How would you fight the War on Terror?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by insein, May 10, 2004.

  1. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    I feel the president is doing a good job and therefore i don't feel the need to answer this question. Instead i pose it to the conspiracy theorists and accusators of our President to see what they would do to fight terrorism.

    No bullshit. No rhetoric. No namecalling. This is your shot to show us what you would do to stop another 9/11 from happening.

    I specifically pose this question to Spidermantuba and spillmind.
     
  2. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258


    First of, I'd like to say that asking those who think invading Iraq was not justified what they would do to fight terrorism is hardly a way to justify the invasion of Iraq.

    That being said, in general, asking those who disagree with Shrub's policies what they would do to fight terrorism is certainly a valid question. I would encourage all who disagree with Shrub to reply, including those on the right who think perhaps Shrub should be invading more 3rd world countries and violating more people's rights.



    First I will tell you the parts of Shrub's plan that are unneccessary.

    1) Invading Iraq, which posed no imminent danger to the US, was not neccessary.

    2) Signing into law a bill which blatantly violates the US Constitution, namely, the Patriot Act, is not neccessary. "Give me liberty or give me death" - to me that means if we have to ditch our democracy and free society to win the war on terrorism, I'd rather die.

    3) Detaining thousands of people in a legal no man's land - not neccessary. This goes back to 2), if we have to ditch our Democratic justice system to not die, I prefer death. Furthermore
    a) It takes very little evidence to charge someone with a crime. If Jose Pedia is really involved in a serious plot to detonate a dirty bomb, there would be enough evidence to charge him.
    b) If the "detainees" truly are not deserving of POW status, I think a competent military tribunal would be able to determine that. Those who deserve POW status should receive it, those who do not deserve POW status nevertheless would be treated as POW's until such time as we are able to charge them, by military tribunal, with a crime. However, without exception, all US citizens would receive trials in the civilian courts.

    4) Creating the Homeland Security Department - not neccessary. Traditionally, conservatives have been for small government, which is why I find it strange a so-called conservative as made the government bigger than ever by creating more beauracracy. If anything, less beauracracy is better. It currently takes about 40 phone calls for an FBI or CIA field agent to reach the top - that is no good at all. The Homeland Security department is completely redundant and the color coded alert system is a joke. I'd sooner spend the money spent to come up with the color code system on dental work for the British.




    OK, by now I'm sure a lot of conservatives are asking "Yeah, but we didn't want to know what you wouldn't do, we wanted to know what you would do. Here's what I would do.

    1) The invasion of Afghanistan was certainly justified, as the Taliban was the world's biggest sponsor of Al Qaeda.

    2) Invest more in tracking down Bin Laden. I know that Bin Laden is just the leader, and surely if we took him out, Al Qaeda would continue to exist. But I think its a shame that justice has not yet come to bear on this man. We the American people, and especially the victims of 9/11, deserve to see justice for this man. It is really a big crock that Shrub hasn't tracked him down yet. When we got him, I'd have him tried, convicted (piece of cake), and executed.

    3) Invest more in airport security.
    a) Let's face it, had their been air marshalls on these flights, 9/11 likely would not have happened. If we took the 100 billion plus we spent in Iraq and used it to hire air marshalls, that would be alot of air marshalls.
    b) Train pilots to properly use and carry firearms on airplanes. I'm not sure if they changed that law or not, if they didn't they should.
    c) I think we can also all agree, had the terrorist not been able to get to the cockpits, there would have been no 9/11. I'm no engineer, but I figure there has to be some sort of failsafe way we can prevent unauthoirzed persons from entering the cockpit. It could be set up in such a way that once the plane is off the ground, the cockpit doors automatically lock and remain locked until the plane has landed. The pilots would not be able to override it, so no matter what kind of chaos was going on in the cabin, the doors would stay locked.
    d) You may not be aware of this, but not everything that goes on airplanes is screened. Packages being shipped through the mail are only screened randomly. Its less of a concern - bc if you wanted to blow up a plane with a package, it would be almost impossible to decide which flight that package went on - but its still a safety leak.

    4) Invest more in domestic intelligence. Other than the failures of airport security, 9/11 was largely the result of a domestic intelligence failure. I'm not quite sure of the details on this on, as I am no expert in the intelligence field, but more certainly needs to be done in this area. Were I Shrub, I would some of my many nicknamed "advisors" to come up with ideas. I'm not Shrub though. Any ideas anyone on improving domestic intelligence (within the existing beauracracy, as I have pointed out, more beauracracy is not the answer)

    5) Help the former Soviet states figure out what to do with all that leftover plutonium. What neocons don't seem to realize is that that threat of terrorists obtaining plutonium of the blackmarket in a fomer Soviet state is much more likely than terrorists obtaining plutonium from a nation, such as Iraq, with not plutonium and no nuclear program to speak of.There are millions of pounds of unaccounted plutonium floating around in the world, mostly in the former Soviet union, and tracking this stuff down is vital.

