Put up, or stand down.

[WarriorMonk]

Okay, so with all the mish-mash of threads on the War on Terror, with criticisms flying left and right, here's the deal.

How would you fight the war on terror, or, for those of you not playing along with the "Global War on Terror," what steps would you take to prevent terrorism in your country, and what steps would you take to help defeat terrorism internationally?

If all of our respective countries are some sort of representative democracy/republic (no wisecracks civil liberties people), we all have to come up with some way of solving the problem, and getting it to some leaders.

I've seen criticisms of my country going back and forth, but no real solutions being offered, just the usual OMG EVIL NEOCON BUSH-HITLER LETS FLY THE CIVIL LIBERTIES FLAG ALL DAY LALALA stuff.

And then I've seen others from my country say to their critics something along the lines of OMG PATHETIC WEAKLING EUROPUSSY or YOU PINKO LIBERAL A$$BAG or whatever the hell that nonsense is.

There's nonsense on both sides here, one way or the other, either it's privacy being violated or its secrets being revealed, its either individuality or the state, its either persecution or prosecution, all of it, getting mish-mashed together.

So if you think you're hard enough, now's the time to offer your solution.

The rules:

Cannot be something like "Disarm America" or "Force Bush (or whatever leader) out" or "Revolution" or "suicide bomber frenzy" or "UN sanction" This is a plan that can be easily employed by any leader, that satisifies a whole lot of the population.

Cannot be simply "Undo Bush's jobs" or "Not do what Bush did" - because that's too vague - you're going to do what else...?

[Mavrick369]

Well as what to do im a little extreme... total martial law. i know that isnt practical so i'll offer this instead.

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” - Benjamin Franklin

[KB]

Okay, so with all the mish-mash of threads on the War on Terror, with criticisms flying left and right, here's the deal.

How would you fight the war on terror, or, for those of you not playing along with the "Global War on Terror," what steps would you take to prevent terrorism in your country, and what steps would you take to help defeat terrorism internationally?

If all of our respective countries are some sort of representative democracy/republic (no wisecracks civil liberties people), we all have to come up with some way of solving the problem, and getting it to some leaders.

I've seen criticisms of my country going back and forth, but no real solutions being offered, just the usual OMG EVIL NEOCON BUSH-HITLER LETS FLY THE CIVIL LIBERTIES FLAG ALL DAY LALALA stuff.

And then I've seen others from my country say to their critics something along the lines of OMG PATHETIC WEAKLING EUROPUSSY or YOU PINKO LIBERAL A$$BAG or whatever the hell that nonsense is.

There's nonsense on both sides here, one way or the other, either it's privacy being violated or its secrets being revealed, its either individuality or the state, its either persecution or prosecution, all of it, getting mish-mashed together.

So if you think you're hard enough, now's the time to offer your solution.

The rules:

Cannot be something like "Disarm America" or "Force Bush (or whatever leader) out" or "Revolution" or "suicide bomber frenzy" or "UN sanction" This is a plan that can be easily employed by any leader, that satisifies a whole lot of the population.

Cannot be simply "Undo Bush's jobs" or "Not do what Bush did" - because that's too vague - you're going to do what else...?

Can't claim a lot of deep thought in coming up with this, but I'll kick in my $.02 to get dialogue started.

US Objectives:

long term(in no particular order):

reduce/minimize US dependence on foreign energy sources
foster development of democracy in Middle East
neutralize/defang growth of Islamic fundamentalism
secure the national borders

short term (no order):

contain & neutralize Al Qaeda
stabilize Iraq
secure the national borders
halt/reduce the growth of national debt

1. Remove Rumsfeld as SecDef and replace with someone like a Sam Nunn or Brent Scowcroft, who possesses credibility and commands bipartisan respect.

2. Develop a council of "wise men", like those that advised Presidents from Truman to Nixon.

3. Develop and effectively articulate a bipartisan, long term strategy to interact with the Arab/Islamic world. This will include a plan (with allies and UN involvement) to resolve once and for all the Israel/Palestine question. The two major US political parties were generally united in the strategy to confront the Communist bloc. It's taken western civilization 2500 years for democracy to evolve to where its at; its unrealistic to expect it to take root relatively overnight in a part of the world where there is no tradition of democracy.

4. Develop, articulate and execute a coherent strategy to rapidly develop non-petroleum sources of energy and establish the US as a leader in the drive to develop affordable, environmentally friendly sources of energy. The US built the atomic bomb and put a man on the moon. This problem can be solved too.

5. Develop a bi-partisan plan to reduce the skyrocketing national debt and control spending. The Administration and Congress need to face the fact that they can't keep selling debt and "kick the can" a little farther down the street. Entitlement programs are going to have to be cut; taxes will have to go up.

