• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Governing as a Super Power

Shadownexius

Student
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
38
In the years that our country developed from Puritans Pilgrimage to Political and Military Super Power; we have lacked the key concept that define our authority as a Super Power. The concept that we are a democracy for us and a dicator for them!
 
And... we have the power to post the same thing three times.

Take that.
 
Yes, we must become a disctatorial power. Only then will we truly be a superpower. And there is only one man who can lead us to our rightful destiny.
 
In the years that our country developed from Puritans Pilgrimage to Political and Military Super Power; we have lacked the key concept that define our authority as a Super Power. The concept that we are a democracy for us and a dicator for them!

Before comenceing to try could you please give the rest of the world time to cordinate the removal of your cities. I mean if we all nuke new york it will be a bit of a waste.
 
Political Superpower? Ummm ... no. Not your game. The Military aspect is debatable, but the political dog don't hunt.

How's the dictating going in Iraq?
We must face opposition with a responce that rivals it, with a message that the opposition understands. Radical terrorist, Tyranny, etc. It is our political excuse over history to be the bull dog and it is common that in many occasions such as Vietnam...We used the situation against communism to make statements to the former Soviet Union. Statements that directly messaged, that we would no hesitate to respond to the spread of communism, even in our own backyard. If you don't know what I am referring too, then you should research the cuban missile crisis. We knew the Soviets (fellow comrades and all) were transforming Cuba into a missile platform for sylos. We engaged in Vietnam as a warning that we would give the same responce to a pitful country like Cuba if the Soviets continued. It was a radical approach that cost lives, but it ensured that the Soviets didnt have the platform to Nuke us. The same is infered in the "War on Terrorism" if we agree to make the cost of one American life equivalent to that of one-thousand Middle Eastern lives (this pertains to older men and women without Children or Families.) So if the terrorist kill 10 American Hostiages, the equivalent is 10,000 Middle Eastern men and women, that don't have families, in exchange. 5,000 from across the country of country: Iraq. The last resort will be nuclear strike on Mecca, the Holy City; where so many Musslims make Pilgrimage to. No warning of the proposed attack on Mecca, no evacutation, etc. The people that die would be the cost of Terrorist attacks that result in deaths equivalent to that of a small subway bombing, bus bombing, airplane passanger percentage (rough estimates).

For those of you that oppose any individual man as Bush:

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. " Eleanor Roosevelt

For those of you that question my mind set:

"A nation that values it's privileges above its principles soon loses both."
--Eisenhower

I believe it is not our privileges that make us, it is the principles that define us from them. The principle that define our enemies are the tools we must understand, learn to respond to, and counter in the only language that they understand. We must counter radical terrorism with a radical response, one which the people of our nation need not to be burdened with, but rather protected from. The Rules of Engagement in this "War on Terrorism" state that they have no rights, they have no country if we take over run the governing authority. They are at our mercy to be molded and used as we deem. It is our position to create Opportunity and Freedom for ourselves, and Oppression and Tyranny for others so that they fear to be our enemies, and find comfort as our allies.
 
For those of you that question my mind set:

"A nation that values it's privileges above its principles soon loses both."
--Eisenhower
You think taking revenge on innocents should be one of our principles? Others have thought so before:

There was also terrible retribution taken against the Norwegian people. On 26th April 1942 two agents from Shetland, Arne Vaerum and Emil Hvaal, shot and killed two Gestapo Officers in the village of Telavag. The Germans retaliated by sending the entire male population of the village of Telavag to a concentration camp, where thirty-one died, the women and children were interned and the village was raised to the ground.
It didn't work, of course. And yes, I question your mind set.
 
The same is infered in the "War on Terrorism" if we agree to make the cost of one American life equivalent to that of one-thousand Middle Eastern lives (this pertains to older men and women without Children or Families.) So if the terrorist kill 10 American Hostiages, the equivalent is 10,000 Middle Eastern men and women, that don't have families, in exchange. 5,000 from across the country of country: Iraq.

You do so you would be killer your allies? You know group called the kurds? You kinda inforced a no flyzone for decades to protect the. Ring any bells? And now you want to start killing them?

