- NEW!
by Tom on October 5th, 2009
From what I've learned, it is the policy of the USA to never submit to terrorists. Period. So this would probably trigger the biggest millitary invasion in world history.
Do any 99%ers support the 1%ers? How? How can anyone support his/her abuser? Masochism?
by RosieGHM Jetpacker on November 3rd, 2011
| 5 people like this
So the guy in Massachusetts decided.....
by Epistaxis on September 29th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What is the difference between terrorists and patriots?
by mikedsign on December 3rd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
So why exactly did they find you with a bra on your head singing into people's mailboxes?
by Have A Nice Day on November 4th, 2011
| 4 people like this
Today; news reports; US has accussed the Iran gov of plotting assasinations and terrorism. Is this another scam to start another war?
by paulizone on October 11th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading If (when) a terrorist group uses nukes to hit 2 or 3 or 4 major US cities, then presents us with the ultimatum to withdraw from the Middle East and cut off aid to Israel, what alternative is there to complying?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
And who, exactly, would we invade? The US already occupies Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
.
And how would we pay for the $300/bbl. oil that's needed to power all of the tanks/planes/APCs/trucks/etc.?
by Old School on October 5th, 2009
Tom, I can see your point, but dang details... The US would have to institute a draft to raise enough troops to invade & occupy Iran or Pakistan, either of which would be Iraq x 5 or 10 in terms of difficulty and casualties. Who would pay for that when the US is in a depression due to the loss of NY and other cities, and China has cut off our credit because we're no longer a good risk? And the perps would be a few smallish cells moving around; millions of soldiers couldn't defend against that.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but the devil's in the details.
by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009
I agree. I also think it's wrong. I'm just pointing out what the US is likely to do based on thier advertised policy and their history in similar situations. I don't think that it is the right thing to do, and I definately have some issues about what "Old School" had to say about how we have to pay for this. We are in such a financial recession right now, the last thing we need is an expensive war to pay finance. Now that we no longer have a member of the Bush family in office, maybe the new administration will hopefully take a look at alternatives.
by Tom on October 5th, 2009