[mojo2]

All Bush, USA & WoT Bashers: What's Your Ideas To Stop Terrorism?

Time to put up or shut up.

Your opinions will never be given greater consideration.

Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Since you continue to whine and gripe and complain and laugh and deny I'd like to know what your suggestions are.

[subego]

Can I play if I'm only one of the three?

[besson3c]

We've had this thread before - quite recently in fact, perhaps while you were gone mojo2. It didn't work out so well.

The problem is, some people don't like to recognize the complexity of some issues. They want simple and actionable solutions regardless of the complexity of the problem. Some people gave relatively complex answers that some people weren't satisfied with. Things broke down when they were asked to dumb down their solutions to become more simplistic and void of nuance.

This is perhaps one of the root causes of this breakdown in conversations between the Left and the Right. I don't necessarily think that it is always the Right that is one way and the Left that is another, but in here it is the absolutists that are only committed to seeing things one way vs. everybody else. Your original question might be better entertained if it could be answered without invoking these sort of knee-jerk reaction defense mechanisms.

As it stands, I'd be very surprised if this thread goes anywhere.

[besson3c]

Mojo2, if you really truly and earnestly want to understand views that are in opposition to yours, maybe you ought to word your original post a little differently, and maybe you should promise some space and respect for others to make a point and have it heard and understood?

Your OP is just about putting others on the spot to come up with an airtight statement that won't result in you jumping down their throat with immediate criticism and critique. I'm not interested in participating under these terms, we have pretty much every other thread in this forum for this purpose.

[Helmling]

I would pursue the strategies that have worked so far.

Pointless surveillance of average Americans--including government moles being sent into peace organizations--have not worked.

Creating a more labyrinthine bureacracy with which to protect the "homeland" has also done nothing for us.

Launching a preemptive war in Iraq based on the convoluted rationale that anyone who might--hypothetically, someday--provide weapons to terrorists has done worse than nothing; it has cost thousands upon thousands of lives and inflamed world opinion against us.

Curtailing our civil liberties at home and detaining foreigners abroad without any respect for their human rights has not--that I've seen--done anything but grant more power to a government already drunk with its own hubris.

Good old fashioned law enforcement, though, is what stopped these most recent attacks. Some alleged that we would have not had this victory without measures like the Patriot Act, but then, the victory isn't ours. Britain has granted its law enforcement some more latitude in fighting terrorism, true, so there is some debate there. They have not gone nearly as far, though, and there's no reason to believe that we cannot fight this "war" with our spirit of liberty intact.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by subego

Can I play if I'm only one of the three?

Same question here - except that I'm two of the three!

[Nicko]

Get a clue, starting wars are short term solutions.

Oh look, the war in Iraq is going sooooo well:

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Helmling

I would pursue the strategies that have worked so far.

Pointless surveillance of average Americans--including government moles being sent into peace organizations--have not worked.

In case you're wondering, international a.n.s.w.e.r. supports the terrorists. It's ostensibly a peace group. CAIR is a Hamas front group. It is ostensibly a civil rights group. Monitoring these groups and others like them is the only way to gather intelligence. Human intelligence is one of the things the British had success with, why do you deny it so quickly?

Creating a more labyrinthine bureacracy with which to protect the "homeland" has also done nothing for us.

It's government. Did you expect something non-labyrinthine?

Launching a preemptive war in Iraq based on the convoluted rationale that anyone who might--hypothetically, someday--provide weapons to terrorists has done worse than nothing; it has cost thousands upon thousands of lives and inflamed world opinion against us.

Have to beg to differ on the basis of fact here: Saddam Hussein did train terrorists and did supply Palestinian terrorists with fund. Palestinian terrorism is international terrorism which has harmed Americans both in Israel and in the world (Italy, Africa where they killed a US ambassador.) Nevermind Munich, or Black September, or the Achille Lauro (and that we found the specific terrorists behind that in Iraq) Nevermind that when Zarqawi needed somewhere as a safe haven, where did he go? Iraq. I wonder why he knew he would be given safe haven by Hussein?

Just because world opinion has forgotten, does not mean that Iraq had only a 'hypothetical' relationship with terrorism. And this is a war on terror.

[BRussell]

There are tons of liberal and Democratic 12-point plans. Here's (big pdf) the Congressional Democrats' plan, and there are quite a few liberal think-tank plans.

