How should America go about winning the war on terror ? Your suggestions

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Any specific example?

Saddam supported the widows and children of the Palestinian suicide bomber variety of terrorists after the bombers ceased to be.

The most you could deduce from that is such actions might encourage more suicide bombers. There is no evidence that Saddam actually funded any of the terrorist activities.

As for encouraging such acts, the statistics don't seem to bear it out.

[Zevico]

I don't think the USA can win it alone--perhaps with allies.
Terrorist groups are around the world and there are many terror supporting nations. Many of these are oil providing nations---Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and etc. A few are also allied to the US-Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc due to their oil. Stopping their support would be very difficult. America would have to persuade the EU and other major countries to threaten to impose sanctions on all of them, including those that provide oil. If that doesn't work, then I fear the only solution would be war against one of these countries so as to dissuade the others--and then again, and again, until the others step in line. America may have tried to do this with Iraq, but they simply can't take on practically the whole of the ME. I don't even know if they'd be willing to take on -one- more country, such as Iran. That said, European countries could, if they worked together with the US. European armies aren't rust buckets falling apart or anything like that. I'm sure the worst of them is easily far better trained and equipped than any terror-supporting army, or those militias in South America, and etc.
However, seeing that European countries are unwilling to go in, it'll be a while before any real confrontation occurs.
If and when it does, these countries should afterwards have Democracy introduced to them. I don't think going after everyone at once is a good idea though- take 1 or 2 at a time. In this case, I think Iraq's stability is extremely important is it's the 'first try' and could make or break this idea. Thus its very important for the European countries such as France or Germany to bring their troops into Iraq. I'd really like to know why they don't want to, personally: regardless of this doctrine, it is not in the interest of France/Germany/etc to have Iraq mess up.

Did the people in Jordan hate the US? Where was the public support for the terrorists who murdered tourists in Egypt?

For the first----LOTS AND LOTS, even before 9/11. Perhaps not majority, but many. Egypt too. Hell, the whole of the ME, probably.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Lots of interesting suggestions, Oerdin, but uh . . .



. . . both of these countries eventually won their independence.

BTW: Both Lancer and Dolores are looking forward to a visit by you.

Years, even decades later. The point is that the insurrections failed while nearly all others succeeded. Why? I believe it is because in those two cases the occupying power excercized ruthless power combined with excellent propaganda.

BTW I'd love to visit Lance and Delores in the PI but once I get back to the US I think I'm going to sit on my couch and decompress for about a month.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
As for encouraging such acts, the statistics don't seem to bear it out.

I don't suppose you could cite those supposed statistics?

[Urban Ranger]

I don't recall a sharp increase in Palestinian suicide bombings after Saddam announced his payment.

At least, these numbers don't show even a correlation.

[Tingkai]

Oedin:
I agree that democracy cannot happen overnight. Long-term plans are needed, and just like your suggestion about a timetable for the US withdrawing from Iraq, the same could be done for democratic rights.

Economic Aid
Forget about economic aid. The money being poured into Iraq is already being siphoned off by Bush's buddies. More money will simply mean more corruption.

Military vs Police
Afghanistan and Iraq don't need militaries, they need effective police forces that can provide security. These police may need to fight battles, but the emphasis should be on policing first. That means getting Iraqi cops walking the beat, not attack helicopters, artillery and fighter-bombers.


Farm Subsidies
Getting rid of first-world farm subsidies is a great idea, and it would do wonders for the global economy, and reduce poverty. But it will never happen. The subsidies are going to big corporations, who have politicians in their back pockets through campaign donations or by having politicians on their payroll.

Bureaucracy
A basic problem for many Third World nations is the lack of a trained civil service that is free from corruption and has clear rules to follow. No simple answers here.

Suppressing Fundamentalists
Shaking hands with the devil is the cause of many of the world's problems. Attacking the fundamentalists head on is not the solution. The west needs to push fundamentalists to the fringe by supporting governments that are moving to democratic rights and open societies.

Oil
You suggested investing in non-Arab oil production, but these supplies are limited and cannot replace the oil supply coming from the Middle East.

And this is why the US cannot force Saudi Arabia to do anything because the Saudi government would simply turn off the tap which would bring the US economy to a halt.

What you say about fuel-efficient cars is spot on, but how do you encourage people to buy them? The best way is to create a financial incentive by increasing taxes on fuel, but very few politicians would be willing to do this.

Elections - Banning Fundamentalists Parties
Look at Algeria. Easier said than done.


World Bank
Agreed and the most important thing is to stop the World Bank loans to China. China doesn't need the money and the money would be better spent elsewhere.

Iran et al
The problem is that if you apply sanctions to Iranian oil then oil prices will shoot through the roof and the public will scream bloody murder.

[Zevico]

I don't recall a sharp increase in Palestinian suicide bombings after Saddam announced his payment.

At least, these numbers don't show even a correlation.

When was that, anyway?
In any case, aside from that particular example, Saddam had always funded or at the least tolerated Palestinian terrorist groups in Iraq.

[GePap]

Which really means little to US security- given that none of the groups Saddam helped fund had policies of attacking the US.