You are the President of the US with two options before you... which do you choose

[guardian1]

kim jong illin’ would be a dead man, period.

how do you not kill him and let all those civilians die? you just can’t. it would be utterly irresponsibile not to. someday the prez will answer to God for what he does. has God not given the order to kill people in the past who were evil? i really can’t speak for God, but i would think that God would rather see kim jong il bite it than 700,000 innocent civilians.

 

[EBSSTF4]

Kill him and in desperation the #2 guy launches everything he’s got.

The problem with intelligence is it has often been wrong.

And Special Forces commandos in this type of operation only really work in the movies. To kill him you would have to drop a bomb on him.

Option b with a bomber in the air.

 

[ElizabethPH]

let me rephrase that… “One INNOCENT life” ----- if you’re a dictator… all bets are off.

You’ve ask folks to take your poll and they have given their answers. If anyone is contrary to what you think the answer should be, you are determined to rub their noses in it. Your scenario is a perfect one. But those sort of situations are hardly ever perfect in there outcomes and never as straight forward as the one you propose. Of course to avoid the death of innocents, and with the scenario you present the only logical thing would be to murder the dictator. These real situations hardly ever turn out so smoothly…often times the person or people taking over are just as bad if not worse then before. And Intelligence would be hard to trust. These situations are often not so simple. Just my opinion.

 

[pro_universal]

Option C)

Put down the video game console and join the real world.

 

[thechrismyster]

These situations are often not so simple. Just my opinion.

BUT this question i originally posed WAS this simple.

a or b.

this was a pointed question with two answers. i asked people to pick one.
i didn’t ask them to conjecture a 3rd, 4th or 5th answer, with backings, citations and theology analysis.

This was simply an exercise with two paths which many posters didn’t like because it didn’t allow them to spew on

And there weren’t many posters who could a.) follow rules or b.) resist turning it into a political discussion.

My question was easy, their answers were hard.

There was no large sign asking posters to expand on the original post and tell me how much the original question was pointed and loaded. i didn’t rub anyone’s nose into their answer, i only pointed their inability to deal with the question posed instead of hijacking the thread telling us how unlikely the scenario was. the option to not post is always there.
I know my scenario was a self contained one. it only became flawed when the posters brought into play the peace, love and lollipop ‘lets deal with the world of what if’s’ instead of the question at hand.

to those that didn’t answer the question, you’ve failed the test.

to those that answered a or b, regardless of your answer. you’ve passed.

look carefully at the names with each post, its a who’s who of liberal and deconstructive ideologies associated with every "peace instead of war’ opinion.

predictibility at least brings comfortable familiarity.

 

[thechrismyster]

Me too … just replace pregnant wife with roommate.

On the topic I actually agree with Texas Roofer that this is a silly question and I immediately thought of about 20 different options in the scenario given.

However, for the sake of playing the game I negotiate. But again, my negotiation would never cause what your either/or scenario gives. Rather negations are taking place while military is mobilized to strike the launch pad within 2 hours of placing the phone call. So, really I too take option c because option a and option b are both silly.

see everyone… mosher gets it. (i’m using you as an example for the class!)

there ARE dozens of options. we’re not stupid, we understand that. BUT, and i’ll quote mosher “for the sake of the game”… THAT is what the non-answer posters completely missed.

 

[wcknight]

you have to be joking…

or at least, just fantasizing…

right?

Actually I was not. Anyone who lived through the 50’s or 60’s realizes that is precisely the game that was played out. Mutual assured destruction was the name of the game.

IF the other side was not absolutely certain that nuclear annihilation was the result of any first strike, then there may have been an attempt at a pre-emptive attack. You do not strike at the other guy IF you know for certain you will be killed in the process.

To let a tyrant use a nuclear weapon and not respond in kind is ground work to let the nutcase take over. Only if he knows he will be destroyed in the process, will he be restrained from using a nuke. The Soviet Union did not back down because they became nice guys, they backed down because they knew that we would retaliate if they ever attempted anything.

