How would you fight the war on terror?

Question

If you aren't satisfied with Bush, then come up with a better idea. Personally, I would rather be on the offensive than having to fight them here on our soil.

Answer 1

'The best defense is a good offense'-Jack Dempsey
'The only thing we have to fear is fear itself'-Franklin D. Roosevelt
'No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.'-George S. Patton
'We have met the enemy, and they are ours'-Oliver Hazard Perry
'We have met the enemy, and he is us'-Pogo
'What, me worry'?-Alfred E. Neuman
'Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most'-Mark Twain(also Ozzy Osbourne)


Energy:
Well, to start with, I would push like hell for energy independence,
and borrow a page from Jimmy Carter on conservation. President Carter was a peanut farmer in a previous existence, and it bears keeping in mind that Mr. Rudolf Diesel's invention was originally intended to run on peanut oil, not petroleum-derived 'diesel' fuel, which is really just a thin oil. Similarly, flipping back to about the same time period, you find out that the Tin Lizzy, Henry Ford's Model T, was built with ethanol in mind as the fuel. Somehow, we became petroleum-dependent, and to my mind there would be no middle east problem today were it not for that dependency. Energy independence is part of economic independence, which is political independence, which is the concept the United States was founded on, 'neither a lender nor a borrower be', and as much as people have been on about globalization, to my view that all kind of flies in the face of the founding fathers' principles. I think we're strongest when we stick as close as we can to our own Constitution, and let other countries write their own, and strive to keep our own economy strong, and sufficiently independent of other countries in case they stop being our 'friends'. 'Globalization' sure sounds nice, but history tells us that times change, people change...

Did you hear Bush's speech in support of ethanol/alternatives?
It was pretty solid, he and his administration deserve great credit for that. Energy's going to be an issue that haunts our country and it'll be a weak spot until and unless we completely develop the ability to provide our own needs independently of imports.
I would start a conservation initiative, too. What we don't use or burn, we don't need to import, which equates to more money staying in our economy, and less foreign debt to boot. We go 2 billion dollars further in debt on a daily basis, in part to middle eastern countries we buy oil from. I don't think that's right, sustainable, or prudent, and instead I would push for a zero-deficit initiative. I would choke back HARD on subsidies, too.
People need to work, and earn an honest day's wages for an honest day's work, instead of seeking personal or business subsidies.

Immigration:
As I remember it, the guys responsible for 9/11 all came from the middle east, and they were on visas. so, less of that, too. Immigration enforcement is important, also.


Religion:
Religion is also an issue, just read the news. Fanatics with religious literature preaching violence aren't a new phenomenon, witness our own Rajneesh/Koresh, Jim Jones, the Klan, all those other nut-bars. That's where being secular is a good thing, leaves some breathing room between someone's religious dogma and good decision-making. 'Congress shall pass no law...' etc. But, Congress CAN act to prevent violence in the name of religion. We just don't need that stuff in america, nor should americans tolerate it. We've had rhetoriticians in our country for years with an axe to grind with our country, whose support originates OUTside our country.

I don't know if I necessarily believe that all muslims are violent, but I do think that there's the desire for conquest there, the history books reveal a bloody history related to islam unfortunately, so does christian history, for that matter,
point is not all believers are violent, but the difference needs to be laid out in black and white as many times as it can be said.
I think some advances in philosophy and new treatments of
some of the more tired pieces of rhetoric would be really positive.

I also think it'd be wise to assume that Bush is right, this whole mess is far from over, it may never be over, because there's some fundamental differences in the way people think and believe. Sometimes, as in bad marriages, people are better off apart, because they're incompatible. I agree with some of the stuff they're doing, but as in all things, it is always best to bring in as many wise heads as possible, to come up with the best answers. We have a country of about 300 million people, I'm sure that in that mass of people the best answer can be found
to some of the more pressing issues.

Answer 2

You fight terrorism through solid intelligence work and collaborative policing with allies around the world.

You do NOT label everyone who lives in Iraq as a terrorist, which, if Bush doesn't do that (and I don't think he does), a lot of really stupid Americans do. Some of the folks-on-the-street interviews from all over the country show people saying really stupid things about how to fight terrorism - my favorite was the lady who said she didn't care whether Iraq was involved in 9/11, she just wanted us to bomb people who are from "there".

As someone pointed out in another question I read today, fighting a "war on terrorism" is like fighting a "war on flanking maneuvers". You fight terrorISTS and NOT terrorISM. Terrorism is NOT a political "ism" like communism or fascism with a world view - terrorISM is a METHOD to be countered, not a philosophy to be fought.

Answer 3

Well I would have taken the Trillions and trillions of Dollars we have spent on fighting the war in Iraq and built up a homeland security system unlike anything that has ever been seen before..I would fix all the holes in our security system such as un gaurded borders and airline security would be much much tighter. I would add thousands and thousands of new jobs by training people for security. I would also impose stricter laws on immigration and start a backround check system unlike anything we have ever had...and A trillion dollars would be enough to do that. The best offense is a Good Defense. Going over to a country and dropping bombs creates more terrorists. If I had it my way no person from the middle east would be allowed over here ever again.

Answer 4

Oh, yes, being on the offensive has worked so well hasn't it? And what makes you think we won't/haven't/aren't fighting them on our own soil?

