What would a SANE War Against Terrorism Look Like?

[ulTRAX]

Part 1: What is going wrong with the war now?

I believe that Bush is absolutely the WRONG person to fight a war against Islamo-fascists.

Bush lacks all understanding of the US's role in the mid-east. He reflexively resorts to the same tactics that has made the US so hated in that part of the world. He has invaded a SECOND Arab/Islamic nation... this time one that did NOT have any role in 911. Even if Bush believes the mid-east needs democratic governments... I do too... why did that take an illegal war? Why not pressure our "friends" in the region... Kuwait... Qatar... the Saudis? Why unleash more hatred against the US when it needs to be ratcheted down?

Bush refuses to own up to the US's role in installing brutal dictatorships in the mid-east. Of course who is he going to criticize? Reagan? His dad? Rumsfeld? How about coming to grips that the US is an imperial power out to secure oil so our economy can continue to waste this resource rather than learn to conserve it?

Bush has deluded himself into believing that God is on his side and has added suspicion that Bush's war is Christianity vs Islam.

Bush is incapable of putting a choke chain on psycho-boy Sharon. He allowed Sharon to destroy the PA's infrastructure, he allowed Arafat to be humiliated and isolated. He's stood by while the illegal settlements grew. Bush SO misunderstood the conflict that he actually believed that once Saddam was out of power... there could be a peace settlement. When things get too tough... Bush wimps out rather than play hardball with Sharon.

Bush cynically uses events as cover to pursue his own private or political agenda. He used 911 for a cover to invade Iraq. He invented a WMD and terrorist case against Iraq.... while covering up the terrorist link to the Saudis. Nations like North Korea that pose a REAL threat, he places on the back burner.

Bush now has the bulk of our armed forces bogged down trying to stabilize a nation that's at the brink of civil war. He's created new enemies of secular Ba'athists. Then tries to claim that the increase in attacks against Americans is a sign of his success.

In the meantime Bush gives Bin Laden a 12-18 month holiday. The effort to get Bin Laden will be cynically timed to be of most benefit to Bush's reelection bid.

The nation that SHOULD be seen as a threat is Pakistan. To paraphrase the Bush Junta from 18 months ago: Pakistan has WMD the terrorists want. They have nuclear weapons and Islamic hard liners permeate that government. Musharraf escaped two assassination attempts just a few months ago. Could the US act to insure the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons? Maybe if they had more forces in Afghanistan. But resources were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq.

The above I see as the negatives in Bush's current war.

[alfredo]

1. The primary warriors would not be young men an women. Instead it would

be diplomats, teachers, scholars, carpenters, engineers, doctors, and wise men and women seeking the cause and cure for the underlying disease that displays such violent symptoms.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. You can't cure all terror that way

Sorry, your is a utopian view. The reality is there will terrorists no matter what we do. If we get out of the Mideast, some will be angry that we are not active. If we are there, others will complain about that.

[alfredo]

17. I understand that terrorism will never end, but a military only

strategy will only make matters worse.

the mideast knows we are trying to seize control of their resources. As long as we keep trying, they will fight back. Here's an idea, why don't we buy their oil?

[alcuno]

2. He's an apocalyptic president.

No nuclear nation should be led by an individual who could see armageddon as a biblical prophecy.

[lastknowngood]

3. Bad question. You can never defeat a people who have decided

to fight a holy war on their ground. Look people we have to realize that the CIA have been fuc*ing with these people for over 60 years. Installing vicious dictators and training their "security" forces and secret police in techniques of torture murder and terror against their population. Without confession their can be no forgiveness, perhaps if we just stopped killing deposing leaders and stealing the natural resources of other peoples we wouldn't have so many enemies.
There is no easy solutions to our history but if we don't start changing the way our government does business we will all be targets.
If you want to destroy the terrorist all you have to do is start treating other governments and peoples as if they were equals and as if they had a right to their own culture.
Israel proves that as Gandhi said
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

[ulTRAX]

4. a bad question? nah!

lastknowngood wrote: "Bad question."

Not at all. The "war" on poverty was not a literal war... just a statement of determination. I started out wanting to suggest some positive steps the US could take... and they are in my post by implication, but I got distracted with a critique of Bush. So I just dubbed that Part 1.