Most folks are not suicidal, and even if they were, there is not much you can do about it. Prior to GWB this country had never made a pre-emptive strike on anybody, and that is probably the way things should have stayed. You can always be wrong about someone “intent to strike”.

Folks say all sorts of things all the time. You can not take out anyone and everyone who you don’t like or who doesn’t like you. Until they actually do something you should not react to it. You can certainly prepare or anticipate events but to strike out on rumor or so called intelligence gets us into scenarios like Iraq.

 

[Orionthehunter]

BUT this question i originally posed WAS this simple.

a or b.

this was a pointed question with two answers. i asked people to pick one.
i didn’t ask them to conjecture a 3rd, 4th or 5th answer, with backings, citations and theology analysis.

This was simply an exercise with two paths which many posters didn’t like because it didn’t allow them to spew on

And there weren’t many posters who could a.) follow rules or b.) resist turning it into a political discussion.

My question was easy, their answers were hard.

There was no large sign asking posters to expand on the original post and tell me how much the original question was pointed and loaded. i didn’t rub anyone’s nose into their answer, i only pointed their inability to deal with the question posed instead of hijacking the thread telling us how unlikely the scenario was. the option to not post is always there.
I know my scenario was a self contained one. it only became flawed when the posters brought into play the peace, love and lollipop ‘lets deal with the world of what if’s’ instead of the question at hand.

to those that didn’t answer the question, you’ve failed the test.

to those that answered a or b, regardless of your answer. you’ve passed.

look carefully at the names with each post, its a who’s who of liberal and deconstructive ideologies associated with every "peace instead of war’ opinion.

predictibility at least brings comfortable familiarity.

Food for thought:

I have a friend who requires anyone applying for a management job to complete a questionairre that contains a lot of questions similar to the question at hand. And there are only two options with the invitation to leave blank those where the applicant feels unable to answer. As an evaluation tool, the more you leave blank the more disqualified you are for management. His rationale is simple. The actual choices made are less important than the propensity to not make decisions.

Management is about decision-making. Sometimes you have two options, sometimes you have more, but you have to make decisions to be in management and sometimes the choices are less than ideal but no decision is paralysis. Additionally, based on experience, the person who can’t make decisions is not a good team member in management because a non-decider also is the first one to criticize others whose decisions don’t work out.

 

[wcknight]

I used to have a manager who always said, a wrong decision made on time is far better than the right decision made too late.

 

[ElizabethPH]

Food for thought:

I have a friend who requires anyone applying for a management job to complete a questionairre that contains a lot of questions similar to the question at hand. And there are only two options with the invitation to leave blank those where the applicant feels unable to answer. As an evaluation tool, the more you leave blank the more disqualified you are for management. His rationale is simple. The actual choices made are less important than the propensity to not make decisions.

Management is about decision-making. Sometimes you have two options, sometimes you have more, but you have to make decisions to be in management and sometimes the choices are less than ideal but no decision is paralysis. Additionally, based on experience, the person who can’t make decisions is not a good team member in management because a non-decider also is the first one to criticize others whose decisions don’t work out.

I guess I flunk management

 

[EBSSTF4]

Food for thought:

I have a friend who requires anyone applying for a management job to complete a questionairre that contains a lot of questions similar to the question at hand. And there are only two options with the invitation to leave blank those where the applicant feels unable to answer. As an evaluation tool, the more you leave blank the more disqualified you are for management. His rationale is simple. The actual choices made are less important than the propensity to not make decisions.

Management is about decision-making. Sometimes you have two options, sometimes you have more, but you have to make decisions to be in management and sometimes the choices are less than ideal but no decision is paralysis. Additionally, based on experience, the person who can’t make decisions is not a good team member in management because a non-decider also is the first one to criticize others whose decisions don’t work out.

A good manager will think outside the box.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

Bridge Over Troubled Water.

I prefer Purple Rain.