    6) Stop screwing around in Israel. Israel, besides the US, has the most technologically advanced military in the world. They can defend themselves. We have been trying for decades to help Israel and the Palestinians resolve their conflict, it has done no good whatsoever and as only resulted in contempt both from the Palesitinians world and Israel. If Israel wants us to help them track down WMD that have been smuggled into their country or something of that sort, that's one thing, but their territorial disputres with their neighbors should be their own business.




    These are just a few ideas, like I said, I don't have a whole team of advisors like the President.


    Comments? Questions? Suggestions for more ways to fight terrorism withtout slaughering tens of thousands of innocent people?
     
  3. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    park a couple dozen nuclear warheads around NK.

    forced pakistan to open its borders for troops, let the radicals beware as we search for bin laden

    drive syria from lebanon and set up shop as we democratize lebanon. from that base we can use surgical strikes against hezbollah.

    This is AFTER taking afchanistan.

    then set sights on IRAQ/IRAN and offer to play ball.
     
  4. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    I agree with what you said about N Korea. The best way to deal with the threat of nuclear attack from a known enemy is to make it clear as day you'll kill every single person that lives their if they attack.

    Pakistan - I remember a while back, the Pakistani army supposed had Bin Laden or some other high ranking member surrounded. I remember thinking, if we know where Bin Laden is, why the hell don't we have OUR army surrounding him? Is it because the Pakis wouldn't let us, or is it because Bush was to busy looking for non-existant WMD and bombing Baghdad?
     
  5. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    Like I said, you can't prove a negative. Can you prove there aren't any Dodo birds left? (The real ones, not the ones on Capital Hill :) ) You can't prove anything, actually, if you want to get really techincal about it But especially a negative.
     
  6. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Exactly. so the answer is no. You can't prove shit.
     
  7. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    - I, too, would have made Pakistan let us go in their mountain region bordering with Afghanistan.

    - Around the beginning of 2002, I would confront Syria and demand they dismantle Hezbollah. If not, I'd go to war with Hezbollah and Syria. That'd be war #2.

    - I'd demand Saudi Arabia stopped preaching Islamic radicalism and I'd threaten them.

    - I would invade Saddam on the basis of his support for terrorism and violation of war treaties. This would be war #3. I would do this around October or November of 2003.

    - I'd get Libya's cooperation, like Bush did.

    - I'd get in Sudan's face to stop the slaughter of their own people and sponsorship of terrorism.

    - And then pretty much what Bush is doing.

    But I would have taken care of Hezbollah and Syria before Saddam to be strategic.
     
  8. Jmarie
    Offline

    Jmarie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Messages:
    457
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Iowa
    Ratings:
    +3
    For me I would make everyone who has threathen us a parking lot and put a McD's in the middle for our troops could eat when they are bombing the hell out of someone else..:cof:
     
  9. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    Sir Evildoer, that's my point. You can't prove a negative, so of course the Iraqis could not prove they had no WMD. It would have been absolutely impossible to do so. It was utterly ridiculous to even bother to say "you must prove you don't have WMD or we will invade" when the request was impossible. We may as well have been completely honest about it and said "no matter what you do, we're going to bomb your cities pretty soon."
     
  10. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    With all the preventative wars you are eager to fight, its amazing to me you don't see how you fit the description "warmonger." I agree with your first statement, if we have good reason to believe Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan, there's no reason at all we shouldn't have the military in Pakistan right now looking for him. I agree with what you said about Libya, and to be honest I'll have to add that to my very short list of good things Shrub has done. The rest of your suggestions are hogwash, with the except that we should do everything we can to stop atrocities around the world short of actually comitting them ourselves. Who the hell are you to tell Saudi Arabians what to believe? Hezbollah is only a threat to Americans because of our long standing support of the slaughter of Palestinian innocents by by the Israelis and now, for our unwarranted invasion of Iraq. Lastly, you can't invade Iraq for violation of war treaties. Don't you remember? It's the conservative postion that international agreements are not binding. Oh, wait, that's right, international agreement are for other nations to follow, I forgot.
     

Share This Page