If you were the US President, how would you handle Terrorism? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

powerclown · 09-08-2004, 06:37 PM

We all have our opinions pro/con about how the current US administration is handling the situation..

If you were elected President, what would you do?
Be it socially, philosophically, politically, monetarily, militarily, etc etc.

OFKU0 · 09-08-2004, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

If you were elected President, what would you do?

Good question. I really don't know what I would do but I do think in time the collective world leaders, most of them, will come together as one to form a super coalition to change the world order so as to kill all terrorists, known or not in preemptive and defensive strikes rather than stepping on their rights by international law. By the time every country has had it's 9/11, the workings should be in place.

I think I have come to believe that these people's ultimate goal is death, so,..why wait? Kill or be killed unfortunately is the way the world has gone, or is it history repeating itself?

Scipio · 09-08-2004, 07:32 PM

I would start by ending the manifest destiny, good vs. evil, god-is-on-our-side rhetoric and start seeing the world as what it really is. I think a healthy dose of geopolitical realism is critical to a more successful approach.

That said, specifically, I'd invest in actual measures that would improve our responsiveness to terror attacks. Local agencies lack the necessary supplies and equipment (chem/bio suits, medicines, etc.) to handle a serious terror event. I'd take 5 billion of the unspent Iraq money (most of the allocated money in that 60-80 billion dollar reconstruction chunk is unspent) and start buying that stuff tomorrow.

I'd make a priority out of mideast peace. Going into that in any significant specificity is beyond the scope of this post, but any resolution would have to result in mutual satisfaction, two states, and an end to terror attacks.

I'm not sure what else, but those are the first three things that come to mind.

MageB420666 · 09-08-2004, 07:37 PM

I would just say fuck it and bomb the fuck out of any one I didn't like, which is why I will never be President.

Seaver · 09-08-2004, 07:47 PM

The best defense is a good offense. Hunt them down and kill them. Be it full military action against a country, or small highly trained spec ops to go into "friendly" countries and kill them there.

Zeld2.0 · 09-09-2004, 12:21 AM

I would probably seek a long term goal while going with some short term actions first. First would be to increase spending on borders and shipping in and out - the fact that ships can go in and out of port carrying be it people, bombs, hell a nuke and go undetected is scary. And given the number of large cities with ports and access by sea, I feel our patrols there are inadequate right now.

Next I'd adopt a two-fold strategy. First would be negotiations with real rational people. No, not nutjobs, but people in power that are actually sane and willing to negotiate (believe it or not, there are). Promote and help them fight the fringe extreme elements.

Include amnesty to lower ranks of terrorist organizations - in other words, remove the incentive to join and get the real power base, the people that carry the bombs and the ones that fight, to get out quick.

This would go with the other part which would be to send out intelligence agents and spec ops to eliminate the higher officials and those who don't want to give up. Actively hunt and pursue them. Disrupt their work until they give up or are eliminated. Might sound dirty but its a tactic that would sift through those who are really nuts and don't care and those who actually have a sense or rational thought in them.

You promote peace to to remove collateral damage that may hurt the long term in terrorism (such as new recruits over old wounds) and to remove incentives for fighting (if everything is fine, why the hell fight) while you actively seek out and remove those who are funding and leading groups by operatives and bounties. Its one thing to send the military in to find one man while you have a bunch of fighters out there to fight the military - its another to have assassins after you everywhere you go, even threats against your family, while you watch your back everywhere you go because a few billion dollars might be on your head.

Even the hardiest may suffer psychological break downs with that kind of a life

pedro padilla · 09-09-2004, 02:26 AM

number motherfucking 1: i would stop blindly backing the criminal sob´s that stir up all the shit. current US position on israel is about 90% of the problem. pleeze do not tell me i am antisemitic. israel and the US basically stirred up ALL the shit. and, once again, don´t call me antisemetic for comparing the facist, genocidal politrix being used by these clowns to 1 or 2 mustached madmen of some 60 years ago. solve that problem and you´re off to a good start.
numero dos. see numero uno.
where´s all them rock stars that wouldn´t play sun city?

hammer4all · 09-09-2004, 03:25 AM

I would take a look at why anyone would hate the United States government so much that they would be willing to kill themselves. I would look at the legitimate grievances of their supporters and try to address them. I would stop supporting dictators in the region like the Saudi Royal family and encourage the inhabitants to rise up and create their own democracies. I would withdraw military forces from the region and dismantle our many military bases which prop-up these repressive regimes. I would stop sending billions of tax-payer dollars to the Israeli government and support the robust peace movement already within Israel. I would use sophisticated diplomacy and police work to catch terrorists, not bombs and missiles. Lastly, I think we have an obligation to the civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan to pay reparations to them after we completely destroyed their countries.