What I don't see are any Bush/conservative/Republican plans. They're all too afraid to say anything lest they be seen as politically disloyal. The plan is "whatever crazy **** Bush happens to do next, I support it, and those libs are anti-American!"

IMO, thinking we're going to "stop terrorism" is like thinking we're going to stop crime. Anyone who claims they know how to stop it is full of it.

IMO, we have to think of terrorism as a global guerilla war. The problem is that most counterinsurgencies have been unsuccessful. We saw this in Lebanon last week. It's one of the hardest jobs there is. You need security, law enforcement, targeted military, and then you try to drain support for the "guerillas" from the populations from which they come. We seem to be trying to do exactly the opposite - big military occupations is the last thing in the world you want to do.

I believe our values will win, if we stick to them.

[davesimondotcom]

Here's what I feel we need:

* Human intelligence gathering should be stressed. As we've seen, it was the breakdown of that intelligence on 9/11 that cost us. But the liquid-explosives plan, the millennium bombing plan, etc. were all foiled by information.

* Better trained security. What do I mean by that? I want the guy screening people to let them on an airplane have the same kind of training as a police officer. Police officers develop instincts - they spot "tells" that show them to investigate further. This comes from experience, of course, but I don't want a guy screening people on the plane to have just come from a job at McDonald's.

* Border security. This means both north and south borders need to be re-examined. Not just increasing the amount of agents on the borders, but using technology to our advantage as well. Unmanned drones, etc. But that also means taking away the incentives for people to illegally cross. This means cracking down on employers who hire illegals. This is not an issue of race, it's an issue of security.

* Alternative fuels/Weening off Middle East Oil. We need to develop alternative fuels but also develop our own oil resources and stop relying on the Middle East for oil.

* Realize that we all have common goals as Americans, regardless of party. We just have different ideas to get there. The first thought we all had when we saw the second plane hit the WTC on 9/11/01 was not, "Boy, I wonder how we can spin this to my favorite political party's advantage." At least I hope it wasn't.

Obviously, I don't have any great new ideas. I just think that the extremists on both sides and their kneejerk reactions are not doing us any favors. One side proposes something, the other side shoots it down, not because it won't work, but because they don't want the other side winning anything.

Perhaps that would be one that would help us the most. Unity.

EDIT: Added more.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

IMO, thinking we're going to "stop terrorism" is like thinking we're going to stop crime. Anyone who claims they know how to stop it is full of it.

I agree. It's like a war on drugs. Something is going to get through, sometime.

Originally Posted by BRussell

I believe our values will win, if we stick to them.

I sure hope so.

[sek929]

Cut all ties with the middle east, leave their holy lands and get off oil asap.

I'd say a trillion dollars in a few years would give newer fuel tech a kick in the ass.

Other than that wars will not solve the current problem. I know, many of the members here believe otherwise, since I'm 22 I will have plenty of time to see if "you guys" are right.

[anonymac]

There are no "terrorists" because that word depends on whoever is defining it. The founding fathers of America were considered to be terrorists that hurt England by England.

The fact is that America has now been changed by the current political establishment into an imperialist country exactly as England was. America controls other countries by controlling their economies just as England did.

The solution is that America needs to be a collection of self-governing, self-concerned, independent, small-government states exactly as it was created rather than a centralized imperialist nation bent on trying to convert the world to "democracy" which is just the new code-word for control and manipulation of all of the economies in the world.

[Peder Rice]

mojo2, I'm very nearly with anonymac here, for I see far too many parallels between the England of old and the United States of today. I, personally, do not want to continue down that road.

[Rumor]

Move the US to the moon. As far as I know, the "terrorist" are incapable of space travel.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Helmling

I would pursue the strategies that have worked so far.

Pointless surveillance of average Americans--including government moles being sent into peace organizations--have not worked.

Creating a more labyrinthine bureacracy with which to protect the "homeland" has also done nothing for us.

Launching a preemptive war in Iraq based on the convoluted rationale that anyone who might--hypothetically, someday--provide weapons to terrorists has done worse than nothing; it has cost thousands upon thousands of lives and inflamed world opinion against us.

Curtailing our civil liberties at home and detaining foreigners abroad without any respect for their human rights has not--that I've seen--done anything but grant more power to a government already drunk with its own hubris.