6. Issue a formal declaration of war against Al Qaeda. Mobilize the US to sacrifice for achievement of the country's long term objectives. This may take some form of national service, if not in the military then in border security, public works or homeland security. Launch war bond drives to raise money to finance the war and maintain public support; ration key energy resources if required.

Just some thoughts.

[WarriorMonk]

Added: You probably will also need to say how you will gather infel on the enemy, as that seems to be almost key in everything...

[KB]

Added: You probably will also need to say how you will gather infel on the enemy, as that seems to be almost key in everything...

Sitting out here in civvy land makes that a tall order to fulfill. There appears to be quite a bit of intelligence sharing going on between the US and foreign governments (re, renditions, offshore confinement facilities, etc). Hayden seems to have done a good job at NSA, hence his appointment to CIA.

CIA is in disarray. Perhaps bringing back respected players like Carter Kappes who left during the Porter Goss train wreck will help that organization get turned around.

John Negroponte is a respected diplomat and Washington operator and will make the new "intelligence czar" job work, if anyone can.

The only thing I'd like to see done differently is see Congress assert its role in passing legislation to provide the legal basis for the intelligence gathering actions the Administration carries out. It is hard to comprehend the way the Administration treats the House and Senate majority leadership.

[Will938]

Regulate the borders, check all cargo coming in, and monitor foreigners until they become citizens.

Domestically thats it, less security more terrorism and dead Americans. To me liberty is worth the risk. Internationally take the fight to them, terrorize them. Make examples out of any group that would dare to attack us, hit hard with enough force to leave others in horror after they see how brutal we are.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I see it as something that should be 'law enforcement led'. It's primarily a policing/religious education problem here in the UK.

There may be a time and place for military action but using the rhetoric of war is a mistake and Iraq 2003-6 is definitely the wrong war in the wrong place. War rhetoric is being used cynically for the purposes of exerting a degree of control over the populations of the USA and UK and simply plays into the hands of the jihadists who can then say to the sheep that follow them 'Look the crusaders have declared war on us'

[Bert]

Gas every religious person in the world. It won't help to gas just Muslims, since then there will be lots of wacko people from the others to fill the gap. Gas them all. We'll solve two problems: Terrorism, and overpopulation. That way everyone (still left) can enjoy opulent Western lifestyles without worrying about any resources running out. And hey, peak oil theory is pretty much dead then. We'll all drive gas-guzzling muscle cars. What's to lose? Except four billion bible thumpers and muhammedans? :hug:

[Resurrection]

Gas every religious person in the world. It won't help to gas just Muslims, since then there will be lots of wacko people from the others to fill the gap. Gas them all. We'll solve two problems: Terrorism, and overpopulation. That way everyone (still left) can enjoy opulent Western lifestyles without worrying about any resources running out. And hey, peak oil theory is pretty much dead then. We'll all drive gas-guzzling muscle cars. What's to lose? Except four billion bible thumpers and muhammedans? :hug:

Hahaha... rofl

If that wasn't extreme then I don't know what is.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Gas every religious person in the world.

What's to lose? Except four billion bible thumpers and muhammedans? :hug:

Excellent idea. Religious people are just troublemaking oxygen thieves.

[Lazy Lob]

I would like to see a law passed that would make politicians personally liable for any porkies they tell or even perceived porkies. They would also be personally liable for not fully applying the law of the land and could be prosecuted as accomplices of those caught by third parties.

Our Über Leader would already be in the Scrubs as someone’s squeeze.

Oh, nearly forgot.

GET RID OF THE ECHR

[Macs.]

What I find extremly paradox about the US "strategy", and maybe you can give me a answer on that:

The US fears Terror (With a good reason) and wages a "Global War On Terror" - Okay.

Everyone who wants to get into the US legally gets checked to the maximum... Billion of dollars get spend on Homeland security and stuff...
BUT why the hell does it seem that every Mexican and his dog can come into the US illegaly ?

The next guy crossing the boarder could be a possible terrorist - And yet it doesn't seem to really interest the US puplic, or am I wrong ?





And this is what I think about protecting your country from Terrorism:

If you really want to protect your country from terrorism you have to protect it right there and not in a foreign country thousand miles away. You have to protect your borders, you have to strengthen LEO/Intelligents Services etc - All that fancy Homeland Security stuff.

And if your national security works good, you can't care less about some terrorist thousand of miles away, who will never make it into your country anyway.

Defending Terror internationally is impossible, in my opinion.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

What I find extremly paradox about the US "strategy", and maybe you can give me a answer on that:

The US fears Terror (With a good reason) and wages a "Global War On Terror" - Okay.

Everyone who wants to get into the US legally gets checked to the maximum... Billion of dollars get spend on Homeland security and stuff...
BUT why the hell does it seem that every Mexican and his dog can come into the US illegaly ?

The next guy crossing the boarder could be a possible terrorist - And yet it doesn't seem to really interest the US puplic, or am I wrong ?