Arc101 · 09-09-2004, 03:59 AM

Quote:

The best defense is a good offense. Hunt them down and kill them. Be it full military action against a country, or small highly trained spec ops to go into "friendly" countries and kill them there.

Can you tell me when this sort of action has ever worked ? The British tried it against the IRA - that failed. The French tried it against the Algerians - that failed. The Spanish tried it against ETA - that failed.

I have to totally agree with what hammer4all said. He managed to sum it up perfectly.

pedro padilla · 09-09-2004, 04:14 AM

i vote for hammer4all. hit the nail on the head.

phyzix525 · 09-09-2004, 06:25 AM

I think trying to get peace in the middle east is impossible. Since the dawn of time these people have been killing each other. With that mindset these people do not know peace. But if you do beleive the Bible (which I am sure there are a few here) then you will see the prophecy of the 7 years of peace. This is such a big deal to that regions since it has never had peace for so long. The person that puts that treaty together is said to become the anti-christ after suffering from a fatal head wound. So what I am saying is if you want to bring peace to the middle east, be prepared to become the anti-christ.

but seriously it is pointless to think that we can do anything to stop these people from killing unless we stop them first, they will never be happy and if we were to back off the pressure it would only encourage them more cause we would be showing signs of weakness.

Ustwo · 09-09-2004, 06:35 AM

I would do as we are doing.

What I find ironic is the people talking about making the US more secure and I'll bet you these are the same people who whine about the patriot act, gitmo, racial profiling, and every other thing done to fight the war on terror. Look at the size of the US, add to it we are a free society, if you want to hit us IT WILL HAPPEN. We need to be proactive not reactive. We can't build a bunker and hope to catch every nut job if you want to maintain your freedom. As such we nail them, we make them impotent, we remove the governments that support them, and we KILL them.

But we all know war has never solved anything right? (pause for laughter)

98MustGT · 09-09-2004, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammer4all

I would take a look at why anyone would hate the United States government so much that they would be willing to kill themselves. I would look at the legitimate grievances of their supporters and try to address them. I would stop supporting dictators in the region like the Saudi Royal family and encourage the inhabitants to rise up and create their own democracies. I would withdraw military forces from the region and dismantle our many military bases which prop-up these repressive regimes. I would stop sending billions of tax-payer dollars to the Israeli government and support the robust peace movement already within Israel. I would use sophisticated diplomacy and police work to catch terrorists, not bombs and missiles. Lastly, I think we have an obligation to the civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan to pay reparations to them after we completely destroyed their countries.

Suppose we addressed their grievences, withdrew support from dictators and supported the Israel peace movement etc. and we still come under attack from terrorists. What would be the next step?

Strange Famous · 09-09-2004, 10:43 AM

I would solve terrorism by removing the causes of terrorism.

Ultimately this means the destruction of the capitalist and feudalist state, the introduction of a socialist society in each state and then across the world, the re-education of the working class.

In the short term... I would give food and aid to the poor people of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and so on... I would support the working class movement in these countries and frustrate the capitalists and ruling classes... I would fill Iraq with books and food and hope.. not bombs and guns and religious civil war. I would not seek to kill Bin Laden... I would seek to give the opressed and discontent youth to which he speaks a true vision of what a man Bin Laden is... a vainglorious hate monger and bigot, and irrelevance, a fossil of an age of tribalism and holy wars... the working class must be encouraged to move beyond such figures... the Israeli and Palestinian people must be free of constant terror, those who hate us must be met with peace and the simple truth of our situation.

We live in an age where we possess weapons that in a single day could destroy 35% of the population of the earth, and another thrid should be dead in a year... we live in an age of atomic bombs.... we CANNOT continue to fight, it is not possible... if we cannot abandon war, terror, all forms of organised violence, then we are all lost, Jew, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh... all of us. We must chose between peace or destruction, life or death,,, it is no longer a question of bravery... it is a questionm of the survival of our species on this plannet. The stakes must be understood by all... if we cannot abandon our violence, we shall not survive,

Ustwo · 09-09-2004, 10:54 AM

SF - You do know that the people arn't starving and that poverty and capitalism have nothing to do with this? Also how would you get rid of the government in places like Syria? People arn't killing themselves with bombs strapped to their bodies because they are poor here and opressed by the evil capitalists of your nightmares.

ARTelevision · 09-09-2004, 11:00 AM

This is a military problem with a military solution.

Diplomacy is part of what governments do. Diplomacy always continues to assist problem solving as applicable.

hammer4all · 09-09-2004, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 98MustGT

Suppose we addressed their grievences, withdrew support from dictators and supported the Israel peace movement etc. and we still come under attack from terrorists. What would be the next step?