Good old fashioned law enforcement, though, is what stopped these most recent attacks. Some alleged that we would have not had this victory without measures like the Patriot Act, but then, the victory isn't ours. Britain has granted its law enforcement some more latitude in fighting terrorism, true, so there is some debate there. They have not gone nearly as far, though, and there's no reason to believe that we cannot fight this "war" with our spirit of liberty intact.

And yet, law enforcement has not been curtailed in the WoT, so what does that mean?

I'm ignoring the rest of your post which is bash-ful.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by subego

Can I play if I'm only one of the three?

yes

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by badidea

Same question here - except that I'm two of the three!

yes

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Get a clue, starting wars are short term solutions.

Oh look, the war in Iraq is going sooooo well:

This is not an invitation to continue to bash. Please exercise self control.

[Dakar]

hehehehehe

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

There are tons of liberal and Democratic 12-point plans. Here's (big pdf) the Congressional Democrats' plan, and there are quite a few liberal think-tank plans.

What I don't see are any Bush/conservative/Republican plans. They're all too afraid to say anything lest they be seen as politically disloyal. The plan is "whatever crazy **** Bush happens to do next, I support it, and those libs are anti-American!"

IMO, thinking we're going to "stop terrorism" is like thinking we're going to stop crime. Anyone who claims they know how to stop it is full of it.

IMO, we have to think of terrorism as a global guerilla war. The problem is that most counterinsurgencies have been unsuccessful. We saw this in Lebanon last week. It's one of the hardest jobs there is. You need security, law enforcement, targeted military, and then you try to drain support for the "guerillas" from the populations from which they come. We seem to be trying to do exactly the opposite - big military occupations is the last thing in the world you want to do.

I believe our values will win, if we stick to them.

And you think the American people, the Western populations would be "happier" (I don't strive for a hedonistic utopia here!) with security increases (which are happening) a continued robust role of law enforcement and a smaller military role in the face of what may very well be increased SUCCESSFUL attacks on Western interests?

Our military efforts have put the enemy on it's heels and depleted it's resources of men, machines and money. To reduce or eliminate offensive military operations places a greater responsibility on our defenses and a defensive war guarantees the attackers successes they wouldn't have if they were forced to deal with ongoing military operations.

And in the world of clandestine operations and Spec Ops you need people who are skilled in language and customs and culture, people you can trust, who are also skilled in certain crafts and can fit into organizations and populations seamlessly, unnoticed or without suspicion and then gain the trust of the secretive jihadist groups and cells. Some cells only consist of lifelong friends.

And if anyone thinks I am merely slamming your suggestions, I'll have you know I am not.

This concentration on Spec Ops is easier said than done, as you allude.

[Landos Mustache]

Get your ass out of other peoples countries.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Here's what I feel we need:

* Human intelligence gathering should be stressed. As we've seen, it was the breakdown of that intelligence on 9/11 that cost us. But the liquid-explosives plan, the millennium bombing plan, etc. were all foiled by information.

* Better trained security. What do I mean by that? I want the guy screening people to let them on an airplane have the same kind of training as a police officer. Police officers develop instincts - they spot "tells" that show them to investigate further. This comes from experience, of course, but I don't want a guy screening people on the plane to have just come from a job at McDonald's.

* Border security. This means both north and south borders need to be re-examined. Not just increasing the amount of agents on the borders, but using technology to our advantage as well. Unmanned drones, etc. But that also means taking away the incentives for people to illegally cross. This means cracking down on employers who hire illegals. This is not an issue of race, it's an issue of security.

* Alternative fuels/Weening off Middle East Oil. We need to develop alternative fuels but also develop our own oil resources and stop relying on the Middle East for oil.

* Realize that we all have common goals as Americans, regardless of party. We just have different ideas to get there. The first thought we all had when we saw the second plane hit the WTC on 9/11/01 was not, "Boy, I wonder how we can spin this to my favorite political party's advantage." At least I hope it wasn't.

Obviously, I don't have any great new ideas. I just think that the extremists on both sides and their kneejerk reactions are not doing us any favors. One side proposes something, the other side shoots it down, not because it won't work, but because they don't want the other side winning anything.

Perhaps that would be one that would help us the most. Unity.

EDIT: Added more.