A better idea?

There's a little known concept - at least little known in the Bush administration - called DIPLOMACY.

You actually talk to other countries, even those you don't agree with. You coordinate plans and strategies with other countries, you WORK WITH other countries or people in other countries, to understand what's really going on, to bring about change, and to keep things from getting out of hand. Nixon and Regan did it. Even - surprise - Democrat Presidents did it.

Only Bush refuses to talk with any country that disagrees with him. So, that's a pretty small group he has to work with now, isn't it? Do you think that's been helpful recently?

Another better idea?

There's another exellent concept - also little known or used in the Bush administration - called PLANNING.

You look ahead, anticipate problems that may arise, and plan to try to avoid or to respond appropriately. That has also been used by other presidents, both Republican and Democrat, but not apparently by this administration.

Sometimes I think that Bush is willfully trying to screw things up as much as possible. All this stupidity seems too purposeful.

Answer 5

Bush has done squat! There were no terrorist in Iraq until we let them in!

It is pretty simple actually!

Col Hackworth said this, and he is one of the most honest men I ever met! Jimmy Carter was the other!

And what the hell is terrorism, anyway? It's not a thing; it's not a place; it's not a person. It is a political and military strategy, that's all. Having a 'War On Terrorism' is as ridiculous as having a 'War on Flanking Maneuvers'. You'll end terrorism when there's no longer anything for anybody to get pissed off about."

"As for now, maybe if we looked at why people are pissed at us, we'd begin to understand. Hell, it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong; it's what they perceive that motivates them. What you have to address is why they perceive things as they do. Only then will you start to get a clue. And spare me the bullshit about them hating us because of our freedom. We haven't been truly free in a long time. And now we're letting all this demagoguery convince us to give up what little liberty we have left. Big Brother Lives!"

http://www.hackworth.com/article03112003z.html

You don't create good will when you go to other contries and steal their resources! And the use of troops is useless!

Answer 6

HHHHMmmmmmm isn't that kinda saying someone is guilty before proven innocent. Isn't our whole way of life based on the assumption that we and others are innocent until proven guilty? By using preemptive strikes we are possibly condemning innocent people. It is a very slippery slope we are going down with this kind of fear based diplomacy. Mankind has evolved enough to reason with his fellow man. Violence should be the "LAST" resort! I'm not against fighting but only when its justified, not assumed. With Iran we didn't even come close to exhausting diplomacy.

Answer 7

Good Idea then let's go on the offense.

We have 150,000 men setting around trying to fight a politically correct war.

Officers and staff are living like Kings in the green zone of Badgag and the troops have to follow the daily version of the "rules of engagement"

Just send 3 or 4 million troops and get it over with.

OR use something quicker and get it over with.


Go big Red Go

Answer 8

Have to start in the past:
I would have stayed the course where it was needed at the begining, in Afganistan. I would not have created a terrorist haven the world has never seen by invading a bad, but un-involved country.
What now...we have no choice but to stay because of what was created by a (threat gives me power) president.

By the way if you think we are on the offensive in Iraq or here, you are listening to much and not thinking for your self.

Answer 9

First I would not stage events that start the illegal wars...just for starters..hows that sound?
That in the months prior to September 11, self-described US intelligence operative Delmart Vreeland sought, from a Toronto jail cell, to get US and Canadian authorities to heed his warning of his accidental discovery of impending catastrophic attacks is worthless, since Vreeland was a dubious character, notwithstanding the fact that many of his claims have since been proven true.

That FBI Special Investigator Robert Wright claims that agents assigned to intelligence operations actually protect terrorists from investigation and prosecution, that the FBI shut down his probe into terrorist training camps, and that he was removed from a money-laundering case that had a direct link to terrorism, sounds like yet more sour grapes from a disgruntled employee.

That George Bush had plans to invade Afghanistan on his desk before 9/11 demonstrates only the value of being prepared.

The suggestion that securing a pipeline across Afghanistan figured into the White House’s calculations is as ludicrous as the assertion that oil played a part in determining war in Iraq.

That Afghanistan is once again the world’s principal heroin producer is an unfortunate reality, but to claim the CIA is still actively involved in the narcotics trade is to presume bad faith on the part of the agency.

Mahmood Ahmed, chief of Pakistan’s ISI, must not have authorized an al Qaeda payment of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta days before the attacks, and was not meeting with senior Washington officials over the week of 9/11, because I didn’t read anything about him in the official report.

That Porter Goss met with Ahmed the morning of September 11 in his capacity as Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has no bearing whatsoever upon his recent selection by the White House to head the Central Intelligence Agency.

Answer 10

Quit being the most hated country on earth for starters. The USA thinks everyone in the world must bow down and kiss their royal butts. They stick their noses into everyone elses business and if the US Government doesn't like what another country does then they threaten to invade them or do invade them.

Every country has their sovereign rights so the USA should quit shoving the USA's down everyone elses throat!

Answer 11

We can't fight a war against terror. Terror is a concept, and terrorism is a tactic. Neither of those are ever going away.

We can fight a war against specific terrorist groups, the ones that pose the greatest current threat. Identify those threats, and use efficient strategic plans to target and neutralize specific threats. Don't waste time and money and lives nation-building.

For a start, specific details on implementable plans linked below.