That seems highly unlikely. Without good reasons to attack us, they become just common criminals and lose their passive supporters. Now you have a local population on your side, which is much more likely to turn them in through diplomacy and police work.

Zeld2.0 · 09-09-2004, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

This is a military problem with a military solution.

Diplomacy is part of what governments do. Diplomacy always continues to assist problem solving as applicable.

Diplomacy and military problems have long been intertwined - I don't see how they are or should be separated.

And dismissing the MidEast as impossible for peace given their history - well, let me put it this way, when the entire area was once under a single empire (Ottoman) for example, thigns were fine for many years

And of course, in truth, no period of humanity has ever been free of war or conflict - indeed, one would be hard pressed to find a period in human history where 25 years of peace ever even existed.

Ironically this reminds me of another method that diplomacy can work in keeping peace - after the Napoleonic Wars, the major powers created the Concert of Europe in order to keep balance and keep checks on power of each empire in Europe to prevent another Napoleon from rising.

Which, IMO, would be something one could do in the Mid East - the governments more or less have been united against Israel as well as united on oil issues. Why not find a way to turn them against each other? Not necessarily in war but to turn their attention away from Israel and the West and instead towards one another.

If they're going to kill anyone, let it be themselves

Strange Famous · 09-09-2004, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

SF - You do know that the people arn't starving and that poverty and capitalism have nothing to do with this? Also how would you get rid of the government in places like Syria? People arn't killing themselves with bombs strapped to their bodies because they are poor here and opressed by the evil capitalists of your nightmares.

Do you think someone is so hopeless and filled with hate that they will kill themselves just to kill an imagined enemy at the same time because they are very happy with their lot? It is true that there is not a large portion of the worlds population which is starving (but some are) - but many people are hopeless and denied a basic quality of life and human dignity. Saudi Arabia is a country of incredible wealth where most people are very poor - THIS is what makes terrorists... to overthrow their government would not be the right path, it would only lead to nationalistic hate and terror... the course I recomend is to support the working class and egalitarian movements in each country.

I would buy oil from a socialist co-operative of the Saudi people before I buy it from some billionaire prince.

Stare At The Sun · 09-09-2004, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 98MustGT

Suppose we addressed their grievences, withdrew support from dictators and supported the Israel peace movement etc. and we still come under attack from terrorists. What would be the next step?

Bin Laden himself was quoted as saying that maybe if america wasn't so supportive of the Jews, they would not attack us. I don't have a link or anything, but, i'll look.

back to the orginal topic:

I'd cut our support to Israel. And until they stopped bullying the nations around them, they would be denounced by the US, and I would try and get the UN to enforce embargo's against them. I seriously think this is the root of the problem.

Strange Famous · 09-09-2004, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stare At The Sun

Bin Laden himself was quoted as saying that maybe if america wasn't so supportive of the Jews, they would not attack us. I don't have a link or anything, but, i'll look.

back to the orginal topic:

I'd cut our support to Israel. And until they stopped bullying the nations around them, they would be denounced by the US, and I would try and get the UN to enforce embargo's against them. I seriously think this is the root of the problem.

I am going to be careful here....

You also thought that Hitler had some admiral qualities, and claimed that the holocaust was vastly overstated and that you did not believe anything like 5.5 million Jews were murdered.

I dont want to make any further comment, everyone must draw their own conclusions about it.

gibingus · 09-09-2004, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I would do as we are doing.

What I find ironic is the people talking about making the US more secure and I'll bet you these are the same people who whine about the patriot act, gitmo, racial profiling, and every other thing done to fight the war on terror. Look at the size of the US, add to it we are a free society, if you want to hit us IT WILL HAPPEN. We need to be proactive not reactive. We can't build a bunker and hope to catch every nut job if you want to maintain your freedom. As such we nail them, we make them impotent, we remove the governments that support them, and we KILL them.

But we all know war has never solved anything right? (pause for laughter)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This is a military problem with a military solution.

Diplomacy is part of what governments do. Diplomacy always continues to assist problem solving as applicable.)

By this reasoning, we should moblize V Corps against those who stalk and kill doctors at planned parenthood clinics in our own country.

the administration's marketing campaign has successfully linked 'terrorists' with the middle east for most of us. terrorism is a tactic, it is not exclusive to any group or creed. there are plenty of terrorists outside of the middle east, in places like chechnya for instance, and they all have different motives and agendas. all nations live with the threat of terrorism, and have lived with it for a very long time.

giving up pieces of our freedom is not the price of living in a free society. you needn't study philosophy to recognize this obvious paradox.

there is a big difference between militants and military. i do not think that terrorism is military problem, although i might agree if it had been said that it is a martial problem. use of force is warranted, but i prefer to think of it in terms of a policing rather than invading and conquering.

as president, the first thing i would do to fight the war on terror is to declare an end to the war on terror. the semantics and manipulation of our citizens by pork-bellied politicians peddling fear would be deep-sixed instantly. fear is the product of terrorism, our own politicians are doing the work of terrorists so they don't have to.

as president, i would not go declaring war on anything, that's a job for congress. i would look to find what went amiss with our existing agencies and repair them and then restructure and recommit to our global efforts to maintain peace and order so that nations can engage in profitable commerce.

finally, as president, i would declare a hard and fast moritorium on all non-secular agendas. there would be zero consideration for any religious persuasion: whatever individuals want to believe is fine, but the government treats all beliefs with equal respect and all cultures with dignity. my administration would stop playing cold war domino games.