Leave it to you, davesimondotcom, to understand what I asked for and to present your suggestions exactly as I'd hoped.

Thank you very much.

[tie]

Originally Posted by mojo2

All Bush, USA & WoT Bashers: What's Your Ideas To Stop Terrorism?

Time to put up or shut up.

Your opinions will never be given greater consideration.

Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Since you continue to whine and gripe and complain and laugh and deny I'd like to know what your suggestions are.

Why don't you give your ideas? Or do you not have any? Or was it your idea to waste $2 trillion to turn Iraq into a center of terrorism? Interesting. Now give us a good idea. And maybe think about it for a second or two before committing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars to it.

How about we start by spending $2 trillion to secure our ports? With that kind of money, we could check every shipping container a dozen times.

[subego]

Originally Posted by mojo2

yes

Alright...

I'll ante up a "nab Osama Bin Laden" and raise with a "cut funding to terrorists" (though this has been brought up by davesimondotcom under it's alias of "reduce dependence on foreign oil").

Of course, as a Bush basher I must add that with regards to these two policies the current administration sucks the hairy banana.

Howmidoinsofar?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by sek929

Cut all ties with the middle east, leave their holy lands and get off oil asap.

I'd say a trillion dollars in a few years would give newer fuel tech a kick in the ass.

Other than that wars will not solve the current problem. I know, many of the members here believe otherwise, since I'm 22 I will have plenty of time to see if "you guys" are right.

What is the latest estimate of how long it would take to switch all of our industry and residential and agricultural and consumer and transportation and automotive capabilities over to non-Oil soyrces?

And which source(s) should we tell GM (for example) to switch to tomorrow? (They must start tomorrow so that the switchover will be accomplished in XX years.)

So, that would mean we'd no longer need M.E. oil, when?

And then, when the US/Western world no longer needs M.E. oil, will we allow a vacuum to exist there which would be filled by jihadist groups?

Would we abandon Israel in the face of this increased power and wealth of jihadist groups in the M.E.? What about the nations which have started to become more Democratic thanks to our efforts? Should we continue to support them?

When we have this cool new alternative power, which has been made possible through MASSIVE investment, the developing world wouldn't be able to afford it and under our capitalist system our companies shouldn't be expected to give the technology away to developing nations.

So these nations would need to continue their dependence on oil. And they would have to submit to those who now control the oil. The jihadists.

So all the nations in the world would be expected to become Sharia ruled in short order and only the countries that have our unproven (over any great lengths of time) and expensive alternative energy technologies will have any alternatives to M.E. oil.

And if you believe violent jihad will stop, I would ask you to re-consider what you know about the goal of Islam and the goal of the Islamists.

Do you want to live on an island of Democracy in an Islamic jihadist world?

If there is no threat from jihad then you'd have nothing to worry about.

[subego]

Originally Posted by mojo2

And then, when the US/Western world no longer needs M.E. oil, will we allow a vacuum to exist there which would be filled by jihadist groups?

Would we abandon Israel in the face of this increased power and wealth of jihadist groups in the M.E.?

I think, for better or worse, things would more likely go along the lines of the most memorable quote from "Syriana":

"We [the Americans] think a hundred years ago you were living out here in tents in the desert chopping each others head's off, and that's exactly where you're going to be in another hundred."

[badidea]

Originally Posted by mojo2

yes

Well, ok then...

...I have to admit that I don't have a good solution since I don't believe that you can fight or kill all terrorists.

It's not like there are 103.786 terrorists out there right now and if you kill 103.786 terrorists then they will all be gone! No!
If you fight them, you breed them!

Defense yes!
Attack no!


If Israel would leave the middle east that would help but that's NOT an option!

BTW, did you know that 25.000 Jews live peacefully in Iran?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by anonymac

There are no "terrorists" because that word depends on whoever is defining it. The founding fathers of America were considered to be terrorists that hurt England by England.

The fact is that America has now been changed by the current political establishment into an imperialist country exactly as England was. America controls other countries by controlling their economies just as England did.

The solution is that America needs to be a collection of self-governing, self-concerned, independent, small-government states exactly as it was created rather than a centralized imperialist nation bent on trying to convert the world to "democracy" which is just the new code-word for control and manipulation of all of the economies in the world.

Here's a quick synopsis.