[madrchsod]

5. take 200 billion

and develop energy sources and synthetic lubricants and tell the Saudi`s to fuck themselves. tell the israeli`s to settle or go it alone. that`s a start....

[ulTRAX]

7. even without the occasional war in the mideast...

Even without the occasional war in the mideast... US spending in the region was about 40 BILLION a year. That amounted to $1.00 for every gallon of gas or oil. It amounts to a hidden subsidy for those who use mid-east oil because it's not reflected in the end-user price.

40 Billion a year COULD have bought the US a lot of energy independence.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Yeah and those Saudis who are suddenly impoverished?

They wouldn't attack us? No. Never...

[9215]

16. Definitely

:thumbsup:

[ex_jew]

6. A sane approach to terrorism wouldn't look like anything because

it would be conducted in private. Certain individuals would disappear or be "exposed" as collaborators. Others might be bribed, or threatened with the death of their family members. All kinds of tactics would be used. But the one thing you definitely don't want is gallons of publicity, which of course is inherent in the "war" concept. The wise President would simply reassure the people - we are retaliating right now, but there's nothing I can tell you.

[The Stranger]

8. The Extremists secure power for one another. Bush and his religious

"Christian" Fundamentalists need "Islamic" Fundamentalists to justify their being in power, even their very existence.

Get rid of the extremists and the middle will regain power.

[htuttle]

9. What would it look like?

COPS

Except in a different language.

[9215]

15. hee, hee. Nice one

:thumbsup:

[AP]

12. Infiltrating networks. Catching people before they act. Trials all the

time of people who turn out to be guilty of the charges.

Of course, most people would carry on their day to day activities completely unaware of what's going on under the surface.

Kind of like the Clinton years.

[DinahMoeHum]

13. To borrow a few "Godfather" (novel-movies) stereotypes. . .

Bush is like the Sonny Corleone character; hot-tempered, blustering, bullying, pissing off people left and right. Remember where that got him in the story?

Hopefully, Kerry will be the Michael Corleone type - looks a bit "feminine"/"French", but is totally ruthless when he has to be.
Remember when/how he scaled to the top?


:kick:

[9215]

14. Picture this :

Bush and his henchmen behind wars awaiting his execution on death row.

Combine that with what Clinton said. He knows what causes terrorism: FEAR, IGNORANCE and POVERTY:

Compared to the costs of fighting a new generation of
terrorists, putting 100 million kids in school around
the world is an inexpensive proposition.

William Clinton, 2002


Of course the problem here is that it would be a public cost and we all know that with fascists running the show most of the money will go into their coffers to fight costly wars that are fought soley to fill their own coffers.

We are one incredibly stupid specie: penny wise and pound foolish to the nth degree.

[tom_paine]

18. After 9/11 and the Afghan Invasion (justified in my opinion)

President Gore would have used 9/11 to strengthen the International Coalition and International Law.

Sympathy for America post-9/11 would have allowed us to properly direct our forces all over the world. Many governments, I think, even those not as friendly with us, would have been motivated by strengthened International Pressure and the threat of deadly force (which would have been the same if President Gore had authorized the Afghan Invasion) to let us in or at least not interfere with us when we entered their nations to uproot al-Qaeda cells all over the world. This would be done in Quick Strike fashion-- Special Forces in and out--al-Qaeda cell smashed.

They then would be crowded increasingly into pariah nations like N. Korea, that would NEVER let us in. They would further starve and N. Korea could be credibly threatened with either international sanctions or military force (by a REAL coalition, not a Bushevik Phony Coalition of the Bribed and Bullied) if they dared give terrorist groups WMDs.

Naturally, President Gore would have also attacked terorist money networks in more than a phoney photo-op fashion. He would have uprooted Terror Money Networks because he didn't have as many (I am not naive enough to say "any") friends using these shadowy mechanisms to evade taxes.

This also might have badly exposed the Bush-Bin Laden business partnership tht went on until 9/11 and might still be going on today.

Would this strategy have been perfect? Of course not. But it would be better than the Phony Iraq Invasion that had NOTHING to do with stopping terrorism and everything to do with Bushevik fraud and theft.