Ustwo · 09-09-2004, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

I am going to be careful here....

You also thought that Hitler had some admiral qualities, and claimed that the holocaust was vastly overstated and that you did not believe anything like 5.5 million Jews were murdered.

I dont want to make any further comment, everyone must draw their own conclusions about it.

QUIT MAKING ME AGREE WITH YOU

filtherton · 09-09-2004, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 98MustGT

Suppose we addressed their grievences, withdrew support from dictators and supported the Israel peace movement etc. and we still come under attack from terrorists. What would be the next step?

Suppose we keep doing the same shit we're doing right now and we still get hit, what would be your next step?

powerclown · 09-09-2004, 12:40 PM

for the record, im with roosevelt and art in this respect.
("walk softly, but carry a big stick")

*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stare At The Sun

I'd cut our support to Israel. And until they stopped bullying the nations around them, they would be denounced by the US, and I would try and get the UN to enforce embargo's against them. I seriously think this is the root of the problem.

If it wasn't for Israel, Saddam Hussein would have had a nuclear arsenal to go along with his chemical one. Bad for everyone in the neighborhood. Now, iran (ie., that fundamentalist islamic-ruled country) is on the brink of obtaining nukes.

Ustwo · 09-09-2004, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Suppose we keep doing the same shit we're doing right now and we still get hit, what would be your next step?

Take out Syria and Iran

OpieCunningham · 09-09-2004, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

If it wasn't for Israel, Saddam Hussein would have had a nuclear arsenal. Bad for everyone in the neighborhood. Now, iran (ie., that fundamentalist islamic-ruled country) is on the brink of obtaining nukes.

If we're going to imagine a world without Israel - then let's be clear that without Israel, we'd have a far less defensive-minded Middle East in general.

If it weren't for Israel having nukes, Iran wouldn't be on the brink of obtaining them.

OpieCunningham · 09-09-2004, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Take out Syria and Iran

When you say "take out" do you mean install a secular democracy which we can't even do in Iraq - which _was_ secular? Or do you mean kill everyone until they all start supporting the one guy who is really nice and kind and bakes cookies in his spare time?

gibingus · 09-09-2004, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Take out Syria and Iran

and what would replace them? have you no respect for other nations or cultures? are you surprised that those nations and cultures find this type of attitude threatening?

...and don't give me any of that 'they started it' crap.

gibingus · 09-09-2004, 01:15 PM

i started a new thread for the israel tangent here:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=68526

powerclown · 09-09-2004, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

If we're going to imagine a world without Israel - then let's be clear that without Israel, we'd have a far less defensive-minded Middle East in general.

If it weren't for Israel having nukes, Iran wouldn't be on the brink of obtaining them.

I would argue that Israel is the perfect excuse necessary for every dictatorship in the m.e. to 1) foment hate, and thereby remaining popular with their people to stay in power and retain their domes, 2) keep their societies barbaric, broken and dysfuntional. (except for bahrain, which hosts a formula one race now

)

The only thing the dictators in the m.e. hate more than israel is each other, which explains the continued existence of 5 million israels against 200 million arabs surrounding them on all sides. I see israel as god's micro-experiment where he is testing the resilience of a tiny, civilized, intelligent society pitted against the barbarian hordes. Im a big fan of the underdog, and a big fan of israel.

I just read today that the emir of kuwait is staying in the same hospital as clinton, and for the same reason. Everyone over there loves to hate the corrupt, infidel US, but whenever they're in need of the state of the art, they hop on the fastest plane bound for america.

Ustwo · 09-09-2004, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gibingus

and what would replace them? have you no respect for other nations or cultures? are you surprised that those nations and cultures find this type of attitude threatening?

...and don't give me any of that 'they started it' crap.

Cultures which foster hate, terrorism, and ignorance must go. Period. Its not some quiant thing we can all look at and not be affected by. Don't give me any 'we need to understand them better' crap.

filtherton · 09-09-2004, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Take out Syria and Iran

Yeah, now you're thinking rationally. Ustwo, ever the master baiter.

