This thread is meant as an example of the types of threads we should be starting rather than threads that are meant to start partisan poo-flinging. This is meant for "discussion" and we can politely debate within the discussion. But discussion is the emphasis: be curteous and polite! If you haven't read my post in Chance's thread "BBS Hangout: Poo-Flinging Forum", then please read my post in Chance's thread (Page 2), before reading or responding to my thread here. I know I'm not a mod, but I want the rules of civil discussion (that I wrote about in Chance's thread) to apply here. Furthermore, there will be no mentioning of George W. Bush or Kerry from here on out. Do not even mention their name or refer to them. If you do not want to obey this rule, and/or do not want to comply with the rules of civil discussion, PLEASE do not post in this thread. The question is: If you were president or some foreign leader, what would you do in order to resolve the war on terror? In my opinion, there are two ways this can be resolved. Either we seek a method dominated by peace negotiation, or a method dominated by use of the military. But using solely negotiation and solely military use will lead to failure. It is true that Al-Queda is slime, and are vicious, and there seems to be no peaceful solution with them. They want it all their way, or nothing at all. A government cannot deal with such a group without using force agaisnt them. And thus we must use our military against countries that foster terrorist groups like Al-Queda. BUT, if we are to use the military way, we MUST have many global allies that will fight alongside of us. The US military is not big enough to do this alone. There are too many places to fight and our forces will be stretched thin and eventually the American people will get tired of carrying the burden of fighting the war on terror by themselves. Terrorism is a global problem that can be found in MANY countries, and it is too many to fight alone. As we can see, we are unable to take care of both Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. So if warfare is the method chosen, it must be done globally, through our Allies in NATO and the UN. But there is another way that I came up with and I'm suprised nobody else talks about it that much. This war against terror seems to have came from the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. In my opinion, the origin of 9/11 and the idealogy of these terrorists comes from this very conflict in the Middle East. Now, a lot of you guys will probably say, "Duh." But why aren't we pushing the Israelis and Palestians towards peace? Peace in the Middle East is not impossible in my opinion and we have gotten close in achieving it. Yes, it is going to be hard, but its just as hard or maybe even easier than going to war with every country that fosters terrorism. The situation in the Middle East is a mess. Both sides are wrong in my opinion, and both sides are right. Israel ought to be able to protect itself, but then again, Israel shouldn't exist because it wasn't their land. Atrocities have been committed by both Israel and Palestinians, nobody is without guilt here so the US should not be taking sides. By working towards a peace in this conflict, you remove the conflict all together. Terrorism will be destroyed significantly because terrorist groups will not be able to recruit youths to their side. If there is no more conflict, most of these youths will not join sides with the terrorists who want an All or Nothing solution. But as long as the conflict remains, it gives terrorists free recruiting and the ability to manipulate, deceive, and brainwash Muslim youths. Recriting is the driving force that keeps them alive. Without new blood, their growth will be stunted and relatively cease, and we can eventually take them out using military means. In my opinion, hitting Al Queda hard was the first thing we should have done, and we did it in Afghanistan. Now it is time to start negotiating the Middle East conflict so to take the legs from underneath al queda. Obviously, we should use military in order to pursue al queda whenever we have a good chance to keep us safer, but if we over extend our military use, it only adds to the perception that the USA is against the muslim world and helps al queda recruit. Someone told me that my view is "giving in" to the terrorists, but I dont see how it is. This is what the terrorists DO NOT want. They do not want peace in the Middle East, because peace means that the Israelis are still there and there has been a compromise. The terrorists want the full removal, an all or nothing, solution. But if we create peace, (which I believe IS possible but hard) then the terrorist groups will stop expanding significantly because they can't recruit half as well, and they won't have any reason to fight. The terrorists, in fact, have tried to hinder all peace negotiations in the Middle East. Whenever peace starts to look achievable, they step in and spill more blood in order for peace to be impossible. But either way we choose, both the military way or the negotiation way will be long and hard, and require patience. If we are to use the military, it must be through a global alliance and we cannot strain relations with foreign allies. And if we are to use peace negotiations, it must be by putting global pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians. So I guess, the most fundamental thing I'm saying is, we must keep foreign relations very strong, and only through our allies is defeating terrorism possible. So anyways, I know a lot of this is babbling and rambling. But it is meant to throw some ideas out there on what policies you would do in order to resolve this crisis. Please say your ideas in a thoughtful manner without mention of the presidential canidates, and without flinging poo. And if you need to mention Iraq, please do not speak in a polarizing way. Thanks.
