Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
Terrorists, what would you do???
Im no fan of Bush, but I kinda go with the notion of getting the terrorist where ever they may be. With the exception of Iraq, what would you all suggest we do to address the ever present danger posed by terrorists? Ive seen many bashing any attempt at solving the problem. Clinton is bashed for ignoring the problem, Bush is bashed for taking proactive measures, what would you do.[/align][/align][/align]Lets not make this an Iraq bashing thread please. I would just like to hear some suggestions.[/align]
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
We go after those who perpetrated 9-11, which was the goal we were united behind in the beginning,,, al-Qeada, Bin Laden, and his subordinates. That was the solution and IS the solution.
Wasthe stated goalto go after only those terrorists who were involved in 9-11? Or was it togo after terrorists (generically)and countries that harbor them? I thought that 9-11 was the precipitating event that united us, but, the goal was broader than just those involved.
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
RE: Terrorists, what would you do???
Quote:
ORIGINAL: ipscshooter
Quote:
ORIGINAL: Ifferd
We go after those who perpetrated 9-11, which was the goal we were united behind in the beginning,,, al-Qeada, Bin Laden, and his subordinates. That was the solution and IS the solution.
Wasthe stated goalto go after only those terrorists who were involved in 9-11? Or was it togo after terrorists (generically)and countries that harbor them? I thought that 9-11 was the precipitating event that united us, but, the goal was broader than just those involved.
You beat me to that one. I was thinking the same thing. I agree with your plan Ifferd, I was going to ask a similar question to what ipscshooter asked. With no particular incidentin mind (Iraq). Should we be proactive or reactive? We, as a nation have been both. The results are clouded with both.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
Why do we limit who is going to die? They and by "they" I mean the bad guys run into a mosque and we let them go. We capture them and then let them go!
We need to kill them! We are not going to buy their love ,They want to die and we want to kill them. This sounds like the makings of a win -win to me!
Well, if you are going to go after them, then go after them wholehog. Otherwise, its back to the days of killing a few camels with an airstrike everytime a terrorist (well beyondthe 9-11 folks) execute a handicapped American and toss him in the sea, or machine gun little girls in airports, blow up G.I.'s in German nightclubs, or shoot a navy diver and toss him off a commerical jet.
And yes, I do believe that Bush announced a global war on terrorism and terrorist states in general. And obviously we can't invade N. Korea to make it fair and equal, but there is a lot you can do up to that poiint.
__________________
"Shoot him again....his soul is still dancing"
One thing we might do is consider whether the terrorists have a legitimate beef. For example, Bin Laden, I believe, objected to US troops in Saudi Arabia because it is the holiest of Muslem holy lands and objected to the US slanting the table so dramatically in favor of Israel and against Palestine. I think we ought to consider getting troops out of Saudi Arabia (if they are still there) and stop cutting Israel so much slack versus the Palestinians. Personally I am attracted to "isolationism" as a foreign policy. If total isolationism such as we used to observe before WW-I is out of the question, there certainly is still a lot of room to remove our fingers from lots of people's pies out there. I think if we meddled less in other countries business there would be less terrorism targeted towards us. This does not preclude dealing with bad actors like Iran and N Korea. But ask yourself, did the US really need to support Ferdinand Marcos in the Philipines to protect the US? Did the US really have to support the banana republic dictators of Central America to protect the US? So this is my number one recommendation: stop the bull in the china shop behavior.
Number two recommendation is assassination teams. I guess this is politically incorrect today -- and expressly outlawed I'm thinking -- but wouldn't it be better to just have killed Bin Laden when his ugly head rose up from the rest of the rabble? What about some of the other unsavory folks on the planet? What about that turkey in Iran? What about the Ayatollah Khomeni? What about Saddam Hussein? What about Kim Jong Il? Granted, some of these guys are probably pretty carefully protected -- Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il -- but it is something to think about. Maybe there is something about this that I don't understand, but if it is OK to unilaterally attack Afghanistan and Iraq because it is in our national interest, why isn't it OK to surgically take out the one or two bad actors that are the root of these problems? Again, maybe I don't know what I am talking about and this is a very very bad plan, but it certainly is naievly attractive.
Number 3 is keeping good intelligence and not letting known problems fester. Nip the troubles in the bud and it is easier and less difficult to control. Again, maybe there are political difficulties with this that I don't see, for example if it isn't something the press is already dinning into our ears as the direst threat since the Bubonic Plague, doesn't the president/military look like Darth Vader when they initiate an attack against an unknown threat?
Terrorists, what would you do???