Ustwo · 09-09-2004, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

When you say "take out" do you mean install a secular democracy which we can't even do in Iraq - which _was_ secular? Or do you mean kill everyone until they all start supporting the one guy who is really nice and kind and bakes cookies in his spare time?

Do you give up on tasks in your life quickly? How long do you think it takes to change a government? Jesus you would think we thought we could walk in and they would be having fair elections the next day.

OpieCunningham · 09-09-2004, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I would argue that Israel is the perfect excuse necessary for every dictatorship in the m.e. to 1) foment hate, and thereby remaining popular with their people to stay in power and retain their domes, 2) keep their societies barbaric, broken and dysfuntional. (except for bahrain, which hosts a formula one race now

)

If we're going to discuss the why's and wherefore's of the continued existence of dictatorships in the Middle East, then let's be clear that without Western financial and military support, they wouldn't.

OpieCunningham · 09-09-2004, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Do you give up on tasks in your life quickly? How long do you think it takes to change a government? Jesus you would think we thought we could walk in and they would be having fair elections the next day.

Do you ever admit failure or do you just continue attempting to succeed in the face of set back after set back after set back without adjusting your strategy?

I was led to believe (although I never did) that we would be "welcomed as liberators". If that is not the statement of a belief that setting up a secular democracy in Iraq would be cake, I don't know what is.

Should I give you 10 years to fight in Iraq and establish democracy? How about 50 years?

How about if you prove it can work before you go around suggesting it be tried in other countries?

I want proof of concept. So far, the original PNAC concept has failed - there is no question of that. I have seen little to no adjustment in the PNAC strategy to deal with that failure. So why am I to believe that success is inevitable?

Rdr4evr · 09-09-2004, 01:32 PM

edited for rudeness

mml · 09-09-2004, 01:35 PM

There is really no simple answer to this question, which is why neither candiate for President has a difinitive plan. My personal opinion is that the "War on Terror" is much like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty". Both of those "wars" have been going on for many years, and there is no end in sight. This is not a real war, and like Bush said in a brief moment of clarity we can control it, reduce it but we will never truly win it.(Too bad he turned around the next day and said he was misunderstood. Kerry too pushes this line of BS)

If I were elected, I would work to ensure the complete funding of Homeland Security Measures, helping to decrease the likelihood of attack (better equipment, computers, border and port security etc...) and to help ensure first responders (Police, Fire, Hospitals, National Guard units etc...) are properly funded and trained.

Additionally, I would work to streamline and improve intelligence gathering both technology and human based, implementing much of the 9/11 Commission's reccomendations.

While I do not feel the Iraq war originally had anything to do with the "War on Terror", it certainly is a breeding ground now, so I would be forced to continue on in Iraq, helping to develop, train and finance a new military, police force, border patrol, intelligence branch etc... in order to create a stable government. We will need to work as quickly as possible towards legitimate elections, and it will be necessary to boost economic development within Iraq. I would work to smooth relations with the international community in hope(although rather slim hope) that we may get some form of assistance, financial, military.... I would be willing to give up large, exclusive U.S. reconstruction projects in order to get more international support.

It is also important to refocus on Afganistan where we do have Int'l support and assistance. We need to ensure that it does not slip back into chaos or even worse, back to the Taliban who are making a resurgence.

We also need to make a larger issue of Al-Qaida again. I would like to continue to aggressive pursuit of Al-Qaida operatives, but would like to see the capture of bin Laudin as a priority once again. He is a key figure for terrorists to rally around, and while he may become a martyr if killed, at least his charismatic leadership will be gone.

It is also truly important that we strengthen our policy on nuclear non-proliferation and ensure the security of exsisting nuclear weapons both here and abroad (particularly in Russia and other former Soviet republics). This includes working on solutions to the North Korean (who will sell anyone a missle) and Iranian nuclear development programs.

We must also be willing to use force when needed. I am not completely against a "preemptive" strike, but it must be done only when we are certain and there is an honest, impending threat. The invasion of Iraq is an embarrassment and only eats away at the valid points of the "Bush Doctrine". Covert operations, legal and police actions and cooperation with foreign governments are still the most effective tools against terrorism, but if that terrorism is or becomes "State Sponsored" as in Afganistan, and we cannot come to terms with that nation, we should strike to prevent attack on our citizens and soil.

There is no easy answer, and there are many areas I have skipped or missed. I believe in securing the homeland, increasing intelligence, expanding diplomacy and, like others have said "carrrying a damn, big stick".

Strange Famous · 09-09-2004, 01:41 PM

I always agreed with France's official answer to the UK on nuclear weapons: "we are glad that now that the UK had atomic weapons that have decided that no one needs them"

You surely can only be for or against nuclear weapons... to think some countries can have them and some cant just doesnt make sense to me.

And lets not forget, there is only one nation who has ver used atomic weapons against a civilian population.

jb2000 · 09-09-2004, 01:48 PM

1) Identify and isolate the enemy. A War on Terror? Let's make it a War on Terrorists instead. Define terrorism (the US government's current definition is so vague as to be useless as a definition, but very useful in applying to whomever you feel like that day). Define terrorists. Apply universally, and uphold the standard yourself.

2) Identify and highlight your allies. Respect their situations and be ready to assist them in the ways they need it, not just the ways you may want to. Make sure the mission is clear and that they are on board with the goal.

3) Engage in quick, effective attacks against the identified enemy. Do not get into protracted conflicts. Do not allow your forces to be diverted to efforts that do not make sufficient progress towards success. Pursue constantly and effectively to prevent the enemy from taking his liesure.

In short, isolate those who engage in such acts as rogues and out of acceptable norms for not only our society, but any society. To do so takes a commitment on our part to making violence only acceptable as a last resort, not a solution of convenience. So long as we allow violence to remain an acceptable option when diplomatic or other efforts are frustrated, then we will have to face violent threats.

Those who we detain should be expeditiously exposed to our justice system. Those that are guilty will serve their sentences and those who are not will be released, which is the least any human being arrested for something they are not guilty for should have the right to expect.

Making up vague or indiscriminate definitions for terrorists or unlawful combatants or whatever and not employing ourselves directly serves only to muddy the waters, cause questioning of our moral authority and enhance options of our enemies.

We must neutralize terrorists and their organizations. We are not doing well at all at this right now, and the sooner we change our tack, the better.

09-08-2004, 06:37 PM	#1 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	If you were the US President, how would you handle Terrorism? We all have our opinions pro/con about how the current US administration is handling the situation.. If you were elected President, what would you do? Be it socially, philosophically, politically, monetarily, militarily, etc etc.

09-08-2004, 07:32 PM	#3 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	I would start by ending the manifest destiny, good vs. evil, god-is-on-our-side rhetoric and start seeing the world as what it really is. I think a healthy dose of geopolitical realism is critical to a more successful approach. That said, specifically, I'd invest in actual measures that would improve our responsiveness to terror attacks. Local agencies lack the necessary supplies and equipment (chem/bio suits, medicines, etc.) to handle a serious terror event. I'd take 5 billion of the unspent Iraq money (most of the allocated money in that 60-80 billion dollar reconstruction chunk is unspent) and start buying that stuff tomorrow. I'd make a priority out of mideast peace. Going into that in any significant specificity is beyond the scope of this post, but any resolution would have to result in mutual satisfaction, two states, and an end to terror attacks. I'm not sure what else, but those are the first three things that come to mind. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

09-08-2004, 07:37 PM	#4 (permalink)
MageB420666 <Insert wise statement here> Location: Hell if I know	I would just say fuck it and bomb the fuck out of any one I didn't like, which is why I will never be President. __________________ Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

09-09-2004, 03:25 AM	#8 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	I would take a look at why anyone would hate the United States government so much that they would be willing to kill themselves. I would look at the legitimate grievances of their supporters and try to address them. I would stop supporting dictators in the region like the Saudi Royal family and encourage the inhabitants to rise up and create their own democracies. I would withdraw military forces from the region and dismantle our many military bases which prop-up these repressive regimes. I would stop sending billions of tax-payer dollars to the Israeli government and support the robust peace movement already within Israel. I would use sophisticated diplomacy and police work to catch terrorists, not bombs and missiles. Lastly, I think we have an obligation to the civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan to pay reparations to them after we completely destroyed their countries. Last edited by hammer4all; 09-09-2004 at 03:35 AM..

09-09-2004, 06:25 AM	#11 (permalink)
phyzix525 Psycho Location: Broken Arrow, OK	I think trying to get peace in the middle east is impossible. Since the dawn of time these people have been killing each other. With that mindset these people do not know peace. But if you do beleive the Bible (which I am sure there are a few here) then you will see the prophecy of the 7 years of peace. This is such a big deal to that regions since it has never had peace for so long. The person that puts that treaty together is said to become the anti-christ after suffering from a fatal head wound. So what I am saying is if you want to bring peace to the middle east, be prepared to become the anti-christ. but seriously it is pointless to think that we can do anything to stop these people from killing unless we stop them first, they will never be happy and if we were to back off the pressure it would only encourage them more cause we would be showing signs of weakness. __________________ It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time It's hard to remember to live before you die It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

09-08-2004, 07:47 PM	#5 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	The best defense is a good offense. Hunt them down and kill them. Be it full military action against a country, or small highly trained spec ops to go into "friendly" countries and kill them there.

09-09-2004, 12:21 AM	#6 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	I would probably seek a long term goal while going with some short term actions first. First would be to increase spending on borders and shipping in and out - the fact that ships can go in and out of port carrying be it people, bombs, hell a nuke and go undetected is scary. And given the number of large cities with ports and access by sea, I feel our patrols there are inadequate right now. Next I'd adopt a two-fold strategy. First would be negotiations with real rational people. No, not nutjobs, but people in power that are actually sane and willing to negotiate (believe it or not, there are). Promote and help them fight the fringe extreme elements. Include amnesty to lower ranks of terrorist organizations - in other words, remove the incentive to join and get the real power base, the people that carry the bombs and the ones that fight, to get out quick. This would go with the other part which would be to send out intelligence agents and spec ops to eliminate the higher officials and those who don't want to give up. Actively hunt and pursue them. Disrupt their work until they give up or are eliminated. Might sound dirty but its a tactic that would sift through those who are really nuts and don't care and those who actually have a sense or rational thought in them. You promote peace to to remove collateral damage that may hurt the long term in terrorism (such as new recruits over old wounds) and to remove incentives for fighting (if everything is fine, why the hell fight) while you actively seek out and remove those who are funding and leading groups by operatives and bounties. Its one thing to send the military in to find one man while you have a bunch of fighters out there to fight the military - its another to have assassins after you everywhere you go, even threats against your family, while you watch your back everywhere you go because a few billion dollars might be on your head. Even the hardiest may suffer psychological break downs with that kind of a life

09-09-2004, 02:26 AM	#7 (permalink)
pedro padilla Insane	number motherfucking 1: i would stop blindly backing the criminal sob´s that stir up all the shit. current US position on israel is about 90% of the problem. pleeze do not tell me i am antisemitic. israel and the US basically stirred up ALL the shit. and, once again, don´t call me antisemetic for comparing the facist, genocidal politrix being used by these clowns to 1 or 2 mustached madmen of some 60 years ago. solve that problem and you´re off to a good start. numero dos. see numero uno. where´s all them rock stars that wouldn´t play sun city?

09-09-2004, 04:14 AM	#10 (permalink)
pedro padilla Insane	i vote for hammer4all. hit the nail on the head.

09-09-2004, 06:35 AM	#12 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I would do as we are doing. What I find ironic is the people talking about making the US more secure and I'll bet you these are the same people who whine about the patriot act, gitmo, racial profiling, and every other thing done to fight the war on terror. Look at the size of the US, add to it we are a free society, if you want to hit us IT WILL HAPPEN. We need to be proactive not reactive. We can't build a bunker and hope to catch every nut job if you want to maintain your freedom. As such we nail them, we make them impotent, we remove the governments that support them, and we KILL them. But we all know war has never solved anything right? (pause for laughter) __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-09-2004, 10:43 AM	#14 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I would solve terrorism by removing the causes of terrorism. Ultimately this means the destruction of the capitalist and feudalist state, the introduction of a socialist society in each state and then across the world, the re-education of the working class. In the short term... I would give food and aid to the poor people of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and so on... I would support the working class movement in these countries and frustrate the capitalists and ruling classes... I would fill Iraq with books and food and hope.. not bombs and guns and religious civil war. I would not seek to kill Bin Laden... I would seek to give the opressed and discontent youth to which he speaks a true vision of what a man Bin Laden is... a vainglorious hate monger and bigot, and irrelevance, a fossil of an age of tribalism and holy wars... the working class must be encouraged to move beyond such figures... the Israeli and Palestinian people must be free of constant terror, those who hate us must be met with peace and the simple truth of our situation. We live in an age where we possess weapons that in a single day could destroy 35% of the population of the earth, and another thrid should be dead in a year... we live in an age of atomic bombs.... we CANNOT continue to fight, it is not possible... if we cannot abandon war, terror, all forms of organised violence, then we are all lost, Jew, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh... all of us. We must chose between peace or destruction, life or death,,, it is no longer a question of bravery... it is a questionm of the survival of our species on this plannet. The stakes must be understood by all... if we cannot abandon our violence, we shall not survive, __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

09-09-2004, 10:54 AM	#15 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	SF - You do know that the people arn't starving and that poverty and capitalism have nothing to do with this? Also how would you get rid of the government in places like Syria? People arn't killing themselves with bombs strapped to their bodies because they are poor here and opressed by the evil capitalists of your nightmares. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-09-2004, 11:00 AM	#16 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	This is a military problem with a military solution. Diplomacy is part of what governments do. Diplomacy always continues to assist problem solving as applicable. __________________ create evolution

09-09-2004, 01:15 PM	#30 (permalink)
gibingus Insane Location: 38° 51' N 77° 2' W	i started a new thread for the israel tangent here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=68526 __________________ if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking.

09-09-2004, 01:32 PM	#37 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	edited for rudeness Last edited by Lebell; 09-09-2004 at 02:02 PM.. Reason: Rudeness to another member

09-09-2004, 01:35 PM	#38 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	There is really no simple answer to this question, which is why neither candiate for President has a difinitive plan. My personal opinion is that the "War on Terror" is much like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty". Both of those "wars" have been going on for many years, and there is no end in sight. This is not a real war, and like Bush said in a brief moment of clarity we can control it, reduce it but we will never truly win it.(Too bad he turned around the next day and said he was misunderstood. Kerry too pushes this line of BS) If I were elected, I would work to ensure the complete funding of Homeland Security Measures, helping to decrease the likelihood of attack (better equipment, computers, border and port security etc...) and to help ensure first responders (Police, Fire, Hospitals, National Guard units etc...) are properly funded and trained. Additionally, I would work to streamline and improve intelligence gathering both technology and human based, implementing much of the 9/11 Commission's reccomendations. While I do not feel the Iraq war originally had anything to do with the "War on Terror", it certainly is a breeding ground now, so I would be forced to continue on in Iraq, helping to develop, train and finance a new military, police force, border patrol, intelligence branch etc... in order to create a stable government. We will need to work as quickly as possible towards legitimate elections, and it will be necessary to boost economic development within Iraq. I would work to smooth relations with the international community in hope(although rather slim hope) that we may get some form of assistance, financial, military.... I would be willing to give up large, exclusive U.S. reconstruction projects in order to get more international support. It is also important to refocus on Afganistan where we do have Int'l support and assistance. We need to ensure that it does not slip back into chaos or even worse, back to the Taliban who are making a resurgence. We also need to make a larger issue of Al-Qaida again. I would like to continue to aggressive pursuit of Al-Qaida operatives, but would like to see the capture of bin Laudin as a priority once again. He is a key figure for terrorists to rally around, and while he may become a martyr if killed, at least his charismatic leadership will be gone. It is also truly important that we strengthen our policy on nuclear non-proliferation and ensure the security of exsisting nuclear weapons both here and abroad (particularly in Russia and other former Soviet republics). This includes working on solutions to the North Korean (who will sell anyone a missle) and Iranian nuclear development programs. We must also be willing to use force when needed. I am not completely against a "preemptive" strike, but it must be done only when we are certain and there is an honest, impending threat. The invasion of Iraq is an embarrassment and only eats away at the valid points of the "Bush Doctrine". Covert operations, legal and police actions and cooperation with foreign governments are still the most effective tools against terrorism, but if that terrorism is or becomes "State Sponsored" as in Afganistan, and we cannot come to terms with that nation, we should strike to prevent attack on our citizens and soil. There is no easy answer, and there are many areas I have skipped or missed. I believe in securing the homeland, increasing intelligence, expanding diplomacy and, like others have said "carrrying a damn, big stick". Last edited by mml; 09-09-2004 at 01:40 PM..

09-09-2004, 01:41 PM	#39 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I always agreed with France's official answer to the UK on nuclear weapons: "we are glad that now that the UK had atomic weapons that have decided that no one needs them" You surely can only be for or against nuclear weapons... to think some countries can have them and some cant just doesnt make sense to me. And lets not forget, there is only one nation who has ver used atomic weapons against a civilian population. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

09-09-2004, 01:48 PM	#40 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	1) Identify and isolate the enemy. A War on Terror? Let's make it a War on Terrorists instead. Define terrorism (the US government's current definition is so vague as to be useless as a definition, but very useful in applying to whomever you feel like that day). Define terrorists. Apply universally, and uphold the standard yourself. 2) Identify and highlight your allies. Respect their situations and be ready to assist them in the ways they need it, not just the ways you may want to. Make sure the mission is clear and that they are on board with the goal. 3) Engage in quick, effective attacks against the identified enemy. Do not get into protracted conflicts. Do not allow your forces to be diverted to efforts that do not make sufficient progress towards success. Pursue constantly and effectively to prevent the enemy from taking his liesure. In short, isolate those who engage in such acts as rogues and out of acceptable norms for not only our society, but any society. To do so takes a commitment on our part to making violence only acceptable as a last resort, not a solution of convenience. So long as we allow violence to remain an acceptable option when diplomatic or other efforts are frustrated, then we will have to face violent threats. Those who we detain should be expeditiously exposed to our justice system. Those that are guilty will serve their sentences and those who are not will be released, which is the least any human being arrested for something they are not guilty for should have the right to expect. Making up vague or indiscriminate definitions for terrorists or unlawful combatants or whatever and not employing ourselves directly serves only to muddy the waters, cause questioning of our moral authority and enhance options of our enemies. We must neutralize terrorists and their organizations. We are not doing well at all at this right now, and the sooner we change our tack, the better.