The Koran instructs all believers to make Islam the dominant religion everywhere, all over the world and to use any means necessary to accomplish this; peaceful jihad all the way up to violent jihad. And if a Muslim wantes to be GUARANTEED a place in paradise he or she should die while defending the religion. This explains the suicide terrorist. Not all Muslims want to accept the violent aspects of the religion which were given to Muhammad in his later, violent phase of life, so the Koran emphasizes that jihad can also be the non-violent type.

Islamic violence is patterned after Muhammad and is consistent with his life, his teachings and his philosophy in the later part of his life, and not coincidentally, Koranic scholars have decided that whnever there is a conflict between the peaceful surahs written during his earlier, peaceful period and his violent surahs (60% of the Koran) handed down during the latter years of his life the violent latter portions take priority. In Christianity, though many evil things have been done in God's name, the Bible does NOT support current day believers acting violently except in law enforcement or self defense. And unlike the Islamic terrorists and military groups which do what they do as they consider it to be their religious duty, the USA does not fight in the name of God.

Another commandment of the Koran is that once land belongs to Muslims it must ALWAYS belong to Muslims and must never revert to infidel ownership and Muslims must do whatever is necessary to prevent losing land or to get the land back if they ever lose it.

And there is a long tradition of Anti-Semitism within Islam.

The Islamic jihadists are trying to create a one world Islamic government (the White House would be called the Muslim House) and are using any and every means at their disposal to accomplish this. This global jihahd explains why there is so much violence around the world involving Muslims irrespective of the US presence or activity in foreign lands. There seems to be little we have done so far to stop the global efforts at conquest and even if we are able to oppose jihad to a stand still, the differences in Islamic vs non-Islamic birth rates in the western nations means the Muslim populations will eventually be able to vote for Islam to replace Democracy someday.

So, even if we pulled out of the M.E. (our necessary reason for being there is OIL...it's like blood or water, we can't live without it) jihad would continue.

We are in the fight for our lives and in the west the Muslims who do their religious duty by performing non-violent jihad of the heart, or the mind or the pen have been joined by non-Muslims (most often liberals) in their cause to weaken the resolve and confuse our understanding of the campaign to weaken and defeat us.

The liberals see only the bad things that we do and bash America or the War on Terror or GW Bush without seriously considering the greater danger of Islam and without our having any way of stopping an aggressive jihad if our current efforts don't work, but still they continue to help tear down our efforts to protect the last great Democracy in the world. If we weaken or fall, who would be able to prevent Islam from prevailing? Who would help the USA?

If you have any questions after reading this, feel free to ask.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by mojo2

What is the latest estimate of how long it would take to switch all of our industry and residential and agricultural and consumer and transportation and automotive capabilities over to non-Oil soyrces?

And which source(s) should we tell GM (for example) to switch to tomorrow? (They must start tomorrow so that the switchover will be accomplished in XX years.)

So, that would mean we'd no longer need M.E. oil, when?

And then, when the US/Western world no longer needs M.E. oil, will we allow a vacuum to exist there which would be filled by jihadist groups?

Would we abandon Israel in the face of this increased power and wealth of jihadist groups in the M.E.? What about the nations which have started to become more Democratic thanks to our efforts? Should we continue to support them?

When we have this cool new alternative power, which has been made possible through MASSIVE investment, the developing world wouldn't be able to afford it and under our capitalist system our companies shouldn't be expected to give the technology away to developing nations.

So these nations would need to continue their dependence on oil. And they would have to submit to those who now control the oil. The jihadists.

So all the nations in the world would be expected to become Sharia ruled in short order and only the countries that have our unproven (over any great lengths of time) and expensive alternative energy technologies will have any alternatives to M.E. oil.

And if you believe violent jihad will stop, I would ask you to re-consider what you know about the goal of Islam and the goal of the Islamists.

Do you want to live on an island of Democracy in an Islamic jihadist world?

If there is no threat from jihad then you'd have nothing to worry about.

I didn't say it was going to be easy, but surely a trillion dollars well spent this time would be nice?

Plus I don't believe a word of the Islamic Jihadist World Conquest™, after watching a nice Frontline about Saudi Arabia I believe the problem is western culture vs their culture. As I see it once we leave them alone they will do the same, most of those interviewed in the show (clerics, Princes, etc) respect America and its wealth and power, but believe it will kill their way of life.