To help encourage intelligent debate, I think we should break some of your points into easier to debate topics, so as to avoid lengthy posts that lose their overall effect. Questions on allies. How are we to respond to nations such as Spain, that when faced with a terrorist situation, quickly take away their help from us? And then Nations like Russia, who completely show no regard for rules or strategy when fighting terror? We are then left with the question of, when does America step in and try to do something? Sudan for instance. We should be there helping out yet have averted a lot of our attention from this situation.
Go after Saudi Arabia, or is that un-American? Remove President for a president that has actually been in battle.
Oh, intelligent debate. count me out. sorry, i tried to edit my post. not to respond to my own tread. What a dumbass.
I personally am also convinced that terrorism is the result of our involvement in the the Israel-Palestine problem. My belief is that of a governmental isolationist, that is where we have relations with other countries but we don't interfere with their own private issues. This is not to say that we don't help countries that are in need, but only in the cases where there is majority UN support. But for the most part, our government has a policy that does not involve itself in other countries' matters, if it is a big enough deal to people, let the private interests groups manage it. However, this is not the reality we live in, and our policy right now has us waist deep in a lot of problems we caused on ourselves. I think there needs to be a way to use force against terrorist camps without creating more terrorists in the process. As terrorism is a strategy and a concept, you can't really invade a nation because of it without pissing off a lot of people. I would prefer a mercenary method (preferably paying or training moderate muslims to do the job) that is very private and at the same time will divert the anger against us. I don't know how effective this would be, but i think trying to kill them all is not only impossible but would cause fighting to get worse as well as create more martyrs, and it is very difficult to get extremists to give up no matter how many times they are beaten.
You are right twhy77, What are the problems in assembling a global coalition on terrorism? Is it possible and how are we to do this? What happens when our allies disagree with us? Do we go it alone, or do we listen to them and compromise with them in order to maintain their support? In my opinion, in a global alliance, there are going to be conflicting views. But as I pointed out my earlier post, there is no chance in fighting terrorism without a global alliance. So since we must have a global alliance, which will obviously lead to some disagreements on how to approach terrorism, what do we do? I think it is a fine line. We must compromise some, because without them, we will not be able to accomplish our goal. Our allies are smart and intelligent enough, that when they disagree, they have a good point. In the case of Iraq, it turned out that they were the smarter ones and were right in not wanting to participate. A compromise with our allies would have kept the coallition together, even if it might jeapordize our security some.... destroying the coallition jeapordizes our security by even a greater amount, right? And the Iraqi threat, was not great enough reason to destroy the coallition. In summary, in a global alliance there are going to be disagreements and we cannot have a "Our way or the highway attitude" even if it deals with something as important as our own country's security. Because the country's security is harmed even worse by a "Our way or the highway" attitude. I don't see how putting a President that has been in battle will change anything. Changes come from their ideas and you need to explain why a President that has been to war, will have better ideas on handling terrorism, (without using personal attacks in the discussion.) Remember, no mention of the current election this year, please. And why attack Saudi Arabia, wouldnt that be overcomitting our forces and only helping terrorists to recruit? We ought to pressure Saudi Arabia to do more on terrorism, but destroying that government does not seem like it will accomplish much but further make Muslims feel that we are against Islam and just want to pursue Saudi Arabia's oil. I'm afraid we would not be able to get a global agreement on attacking Saudi Arabia because there isn't enough reason to. Or Iran for that matter. vaioavan63: Don't troll please. Thanks.
I guess I just don't see how you can say, there is no way of defeating terror without a global alliance. I have to disagree with you on your first point, simply because terrorism is not something that can be defeated. It can be curtailed, weakend, and stopped in specific instances, but the long range battle cannot be won. That said, a global alliance certainly does help with these things, but it is niether neccesary or sufficient to our interests.
I think this is a fascinating idea. The idea of privatization deserves some more exploration. Trying to kill all the extremists does seem impossible because not only do they hide and wait until the chance is right, and never give up no matter how beaten they are, but trying to root out extremists will require us to enter more Muslim countries and make us seem like we are there to conquer them. Nobody likes soldiers from foreign countries walking around your neighborhood. It will only allow terrorists to spin the situation and be able to recruit more youths to their cause. In order to privatize this, we could have our global alliance fund money to countries like Saudi Arabia. We could have somebody from our own government that handles the funds, hiring a police force and buying supplies etc. Thus, we are hiring muslims within their own country to stop terrorism and these muslims will be working with the Saudi Arabian government who are our allies and I think Saudi Arabia would probably comply. I don't think this option can be used for Iran since they aren't friendly with us. But I think if we can put pressure on Saudi Arabia to do this, they would, and we would need lots of money contributions from our allies. I dont think that would be a problem. A bit still needs to be worked out in this idea but this sounds like a feasible idea.