And this is what I think about protecting your country from Terrorism:

If you really want to protect your country from terrorism you have to protect it right there and not in a foreign country thousand miles away. You have to protect your borders, you have to strengthen LEO/Intelligents Services etc - All that fancy Homeland Security stuff.

And if your national security works good, you can't care less about some terrorist thousand of miles away, who will never make it into your country anyway.

Defending Terror internationally is impossible, in my opinion.

x2 it needs to be law-enforcement led and like you say securing your actual borders makes more sense than invading some country that had fcuk all to do with 911 and AQ anyway.

[budgie]

There's no simple solution. I would say that the war on terror is being fought reasonably well as it is but there's a long way to go. It's foolish to demand that anyone not happy with Bush should either come up with a better solution or 'stand down': we are not policy-makers or world leaders.

However I will say that the attack on Iraq in the first place was stupid, unnecessary and not part of the war on terror - that was just Bush's spin on it. He called Iraq the 'central front' (it most certainly wasn't) then went ahead and made it true. We didn't need a new front or a new hotbed of anti-western extremism. Now that we're stuck with it, stabilising Iraq is important for sure. Damned if I know how do to it, but I'll say this: Bush doesn't either.

And for those of you who think an attack on Bush and his policies is an equivalent to an attack on America as a whole it isn't and I'm not even sorry you feel that way. Stop hiding behind the flag. Plenty of patriotic Americans aren't happy with him either.

[annihilation]

Bin laden's organization is borderless so invading nations besides afghan is pointless and stupid. The real war is fought covertly not with divisions rolling down the streets of Iraq.

[Bert]

Well, actually, creating a U.S. ally in a strategic location like Iraq is a good idea. But it certainly shouldn't have been the second item on the list.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Well, actually, creating a U.S. ally in a strategic location like Iraq is a good idea. But it certainly shouldn't have been the second item on the list.

Good idea when are they going to create a US friendly regime in Iraq? Maybe they should spring their old mate Saddam from jail and put him back in charge :)

I seem to remember he was quite good at keeping the Iranians occupied on Uncle Sam's behalf back in the day!

[Bert]

He was supposed to be a nice puppet dictator but really just followed his own agenda. Doesn't work well that, now does it?

[WarriorMonk]

There's no simple solution. I would say that the war on terror is being fought reasonably well as it is but there's a long way to go. It's foolish to demand that anyone not happy with Bush should either come up with a better solution or 'stand down': we are not policy-makers or world leaders.

As I've said before, all (I think most of) the countries we come from, here, are some form of democracy or representative republic - in this case, the politician porkos serve us (somewhat...) - we hear about bills and laws coming up for discussion every day in our capitals, and a lot of us would like for the government to hear what we have to say. We all stand to have a voice in government by writing to or meeting with officials, but if you want more impact, other than money, get a plan together and make sure the official runs with it.

If you really wanted democracy, more people gotta participate in it, otherwise, we might as well just roll over and have ourselves a dictatorship...you know you're in trouble when more people vote in a contest for which wannabe crooner gets to ink some flimsy record deal rather than vote to determine a future for the state.

[ElHombre]

There's no simple solution. I would say that the war on terror is being fought reasonably well as it is but there's a long way to go. It's foolish to demand that anyone not happy with Bush should either come up with a better solution or 'stand down': we are not policy-makers or world leaders.

However I will say that the attack on Iraq in the first place was stupid, unnecessary and not part of the war on terror - that was just Bush's spin on it. He called Iraq the 'central front' (it most certainly wasn't) then went ahead and made it true. We didn't need a new front or a new hotbed of anti-western extremism. Now that we're stuck with it, stabilising Iraq is important for sure. Damned if I know how do to it, but I'll say this: Bush doesn't either.

And for those of you who think an attack on Bush and his policies is an equivalent to an attack on America as a whole it isn't and I'm not even sorry you feel that way. Stop hiding behind the flag. Plenty of patriotic Americans aren't happy with him either.

good points. 'stay the course' is just keeping the troops in unneeded danger. we may not have the answers, but we're trying to figure some out. the admin has given up.

[VOD]

Bin laden's organization is borderless so invading nations besides afghan is pointless and stupid. The real war is fought covertly not with divisions rolling down the streets of Iraq.

Exactly - Fight fire with fire

If AQ and other Muslim fanatics/extremists use unconventional tactics then the US should too.

I would put together teams of specially trained agents and insert them into the middle east, have them join terrorist organizations and have them steal intel. plans, etc.

I would also have a bunch of hit men and contract killers to go out and kidnap or dispose of anyone who is linked to radical and militant groups. I would have assisins on tap and make clerics, recruiters, suppliers, and any crazy jihadist who even remotly thinks of doing something harmful disappear. I would also covertly monitor mosques in the US, Europe, Canada, and even parts of the middle east.

Im pretty sure half of this stuff is happening right now as we speak.