The last resort will be nuclear strike on Mecca, the Holy City; where so many Musslims make Pilgrimage to. No warning of the proposed attack on Mecca, no evacutation, etc. The people that die would be the cost of Terrorist attacks that result in deaths equivalent to that of a small subway bombing, bus bombing, airplane passanger percentage (rough estimates).

As a general rule nuke a mayor city to someone who is generaly regared as being on you side (you mentioned vitnam you would have lost that a lot sooner if the saudis hand't made sure you had oil to run your equipment)

For those of you that oppose any individual man as Bush:

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. " Eleanor Roosevelt

So quoteing a person in an attempt to support that claim. Ammusing

For those of you that question my mind set:

"A nation that values it's privileges above its principles soon loses both."
--Eisenhower

A natation that forgets it isn't the only one with nukes risks loseing cities. Along with it's existing nuclear arsnel france has about 40 tonnes of plutionium in storage. That is quite a lot of bombs

I believe it is not our privileges that make us, it is the principles that define us from them. The principle that define our enemies are the tools we must understand, learn to respond to, and counter in the only language that they understand. We must counter radical terrorism with a radical response, one which the people of our nation need not to be burdened with, but rather protected from. The Rules of Engagement in this "War on Terrorism" state that they have no rights, they have no country if we take over run the governing authority. They are at our mercy to be molded and used as we deem. It is our position to create Opportunity and Freedom for ourselves, and Oppression and Tyranny for others so that they fear to be our enemies, and find comfort as our allies.

Allies? you have already advotated nukeing you allies.
 
You do so you would be killer your allies? You know group called the kurds? You kinda inforced a no flyzone for decades to protect the. Ring any bells? And now you want to start killing them?



As a general rule nuke a mayor city to someone who is generaly regared as being on you side (you mentioned vitnam you would have lost that a lot sooner if the saudis hand't made sure you had oil to run your equipment)



So quoteing a person in an attempt to support that claim. Ammusing



A natation that forgets it isn't the only one with nukes risks loseing cities. Along with it's existing nuclear arsnel france has about 40 tonnes of plutionium in storage. That is quite a lot of bombs



Allies? you have already advotated nukeing you allies.
We would not of nuked Vietnam in the first place, it would of began war with the Russian (Communists). We were in Vietnam to make a point to the Western Hemisphere here, that Russian plans in Cuba would recieve similar responses. Ring a Bell...that we were playing the mad dog of the Western Hemisphere, that we were making a point, rather then seriously waging a war in Vietnam. It was a political attempt that was similar to our influencial attempts in 1812 with the British. An empty bluff, to signal we were still in control.

Second We are allies with the French, and their attempts to use Nuclear Weapons against us would turn our allies against them. Most of which havea platform for full scale invasion of france: Spain, England, etc. Third They woudl agree that this was a good approach after the terrorist bombings and attacks on their own subways, busses, etc. We have enough support that the French Frogs would stay out of it.

We are not allies with the Muslims as much as we are with the Jews...We protect Israel from them on a constant basis...and so saying that we would not hesistate to attack those other third world countries.

And Quotes like that apply two reasons:(1) the majority of the country are babbling idiots that insult people rather then focus on concepts, ideas, or even current events. (2) We value our principles over all else in this country...as a result we offer then to Illegal Aliens, etc. It is by the people choose to purge ourselves of these burdens, to enforce those rights for our citizens rather then provide those rights to anyone.

We are not a country that gives Welfare to the Starving people of another country; we are the Super Power that feeds itself, and dictates to thier leaders that they should spend more time building industry, and growing food...rather then sitting back and complaining that we must make up for their laziness. "You do not work....You do not eat!" famous words of John Smith...apply in full extent to this problem. We dont concern ourselves with the struggles of the world or the problems they have provided themselves with, but instead come in and tell their leaders, that they will not buy another palace or luxury house and put that money towards feeding and supporting their people. If they fail to do this, we tear down the leaders, and convert the country into an indirect establishment, where we train their people to work, and if they refuse, we don't feed them we leave them their to think about it on an empty stomach, until they either starve or work.
 

Back
Top Bottom