Wanted: Preferably dead, alive... meh

Wanted: Preferably dead, alive... meh (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ExiledTyrant -> Wanted: Preferably dead, alive... meh (2/26/2015 7:26:04 AM)
Do you think it would be more effective to put a bounty on ISIS members rather than hemorrhage money in a war we really do not need? I think many nations are pissed enough to toss bucks into the kitty for bounties. If we weigh War vs Bounties, which countries do you think would throw in their hat in and in which arena?

mnottertail -> RE: Wanted: Preferably dead, alive... meh (2/26/2015 7:32:39 AM)
Lets use more drones.

Kirata -> RE: Wanted: Preferably dead, alive... meh (2/26/2015 7:44:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant Do you think it would be more effective to put a bounty on ISIS members rather than hemorrhage money in a war we really do not need? More economical, maybe. The effect would likely be a bounty on Americans. If a jihadi dies he gets 72 dark eyed houris; if he lives he gets rich. What could go wrong? K.

KenDckey -> RE: Wanted: Preferably dead, alive... meh (2/26/2015 7:45:13 AM)
LOL Kitara Yup

Sanity -> RE: Wanted: Preferably dead, alive... meh (2/26/2015 7:46:42 AM)
They could trade some of their Christian slaves, women and children, for American scalps eh? Or other proof that an American was killed.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Wanted: Preferably dead, alive... meh (2/26/2015 7:59:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant Do you think it would be more effective to put a bounty on ISIS members rather than hemorrhage money in a war we really do not need? FR How much of a bounty should we offer? Some quick math... a) Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who is apparently considered a high-ranking leader in ISIS, has a bounty of $10 million. b) There is an estimated number of ISIS troops that ranges from 20,000 to 200,000 depending on who you ask. If we apply that kind of bounty on all of them we're looking at an estimated cost from $200 billion to $2 trillion. Drones are cheaper. Our nuclear weapons are already paid for. Not making suggestions, just sayin'.

bounty44 -> RE: Wanted: Preferably dead, alive... meh (2/26/2015 9:19:09 AM)
wouldn't it really be a case though of cutting off some heads and even more rising up in place of them?

Zonie63 -> RE: Wanted: Preferably dead, alive... meh (2/26/2015 9:26:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant Do you think it would be more effective to put a bounty on ISIS members rather than hemorrhage money in a war we really do not need? I think many nations are pissed enough to toss bucks into the kitty for bounties. If we weigh War vs Bounties, which countries do you think would throw in their hat in and in which arena? Aren't conscripts generally cheaper than mercenaries? I'm not sure which would be more effective, though. It depends on what we actually want to do over there. We may be able to destroy ISIS, but then it won't be too long before the next group pops up, and then there will be one after that, too. There may only be two effective options here, depending on what our actual goal is. If the goal is to defend America, then we don't really need to go to war with ISIS, since they're over there, and we're here. Geography is our greatest ally. If the goal is something else, whether to secure oil supplies or to otherwise "stabilize" the Middle East, then there may not be any lasting effective options other than total permanent occupation and colonial control of the entire region. I don't like that idea myself, but it would probably be more effective than using nukes, which is another idea floating around lately.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125