Your right, the war on terrorism cannot be won outright. But I think we can have great success with it if we use a global alliance. I don't think we can have success with it by going alone. Therefore I disagree with your statement. A global alliance is necessary in order to be succesful. I refer to our current situation to back up this belief. We practically went alone in Iraq and I think we've come to realize that it is impossible to handle Iraq by ourselves. It is too expensive to continue by ourselves (and this is going to be a long endeavor), we don't have enough troops to keep there for too long, and by being the only ones there, we are not able to pursue the terrorist threat elsewhere. What if proof comes up that Iran is funding al queda? We are unable to stretch our forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, and then to Iran. It would be impossible for us to fight in these many places. But the war on terror requires us to take the fight to many different places, and also to spend a lot of time and resources in each place we fight in. Therefore, I think it is necessary to have global allies involved so we can fight on many different fronts and use resources (troops, supplies, money) other than 90% our own each time. (And any country we are to fight next, would probably put up a much better fight than Afghanistan and Iraq)
Follow the money. From our pocket at the gas pump, to the rich Saudi aristocrats, to the economically challenged, mentally rabid Muslim fundamentalists. Stopping the flow of money will go a long way into curtailing terrorism. We also need better intelligence in the field.
Pimp- Once again, we must turn to the question of who will support us and who will not, followed by questions of, lets try to have some prudence and not repeat what has been happening in the past, we help out afghan raiders against the ruskies and then they turn into the taliban. Other country's will not have the same motivations as the US does. For instance, should we form an alliance with Russia? I don't know, it just seems like force can only be used ever so moderately. The only way we will protect ourselves is with intell. Ground intell at that. In a perfect world, sure we would want to use help from a global alliance to take on a major threat. Unfortunately, world alliances are hard to make and one must always gauge another's intrest in alligning themselves with us.
If I was head of a major Islamic country, I would set things in my country so that the conditions are "liveable" and donate eevrything else to freeing Palestine in an Islamically correct way.
First I would try to use all of the tools at hand. I would use diplomacy, finance, intel, and military. The solution is not solely military. Diplomatically I would start by addressing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. I would point out to both sides how they would profit from having peace. I would show them that it is in their best interest to be at peace with one another. I would talk to Israel about living up to UN resolutions, and talk to the UN as well about enforcing those resolutions. I would start to help fund social services superior to and less biased to those offered by Hamas, thus lessening their influence. I would speak to the UN about targeting Palestinian terrorist groups that operate from occupied territories against Israel. I would encourage granting a Palestinian state early on, and using UN, including U.S. troops early on to enforce the borders. Any acts of terrorism would bring swift and violent retribution. Continued acts would bring NATO/UN troops controling the situation. Both Palestine and Israel would recognize the other's right to exist. I would bring as many allies on board these negotiations as possible, and pressure economically parties that didn't cooperate or work toward peace. In general I would call out dictatorships for being dictatorships, and use pressure/rewards to help countries avoid dictatorships. I would finish what I start. If I had to invade a country such as Afghanistan I would make sure that I had a plan for rebuilding the country and see it through to satisfaction. I would not abandon it to the wolves and chaos. I would not give in to terrorist demands. If the terrorists said they wanted female prisoners released, I would claim to not give in to those demands and then release the female prisoners, I would stick to my word. I wouldn't invade countries that aren't a threat and don't give any significant support to terrorism. War would always be a last resort. I would divert funds from needless missle defense type weapons systems and put it towards paying informants training intel agents capable of getting close to terrorists groups and using it to boost intel to find out terrorist plots before they happen, and send in special forces to take the terrorists out. I would spread democracy as much as possible, and always through peaceful means. I would not use military troops to force my system on others. I would work with allies to show them that they as well as we have a stake in combating terrorism. I would listen to their ideas, and adopt ones that were wise. They would be a part of the war against terrorism. I would not tell them it's my way or the highway. At the same time I would never sacrifice ideas or missions or policies that keep the U.S. safe. I would use money to fund pro U.S. media stories in parts of the world where are reputation was the worst. I would highlight the social programs and good things our country does for people in that area of the world. I would point out the balanced position in regards to the Palestinian/Israeli situation. I would point out my condemnation of dictatorships all over the world, including Saudi Arabia, and Africa. I would have the military train on smaller street fighting scenarios, dealing with IED's and other tactics that are new to warfare in the 21st century. I would be prepared to use our might against any nation that harbored and supported terrorists or terrorist groups that were a threat to us. I think this firm but inclusive, and consistent application of principles would: 1. Bring allies on board more willingly, and keep them committed. 2. Lessen the animosity of masses of people who would join terrorist groups in order inflict damage on our nation. 3. Prepare our nation to seek, find, and destroy terrorists would attack us.
The first thing I would do would be to change the name to “The war on Terrorism” ~ I think that sounds more official.
