English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Tracking down individuals across the board in co-operations with all the affected countries seems like a better plan then sending in the infantry and 70 ton tanks into Iraq. Even Afghanstan isn't going anywhere and now Pakistan looks like its going to begin to fall apart. Realistically how long can we continue believing that there's a totally military solution for terrorism?

2007-07-20 17:50:06 · 4 answers · asked by Noah H 7 in Politics & Government Politics

4 answers

To some degree it has been and is being treated like a criminal organization.

I think most people would agree that the struggle against Terror Inc. needs a criminal justice, a military, a diplomatic, and a public relations component.

On the criminal justice level, you try to build cases against and arrest suspected terrorists.

On the military level, whenever there is a concentration of terrorists, you try to swoop in and take them out -- especially if they are in a country that has given them sanctuary.

On the diplomatic level, you build alliances where you can for the criminal investigation and you encourage actions by governments to reduce the appeal of these terror groups to the average citizens.

On the public relations level, you emphasize through mediums that reach the average citizens who are potential recruits for these terror groups what you are doing to help make their lives and the lives of other Muslims better.

Of course, the current government has emphasized the military component to such a large level that it has hindered the other components. Hopefully, the next Administration will change that.

2007-07-20 18:02:56 · answer #1 · answered by Tmess2 7 · 0 0

It wouldn't help the cause of the elite.

By having a central bank print curreny that more or less piplines into military spending it serves the bank and the manufactures of mlitary suppiles

The people who make the military machines own the news stations - So then the money that comes from the bank supports the people who make war and educate you on how that war is going -


Oil comes back that is heavily taxed as a false shortage is created generating more income

More importantly that creating an income it also creates an massive short falls in the middle and lower classe's This establish's a nice dependant and constantly broke populus that is too tierd to think or question things like massive military spending on a war that was based on a lie

By having a dumb population just smart enough to go to work and just dependant enough to not complain about anything for fear of being called unpatriotic and so on you have a situation where willing slavery is the norm and absolute rule is necesary to keep order

Gas tax more than 35 % of the price you pay at the pump

Income tax , property tax sales tax hidden tax etc

Of course this creates debt and it may cause a depression but then the price of property will fall and thus be easier to accumulate just as it was in 1929 when the central bank was accused of manipulating a crisis to accumulate then Strangely the matter never went to court

Now do you see why the military war on terro becomes necesary ? This way the elites who have learned to hide from the public since the French revolution can conqquer a base in the middle east while making a profit off the arms thery make and the oil that uses and generates while giving the bill to the general public as the news stations tell you it is a good idea

2007-07-20 18:08:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well, if the United Nations would actually stand behind their resolutions and enforce the laws for the global community, we wouldn't have little snafus like this, would we?

America has faithfully honored every Resolution that the UN has passed. The Middle East not only ignores the resolutions, but openly thumbs their nose at the rest of the world.

A military solution wouldn't be necessary if all parties would come to the table and be willing to work with each other.

This war didn't start until 17 UN resolutions were ignored that would have allowed UN inspectors to intervene.

2007-07-20 17:55:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because it's not really about stopping bad people from doing bad things, but all the convenient political treasures the Bush administration can reap in the process.

2007-07-20 18:20:03 · answer #4 · answered by 1848 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers