jconnolly

Assuming this is post-9/11 and pre-Afghan occupation, what steps would you have taken to combat terrorism? It seems that not many people have consolidated their views on the subject. Short of pulling out the Middle East entirely and giving into the insane demands of the terrorists (paying Iraq reparations for sanctions, abandoning Israel), most of the isolationists have not thought about what would happen if the fight was brought to our doorstep, anyway.

So, what should we have done? Convinced France and Russia to give up interest in the benefits Iraq has been providing them with? Should we have invaded Afghanistan at all? Share your thoughts.

MSD

I'd have to have all those classified intelligence reports to make a good decision. I woulnd't have said you're with us or against us, I would've stuck with the policy that any government that supports terrorists will not be placed in a separate group from those terrorists, and that any terrorists would be dealt with in whatever way I see fit that is authorized by Congress.

cthulu23

This is less how I would do it and more of a politically realistic yet sane aproach to combating terrorism:

The invasion of Afghanistan was a given. Instead of putting a token force there and reserving the rest for action in Iraq, I would concentrate on Afghanistan and actually do something to improve life there (hopefully buying some Arab good will). I would treat "enemy combatants" fairly and in accordance with our own justice system to illustrate that we really do have a equitable system of justice no matter how the lust for revenge may rise up.

Instead of blowing billions in Iraq, I would use the funds guaranteed by 9-11 sentiment to step up international loans and aid to countries that worked with us to combat terrorists in their midsts. I would probably rattle sabers at recalitrant countries a bit, but I would not use terms like "crusade" or "axis of evil" or any other terms that made my leadership seem juvenile and two dimensional.

I would step up border securiy, particulalry at ports where the majority of cargo comes in, and I would also tighten the enforcement of immigration policies such as making sure those with student visas are actually in school, etc. I would not deport aging former pop stars (except maybe Stevie Nicks) nor would I roll back citizens protections from law enforcement abuses. Access to library records would not have helped prevent 9-11 and the American people have the right to know if the police have been serching their house except under the most extreme cases (cases where "sneak and peek" was allowed prior to the Patriot Act).

I could go on and on, but I hope that you get the point.

Edit: I had to comment on this.

So it's either invade Iraq or abandon the Middle East entirely? Where does that idea come from? And since when did anti-Iraq war sentiment become "isolationist?" The fight WAS brought to our doorstep and for some reason we spent the majority of our military might and all of our political capital on a country that had nothing to do with it.

jconnolly

It never did become Iraq or isolationist. You're pulling the quote out of context and setting up a strawman.

Edit: Response to below -

It was meant simply as an example, a throw out - have the advocates for isolationism thought of how we would fight a war on terror if isolationism didn't work? Therefore, I am asking how they, and people from the pro-Iraq war, pro-France/Russia involvement or pro-whatever camps would deal with terror.

cthulu23

That's what your statement seemed to say, although portions of it have been edited since I commented. I still think it reads the same way. You said:

Please correct my interpretation if it's wrong because the sentence is a little unclear.

Edit: I can see that you never mentioned the invasion of Iraq in your statement. I occasionally have to remind myself of what happens when one assumes.

cthulu23

I'm curious who it is you are accusing of isolationism. Off the top of my head, I can't place anyone who thinks that isolationism is the right way to deal with terrorism.

Sun Tzu

What is the common thought on the reasons WHY the fight was brought to "our" doorstep?

Without going into specifics; I don't believe its hatred of the freedoms this consitutional republic has.

One frame of thought is who cares the US was attacked thats enough for me----kill'm all

Another is investigating the reasons that fuel this area of terrorism. It doesnt mean one has to agree or disagree.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

smooth

By 'our' doorstep, I'm going to assume you mean the world trade center and proceed from that premise:

From what I've read and heard others speak about, the WTC was a signifier of global capitalism. This economic force has been increasingly sweeping across the Middle East for the past few decades and forms the backbone of what some people refer to as neo-colonialism.

Neo-colonialism, as I understand it, is the use of economic might rather than military force to colonize foreign regions. This force is more strong and more insidious than military force since wraps various cultures in our Western, capitalist hegemon in ways that military battles can not do. That is, one can fight military forces, but not so readily ideology--especially when that ideology is infused in the ways we conduct ourselves in everyday life and appears to be part of the natural ordering of human interaction.

It would follow that people would want to strike a signifier of power that is warping their culture, economic structures, and everyday interactions into an alien and unwanted form. The 'freedoms' people refer to when they speak about our particular flavor of freedom are things like capitalism and individualism (as if those should be separated, given that one myth buttresses the other).

That would be my quick summation of why the site was chosen as well as what they mean when they fight against our 'freedoms' and what people are referencing when they want to defend those 'freedoms.'

What seems to be lost on many people is that our freedoms, in that respect, are not being threatened. They are the dominant cultural and economic paradigm. Our freedoms are on the offensive, not defensive, side of spread throughout the globe. Underdeveloped nations are fighting against this movement in defense of their own, local patterns of interaction.

Interestingly, the main threat to whatever freedoms we conjure when we think of that signifier comes internally. As our nation's politics and organizational features slide rightward, we begin to align ourselves with the right-thinking radical muslims. Remember: their factions are so compelling and enticing due to the safety in maintaining status quo--just like we are experiencing now in our current cutural climate.

This would be the single most damaging blow to our system of governance and culture that I would point out--so far it's been extremely effective. I pointed out in some long-lost thread that I would be very surprised if we witnessed another large-scale, violent attack on our domestic soil very soon. If my analysis is even partially correct, any moves on their part would undermine the current slide our nation is engaging in--a slide toward increased centralization of government, increased scrutiny and observation of its citizenry, a plea to return into our body politic a fundamentalist strand of religion, and a type of funnel vision that has so far alienated us from some of the oldest (and arguably the most democratized) civilizations on the planet.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

powerclown

All depends on how Iraq works out, just got to keep on with it. If it goes bust, the reputation and stature of the US around the world will take a terrible blow. I understand that many would welcome this, but I think it could lead to conflict, revolt and instability for all, on an unprecedented scale.

Stay the course, maintain the fight, and establish a stable, democractic Iraq. No other choice at this point.

Ustwo

Short term, kill them.

Long term, bring democracy to the region.

__________________
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.

cthulu23

Is this humor? If not, can't you see that there is a possible conflict between the first goal and the second? They may not be so apt to take our "gift" of democracy after we've just finished military action in the region.

pedro padilla

get your ass over there now. You the man. Save us from this imminent threat. But please take GW, Dick, Rummy and all your other couch surfing weekend warriors with you. Are you really as dim as you make us believe? Stirring up shit for the sake of it? Halliburton employee? I can´t believe they let the criminally insane on the net in institutions so it must be one of the former.

Combat terrorism? America taught the bunch of em. When the Taliban and Osama were fighting the russians in Afghanistan, along side the CIA, with American provided arms and deep bank accounts, they were our freedom fighting pals. Shit, when Bush was giving them the key to the city of Houston they were valuable allies.
Up until the pipeline didn´t work out.
But it´s all good in the end. Afghanistan, along with Grenada and the Marshall islands, are part of the Coalition of the willing. and the pipeline is in motion.
Ustwo, you used to at least make some twisted kind of argument for your fantasyland rants. You have sunk to the name calling, wannabe tough guy mentality that has us nostril deep in shit right now. Ever thought of running for public office?

Rekna

does anyone else see a problem with the term "Islamic terror" let's just call it terrorism and don't assume it only occurs within Islam.

jconnolly

I'm referring specifically to Islamist terror.

powerclown

Bah, whats this 'Terrorist' crap? Let's call them what they really are: Freedom Fighters.
Pesky words.

jconnolly

Come on, now, could we have some real posts?

I want to hear what everybody has to say about dealing with Islamist terror, not nitpicking on what the Thought Police believe is the correct word for terrorists, or whether or not I'm being condescending towards isolationists.

Rekna

do we call the KKK christian terrorists?

jconnolly

I believe we call them white supremacists.

Edit: Actually, those white supremacists in Texas with the chemical weapons were called "would-be terrorists."

Rekna

except they use the bible to justifiy what they do

powerclown

Islam o Islam,
So sad, so alone;
The world is growling at you,
So pick up the goddamn phone.

Brave Mujahideen,
Great Tigers of men;
Thy creed be misunderstood,
To Ms. Barbie & Mr. Ken.

Fight to the Death!
Fundamentalist brothers;
Blow up their heads,
Deny them their druthers!

Tick, tick, tick, tick,
Inside your girdle must rest;
Your manhood will not tolerate,
What your mind cannot best.

a'Salaam a'Laichem.

Carry on...

Sun Tzu

Starting, now begin a national conversion from oil to fuel ethanol 100% grade (they have solved the cold issues), or any other clean alternative fuels that not only release foreign dependency, but creates revenue with US origins

Pull all troops out of the MidEast

Cut funding and arms sells to Israel until every last illegal settlement is out of the west Bank and Gaza Strip

Stop Vetoing resolutions that deal with human rights (referring to Israel); we were taken to war because of SUSPECTED violation of 1 resolution.

Secure US borders with elevated Border Patrol agents and the military (other countries do theres no reason the US should be any different)

Eliminate corruption



The only way its ever going to be fought is the way its being fought now. It will never be eliminated.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

jconnolly

Thank you for getting back on topic. This is a "no duh" roadmap that should be followed no matter what your stance. You should never be dependent, or have your boys away from home for too long, or have loose borders.

However, and I'm just being devil's advocate, suppose that the states next to Israel decide not to wait in good faith for Israel to remove settlements from Gaza, and attack? If we intervene to stop that war, suppose the terrorists begrudge us for that, along with the long list of irrational things they aren't likely to give up?

cthulu23

Israel's neighboring states have not a chance in hell of beating Israel in a fight. They've tried and failed enough times that it isn't much of a consideration anymore.

Stare At The Sun

If we cut our support to them, within the week every country around them would be pouring troops to the region.

cthulu23

That ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

jconnolly

Ok, see, we're discussing hypotheticals, cthulu. Contribute something to the thread, please.

cthulu23

Since Isreal has nuclear weapons your hypothetical has no weight behind it. Not only has Israel beaten it's neighbors in many wars but it has the ability to completely annihilate them. Therefore, no invasion from them. I'm not always an ardent fan of the policies of Israel but this is the truth.

jconnolly

A hypothetical does not need weight. Are you going to tell us what your plan is, or just snipe at people?

cthulu23

Scroll back up, I was one of the first responders to the question. I don't quite understand how explaining Israeli military might is "sniping," but ok. Hmmm, my "someone thinks I'm an asshole" sense is tingling.

Kadath

cthulu, you know better than to trade barbs with rookies!

__________________
it's quiet in here

jconnolly

I meant your plan regarding if Israel is attacked during American stand off. Please try to keep up.

It would be easier not to think you're an asshole if you'd just stop sniping - yes, sniping - at little tidbits instead of tracking the larger question. First you attempt to derail the conversation into a black or white "you're with us or against us" furball, and then fail to accept any explanation given. I decided to ignore you to get it back on topic, and then you accuse my hypothetical of having "no weight".

My "somebody doesn't like newbies and is trying to cut out any form of alternate opinion" sense is tingling.OoooOOoo! And how would you do that without occupying every country in the area?

Lebell

Barb trading is a good way to get a warning and a temp ban, rookie or regular member.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

cthulu23

Well, as I mentioned a few posts ago, the chance of one of Israel's neighbors attacking a nuclear power are pretty slim. Since I already said that, I guess I am keeping up.

You can call answering questions in one sentence sniping, but I prefer to call it brevity. How is it "sniping" to say that America isn't going to abandon Israel anytime soon or to point out that Israel could handily beat it's neighbors in a war? My sense of humor and sarcasm may be dull, but it ain't that damn dull. However, I'll try to be more verbose when posting in your threads in the future. As for the "no weight" comment, that's just par for the course around here and hardly qualifies as a personal attack.

As for the "with us or against us bit," if you look back at our earlier exchange, you should be able to see that I corrected a misapprehension of my own concerning your posts. I guess I'll quote it myself:

Note: that means that I made an "ass outta you and me," although the ass would be me alone in this case. It is worth pointing out that in our exchange that I did misinterpret you so perhaps it wasn't so "with us or against us" as you think. We can all be wrong occasionally, right?

I had no idea that you are a newbie nor do I give a shit how long you've been here. The newbie comment came from someone else.

Let's just stop the fussin' and the fightin'. The whole "asshole" remark was supposed to disarm you with rapier like wit, but apparently it didn't work. What's new?

Orpheus

Less rhetoric from politicians would be a welcome start. Terror as a tactic is as old as history so some qualifications are in order: the US is dealing with Islamic extremism, a perversion of one of the world's great religions. In the short term, cooperation with foreign governments is key, especially Egypt, Pakistan, Syria and Iran. The US needs to start engaging the latter two in diplomacy in order to gain information from their intelligence services- hang ups about nuclear development must be put aside, for now. Second, the US must foster dialogue between the Iranians and the Israelis, perhaps through a third party like Jordan (again, much easier said than done). This is the principle failing of the current administration; diplomacy is not important to them, period.