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

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Yeah and I believe he would have done a better job than Bush.

Look at Afghanistan. 11,000 US Troops at the HEIGHT of operations. There are more police officers on Manhattan Island than there were in Afghanistan. Bush ALLOWED Osama bin Laden to escape. Bush is INCOMPETENT.

Bush pushed Franks aside and personally commanded the troops at Tora Bora? Tommy Franks says this whole Michael Moore accusation is beyond nonsense.

Sava, why don't you ask Michael Moore run for Governor of Illinois? You'd be happy as Moore ran all the corporations out of Illinois, wouldn't you?

[Natalinasmpf]

THE WAR ON TERROR: THE TERROR TO END ALL TERROR.

2001 - Infinity

Casualties: civil rights and countless lives

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai
PS, it is impossible to fight and defeat terrorists because it impossible to kill everyone of them. The military approach is self-defeating.

The way to win is on the economic front. This is how the US won the Cold War and the sad irony is that the US has not learned from its victories and instead chooses to repeat the mistakes of the past.

What in the mother-f*****g world do you think we are doing?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap


No. The US has significant self-interest in preventing a possibly idologically hostile regime being created in a vital geo-strategic locaiton of the world.

I don't get your point. Which ideology are you talking of?

I seriously doubt thought this will happen (as I said before, the forces of the regimes these guys are trying to overthrow are too strong, which is why they conduct terrorist attacks in the first place) and the biggest challenge to US Hegemony will come from other Nation-State, China being the most likely.

In all fairness I agree, in fact I was just curious to know your opinion on the issue.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The diplomat

Everybody was enjoying the booming Clinton economy and forgetting about the growing threat of Osama and Al Queda. He attacked us repeatedly but we did little to stop him because we did not want to disturb the peace and prosperity.

The diplomat, Clinton economy? He fought the Republican Congress every step of the way to a balanced budget.

[Natalinasmpf]

The economy did not boom because of Clinton. Clinton was merely lucky enough to preside over the boom, and preside right till the peak before it fell.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


Exaggerating what? I've read lots of stories where jumpy soldiers shot people that looked suspicious, then not even bothered to check out whom they just killed and why, and not being restricted by their officers for shooting the people they are there to protect. It probably hasn't been reported on FOX, but that doesn't make it an exaggeration.

If you read Oerdin's blog, you see that they even weld extra metal plates onto their vehicles to bump civilian cars off the road whenever there is a traffic jam. Imagine how angry you would be if some ashole smashed your car and your insurance did not cover it. Your soldiers, often hiding behind SOP orders, don't act like the liberators they are supposed to be, they are rather arrogant and scared. A bad combination.

Look at the Brits, they are confident and polite. They do things like play football with the locals. When a British unit under attack ran out of ammo, they fixed bayonets and charged, taking a higher risk to save civilian lifes while still solving the problem. The American SOP in that situation would be to call in an airstrike, causing a lot of colateral damage.

The firefighters in WTC did not say: - Hey I won't go in that building, it might collapse! They said: - My mission is to save civilian lifes, so I must face the risk of going in there!
A soldier is also payed to take a higher risk. As the mission in Iraq is "Iraqi freedom", they must face the higher risk in order to win, not shoot at everything that looks suspicious, just in case.

This post just drools with hatred for America.

[Natalinasmpf]

Ned, maybe its just me, but I think you assert too much.....it sounds nicer if you'd back up the post with some kind of an elaboration or a proper rebuttal.

[Japher]

Yes, yes we know that... now back to the terrorist thing. Dips thing still holds, everyone was so hunky dory with a booming economy that Clinton didn't want to do anything to F it up when Saddam violated the UN sanctions, and the rest of the world was being bought out by Iraq and affiliates and didn't want to stir the waters. All the while OBL was getting mad at the US for having more money than he did, so he used the abused fundie islamic regimes who were also angry at the west to launch attacks on the US and other countries, including Isreal, cause everyone hates the jew. So, the jews asked for help from the US, since birds of a feather flock toghether, or your enemies enemy type thing, from which was born the neo-cons....

time passes, bam! Just as Bush gets to presidency the gapping whole of ignorance left by all the presidents before Bush was taken advantage of and four planes flew through it. Bush gets mad, then he gets even. The Taliban is over thrown for harboring the man who takes responsibility, and we begin hunting them. At the same time some flawed intelligence reports that Saddam is harboring terrorists and arming them with weapons of mass destruction. France and Germany who are still Clinton Economy land soaking up the yayas don't want to wake up, so Booom! We shock (not much awe) the world by attacking Iraq.

Time passes.

What did we do wrong?

We didn't completely blow the sh1t out of one country before moving on to the next.

We feel a sleep at the wheel (no offense asleepatthewheel) and was blinded by money.

We allowed know enemies to enter the country, not only that but we allowed them to live.

We allowed are borders to be penitrated.

We care.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


I read words like leftist, crap, neanderthal and moron.

I did not read your explanation how airstrikes, tank attacks and the creation of bitter orphans prevents terrorism. Can you write it again please?

Pure anti-American propaganda. Ending this kind of propaganda would certainly help.

[Dis]

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

Originally posted by aneeshm
As yet , I have not come across a thread asking for suggestions from forum members and posters on how America can win the war on terror . This is a thread where you can express YOUR ideas on how to win the war .

Note : I don't want this to degenerate into a discussion of America's past mistakes and successes . This is a thread for ideas on how to handle the current situation .

the war cannot be won. and in the end, the terrorist will be victorious. It'll take em a few decades though.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Which makes no sense since there is a fundamental difference in situations- the Taliban was harboring somoene within their state, while Saddam has crossed international boundaries.

Oh, come on now. Saddam harbored all sorts of terrorists, including Abu Nidal. Democrats saw no need to go to war against Saddam just because he harbored terrorists or even built training camps for him.

Do you remembeer that right after 9/11 that most Democrats argued that we should not consider the situation a state of war?

Kerry would have been true to form. Kerry is no Bush.

[Whaleboy]

Get an enormous metal dustbin. Fill it to the brim with cannabis resin, incendaries and explosives. Take loads of them up in a plane or something, set the incendaries, then release them over trouble spots, detonate at like 20 miles and prepare for the munchies!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
The economy did not boom because of Clinton. Clinton was merely lucky enough to preside over the boom, and preside right till the peak before it fell.

Another person who ignores what happened when Republicans took control of Congress.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Ned, maybe its just me, but I think you assert too much.....it sounds nicer if you'd back up the post with some kind of an elaboration or a proper rebuttal.

OK, Natal. Osama bin Laden did not form his organization and attack the US repeatedly over the '90s because of our actions in Iraq beginning in 2003.