Reply With Quote
send them flowers
Love will conquer all
I'd like to hear some solutions(other than what we are already doing) to the terorist problem...all I hear is a bunch of people ing about what we are doing now.
No sniping the opinions given in this thread because I want to see all the ideas before people go on the defensive. And I don't really want to hear the opinions of the board conservatives because we are already doing it their way more or less.
#1.What should we do about terrorists within our borders.
#2.What should we do about terrorism in the middle east.
#3.What should we do if there is another terrorist attack on this soil.
#4.What should we do if a terrorist detonates a nuclear bomb in a major US city and there is the threat of other attacks.
No blaming Bush or Clinton...just if you were President and had a mandate...what would you do...
No over simplified ideas like leave the middle east...because that's not going to happen because there would be a world wide economic catastrophe if we did so..and we would haven't have the luxury of sitting on our asses talking on a message board to discuss it. On top of that...many countries do want us in the middle east.
No terrorist sucking ideas either...the war has to be won. America backed it when they re-elected Bush. So did the Brits.
I just want to see the solutions of the board malcontents laid out in a simple and coherent format.
Then after everyone that wants to has given their solutions...you can pile on them.
send them flowers
Love will conquer all
And by the way...
When Osama declared war on the US he cited three main reasons...
#1.The suffering of the Iraqi people under the UN sanctions(IE Chirac, Schroeder, Putin and Anan's slush fund).
Iraqi people are no longer under sanctions and the popularly elected government wants us there for the time being.
That condition no longer exists.
#2. Infidels in Saudi Arabia...now, aside from the fact that we were there to defend them from Saddam...at the request and acceptance of their government...
We have virtually no military presence there any longer now that Saddam as gone and we are diminishing it.
That condition no longer exists as it did.
#3. The support and aid for Israel...now aside from the fact that we give about 10 times as much money to Arab nations...
Israel is erecting a wall that will basically render it impossible for terrorist murder Israeli civillians, thus eliminating the Israeli need to retaliate.
So that condition no longer exists either...or it won't very shortly.
So then...why are we still at war with the terrorists anyway? Why are they still targeting this country?
Stuff to remember as you come up with the solution.
Infidels AKA expatriats AKA americans operate part of saudis oil, the switch o saduis running it hasn't taken over
so Infidels actual are still there
No easy solution to this. I hold civil liberties just as highly in regard as I do safety. If I have my freedoms taken away, then safety means a lot less.
In this manner, I think using Israel as a model on internal security is a must. Compared to them, all of our systems are a ing joke. Inconvinience is not a violation of ones rights.
Kill them, what else? And I'm serious about that. Now, if you want to ask what should we do as a country to prevent the spread of terrorism, that is something entirely different.#2.What should we do about terrorism in the middle east.
I don't agree with what we did in Iraq, but its too late to get out and erase the past. We need to establish that government as quickly as possible and leave them with a strong security force to establish control.
More importantly, we MUST move away from a dependence on oil. You can argue all you want about our motivation for actions in the region but it all stems back to a dependence on the oil that is under that sand. If we don't have to protect an interest in that area (oil) we can get the out.
To further what I believe.....
http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb50.pdf
Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism? The Historical Record
by Ivan Eland
Ivan Eland is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Ins ute.
Executive SummaryAccording to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, terrorism is the most important threat the United States and the world face as the 21st century begins. High-level U.S. officials have acknowledged that terrorists are now more likely to be able to obtain and use nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons than ever before.
Yet most attention has been focused on combating terrorism by deterring and disrupting it beforehand and retaliating against it after the fact. Less attention has been paid to what motivates terrorists to launch attacks. According to the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, a strong correlation exists between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States. President Clinton has also acknowledged that link. The board, however, has provided no empirical data to support its conclusion. This paper fills that gap by citing many examples of terrorist attacks on the United States in retaliation for U.S. intervention overseas. The numerous incidents cataloged suggest that the United States could reduce the chances of such devastating--and potentially catastrophic--terrorist attacks by adopting a policy of military restraint overseas.
If? There's no if about it, its when.#3.What should we do if there is another terrorist attack on this soil.
You deal with the attack and you remain focused on your long term goals on dealing with and limiting terrorism. You take a look and see where your security went wrong and you fix the problem. You make sure it is not able to happen again. You learn from your mistakes and you adapt yourself against the methods used.
You remove the threat. Under no cir stances do you nuke a city in retaliation. That will do nothing but add gasoline to the fire.#4.What should we do if a terrorist detonates a nuclear bomb in a major US city and there is the threat of other attacks.
This is exactly why security along the border and ports of entry is really ing important. The terrorists don't have any ICBMs or bombers they can use to attack us. It's going to have to be a covert method.
But once again, you deal with it and you protect yourself. You find those responsible and you deal with them in an appropriate manner.
Using a nuclear weapon on another city of a country not responsible for the attacks would be a mistake plain and simple.
Seek them out by any means necessary, within the Cons ution. I don't believe that racial profiling should be out of the question, but at the same time, it should not be something we completely lean on.#1.What should we do about terrorists within our borders.
For one thing, make sure THEY are perceived as the enemy by Middle Eastern non-terrorists, not us. Nuking Mecca, hypothetically, would not achieve this goal. Turn their own people against them.#2.What should we do about terrorism in the middle east.
I'm not sure that you can do anything different in "response" to an attack of any degree besides rooting out the ones who are responsible and any governments that supported them. What we CAN do is work harder to prevent them... Better border control, and a better system for keeping track of who is in the country and what they're doing here.#3 & #4
#1-#4 Kill Them.
coughurbansprawlcough1604cough.
Who was responsible for 9/11? OBL and al-Queda.
Where is OBL and AQ? At least initially, we knew he was in the Afghan-Pakistan border area and a lot of AQ was there, too.
Did we do all we could to get them? No.
Is the fighting in Iraq helping to get rid of OBL and AQ? No, but we helping recruitment immensely.
Next time? Learn from our mistakes. If we learn who is responsible, we pull out all the stops to get who is responsible and cut out the sideshows.
Was this aimed at me as an attack on my credibility based upon my location?
i solve alotta things
No, it was just food for thought.
Gotcha. Thats why I sought clarification.
answer to all questions
-become more conservative.
You forgot to include Tahoe and OnStar* in your answer.
you better be a joke...
you make Clandestino look like me
YES
SWC
the first poster to ever correctly write "OnStar*" on spurstalk
although not how it appears in real life, on blogs and message boards it should always appear as OnStar*
or
OnStar*
thats an asterisk
thats why its funny
"would you let me ride in the car without OnStar*?"
"OnStar*, because I love my kids"
in the America, Yeah song, they shoulda said
ONSTAR*!!!!
I think we should look to some pontificators in an online forum, that'll do it.
Here is what I do:
1. Face the fact that terrorism can't be ended by mounting an offensive in foreign countries - so stop doing it
2. For those in the fbi that allowed the masterminds of the 911 attack to go free when they were under surveillance or in jail to be put in jail or or fired.
3. Stop fighting the never ending war in iraq, if you're really serious about stopping terrorism attacks, logically you wouldn't spend all your money on something that isn't working and help guard your borders.
4. End conflict of interest in times of war e.g. halliburton, it doesn't make me feel good when the vice president's supposedly "former" company gets a nice bid making millions off already struggling americans.
If I recall properly, Clinton awarded Halliburton a no-bid contract dealing with U.S. peacekeeping in the Balkans some years ago.
Well, Whottt?
Waiting on NBA Dan...
Because it ought to be good
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
