it, we basically already did this from 2001-2008. The last thing we need is a Bush/Cheney administration on steriods.
Uhh... no we didn't.
In essence, he basically just described the idea of preventive war to fight against terrorism as used by the Bush Administration. America would become the aggressors rather than sitting back and waiting to be attacked?!? We would use our overwhelming military force to control the world?!? We would attack countries harboring or providing aid to terrorism?!?! We would ignore international law regarding the use of force and the Geneva Conventions?!?! Wow, where did you come up with those revolutionary ideas, CincyKid?? I think you might be on to something new!!Sure, there are a few distinctions, but none of them seem to be central to his candidate's platform. Withdrawing from NATO and ending financial support from all other countries are hardly the driving principles of this platform. I suppose the main difference is that he seems to argue for an even more destructive use of force with no regard to rules of war, which is why I said that it would be a Bush/Cheney administration on steroids.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning. As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation. Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes. Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

Uhh...yeah. In case you missed it, we basically already did this from 2001-2008. The last thing we need is a Bush/Cheney administration on steriods.
Uhh... no we didn't.
In essence, he basically just described the idea of preventive war to fight against terrorism as used by the Bush Administration. America would become the aggressors rather than sitting back and waiting to be attacked?!? We would use our overwhelming military force to control the world?!? We would attack countries harboring or providing aid to terrorism?!?! We would ignore international law regarding the use of force and the Geneva Conventions?!?! Wow, where did you come up with those revolutionary ideas, CincyKid?? I think you might be on to something new!!Sure, there are a few distinctions, but none of them seem to be central to his candidate's platform. Withdrawing from NATO and ending financial support from all other countries are hardly the driving principles of this platform. I suppose the main difference is that he seems to argue for an even more destructive use of force with no regard to rules of war, which is why I said that it would be a Bush/Cheney administration on steroids.
You're not helping yourself here.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning. As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation. Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes. Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

Uhh...yeah. In case you missed it, we basically already did this from 2001-2008. The last thing we need is a Bush/Cheney administration on steriods.
Uhh... no we didn't.
In essence, he basically just described the idea of preventive war to fight against terrorism as used by the Bush Administration. America would become the aggressors rather than sitting back and waiting to be attacked?!? We would use our overwhelming military force to control the world?!? We would attack countries harboring or providing aid to terrorism?!?! We would ignore international law regarding the use of force and the Geneva Conventions?!?! Wow, where did you come up with those revolutionary ideas, CincyKid?? I think you might be on to something new!!Sure, there are a few distinctions, but none of them seem to be central to his candidate's platform. Withdrawing from NATO and ending financial support from all other countries are hardly the driving principles of this platform. I suppose the main difference is that he seems to argue for an even more destructive use of force with no regard to rules of war, which is why I said that it would be a Bush/Cheney administration on steroids.
You're not helping yourself here.
Look, obviously I don't believe that the Bush-Cheney administration is exactly what was described in the original post. I'm just saying that the basic principles of the platform pretty much mirror the preventive war "Bush doctrine," except for the scale of the force used. I realize that it is a significant distinction, but at its basis it just wasn't all that inventive or revolutionary of an idea for a candidate platform even though the OP described it as such. It's basically just the preventive war "Bush doctrine" on steroids, which is what I said in my original post. I don't see what is so controversial about that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning. As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation. Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes. Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

Uhh...yeah. In case you missed it, we basically already did this from 2001-2008. The last thing we need is a Bush/Cheney administration on steriods.
Uhh... no we didn't.
In essence, he basically just described the idea of preventive war to fight against terrorism as used by the Bush Administration. America would become the aggressors rather than sitting back and waiting to be attacked?!? We would use our overwhelming military force to control the world?!? We would attack countries harboring or providing aid to terrorism?!?! We would ignore international law regarding the use of force and the Geneva Conventions?!?! Wow, where did you come up with those revolutionary ideas, CincyKid?? I think you might be on to something new!!Sure, there are a few distinctions, but none of them seem to be central to his candidate's platform. Withdrawing from NATO and ending financial support from all other countries are hardly the driving principles of this platform. I suppose the main difference is that he seems to argue for an even more destructive use of force with no regard to rules of war, which is why I said that it would be a Bush/Cheney administration on steroids.
You're not helping yourself here.
You're not helping yourself make any coherent contribution.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes [ 15 ] [20.55%] No [ 58 ] [79.45%]

So far, 58 people have voted based on the thread title, 14 people have voted based on the question at the end of the OP, and ArcticEdge is printing up campaign signs.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes [ 15 ] [20.55%] No [ 58 ] [79.45%]

So far, 58 people have voted based on the thread title, 14 people have voted based on the question at the end of the OP, and ArcticEdge is printing up campaign signs.
I like to include Pat Buchanan as a poll option to accurately represent everyone who was confused.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning. As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation. Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes. Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

If a group of terrorists aligned with Axis of Evil nations detonated a nuclear device in a major American city, US policy would definitely move in this direction. Obviously, the public would view the last 8 years as being too soft and too passive when it comes to US foreign policy and the democrats would take full blame for that since they so visibly stood in the way of Bush's foreign policy. The public would demand these sorts of tactics. In fact, any major terrorist strike that slaughtered civilians in the hundreds of thousands would qualify. Bush's image would be instantly rehabbed because the democrats criticize him endlessly for his cowboy unilateral foreign policy, which would be exactly what the public desires.I would put the odds of US foreign policy moving in the direction outlined by the OP by 2020 at 75%.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Candidate runs on the platform that the United States can not win the war on terrorism without using terrorist like tactics. The United States would be willing to attack any country at any time without warning. We would become the aggressors. No longer would we be willing to sit back and wait to be attacked. The candidate would let it be known that if they were elected Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, and any other country that threatened the freedom of the United States would be on permanent warning. As Commander in Chief the candidate would use the military to control the world. The first two years the president would build the military to an all time high troop level through volunteerism & military drafts. Expanded production of weapons, specifically bombs would begin immediately in the first term. The USA would pull out of NATO and no longer provide financial support to any other nations in the world. All support would be to make the USA a better and more stable nation. Countries known to have harbored terrorists or provide financial support would be the first to learn of their fate against the new American president. They would be hit with multiple crippling attacks from our military. Bombs would take out major cities, financial centers, transportation, military bases, etc. Countries such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan would be hit first. If they attempted or could attempt retaliation a nuclear attack would not be out of the question. There would be no rules of war for the United States military any longer. If a soldier feels threatened they shoot to kill. No soldier would be tried for war crimes. Would you be fearful of placing someone into power like this? Why?

If a group of terrorists aligned with Axis of Evil nations detonated a nuclear device in a major American city, US policy would definitely move in this direction. Obviously, the public would view the last 8 years as being too soft and too passive when it comes to US foreign policy and the democrats would take full blame for that since they so visibly stood in the way of Bush's foreign policy. The public would demand these sorts of tactics. In fact, any major terrorist strike that slaughtered civilians in the hundreds of thousands would qualify. Bush's image would be instantly rehabbed because the democrats criticize him endlessly for his cowboy unilateral foreign policy, which would be exactly what the public desires.I would put the odds of US foreign policy moving in the direction outlined by the OP by 2020 at 75%.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...