This is, of course, my opinion....which you asked for in the original post, I don't have the time you do to post a billion times concerning my statements. War (to me) accomplishes very little unless the enemy is direct and the threat very tangible. You make it seem so, but like Fox News, I take what you say with a grain of salt.

[D. S. Troyer]

"All Bush, USA & WoT Bashers: What's Your Ideas To Stop Terrorism?"

Throw PacHead at them with a big exploding pig.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by sek929

I didn't say it was going to be easy, but surely a trillion dollars well spent this time would be nice?

Plus I don't believe a word of the Islamic Jihadist World Conquest™, after watching a nice Frontline about Saudi Arabia I believe the problem is western culture vs their culture. As I see it once we leave them alone they will do the same, most of those interviewed in the show (clerics, Princes, etc) respect America and its wealth and power, but believe it will kill their way of life.

This is, of course, my opinion....which you asked for in the original post, I don't have the time you do to post a billion times concerning my statements. War (to me) accomplishes very little unless the enemy is direct and the threat very tangible. You make it seem so, but like Fox News, I take what you say with a grain of salt.

Ahh. But you believe Frontline, huh? OK. Noted.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by D. S. Troyer

"All Bush, USA & WoT Bashers: What's Your Ideas To Stop Terrorism?"

Throw PacHead at them with a big exploding pig.

PacHead is a no-nonsense poster, that's for sure!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Get your ass out of other peoples countries.

What if Islamic aggression continues as it had and still does, irrespective of our having a presence there?

Then what?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by vmarks

In case you're wondering, international a.n.s.w.e.r. supports the terrorists. It's ostensibly a peace group. CAIR is a Hamas front group. It is ostensibly a civil rights group. Monitoring these groups and others like them is the only way to gather intelligence. Human intelligence is one of the things the British had success with, why do you deny it so quickly?
It's government. Did you expect something non-labyrinthine?


Have to beg to differ on the basis of fact here: Saddam Hussein did train terrorists and did supply Palestinian terrorists with fund. Palestinian terrorism is international terrorism which has harmed Americans both in Israel and in the world (Italy, Africa where they killed a US ambassador.) Nevermind Munich, or Black September, or the Achille Lauro (and that we found the specific terrorists behind that in Iraq) Nevermind that when Zarqawi needed somewhere as a safe haven, where did he go? Iraq. I wonder why he knew he would be given safe haven by Hussein?

Just because world opinion has forgotten, does not mean that Iraq had only a 'hypothetical' relationship with terrorism. And this is a war on terror.

The groups you mention are not the ones I mean. I'm talking about US-side peace groups being infiltrated (though this term seems unnecessary, since the groups in question have open meetings) by law enforcement and put under surveillance. The most absurd example was a pair of pacifists--hippy leftovers--put on the terrorist no-fly list.

As to Hussein, I'd have to ask for some verification on your claim--which sounds an awful lot like the overblown misconceptions that led to polls early in the war indicating most Americans beleived Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Hussein's Iraq did give money to the family of "martyrs" like every other regime in the region.

Even if he had been supporting Palestinian terrorists, can you actually argue that would justify the ensuing invasion and its horrendous costs to our nation and humanity? Sorry, I've got to say to that: Give me a break.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

* Alternative fuels/Weening off Middle East Oil. We need to develop alternative fuels but also develop our own oil resources and stop relying on the Middle East for oil.

There's apparently a ton of oil in the Colorado mountains we could use if we had to, although it would take 10 years to develop into a finished product.

* Realize that we all have common goals as Americans, regardless of party. We just have different ideas to get there. The first thought we all had when we saw the second plane hit the WTC on 9/11/01 was not, "Boy, I wonder how we can spin this to my favorite political party's advantage." At least I hope it wasn't.

I hope some people read this good point and think about this.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by tie

Why don't you give your ideas? Or do you not have any? Or was it your idea to waste $2 trillion to turn Iraq into a center of terrorism? Interesting. Now give us a good idea. And maybe think about it for a second or two before committing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars to it.

How about we start by spending $2 trillion to secure our ports? With that kind of money, we could check every shipping container a dozen times.

My ideas are quite ordinary. But then again I'm not continually bashing the conduct of the WoT.

My belief is that if you have a better idea then don't keep it to yourself.

If you don't have a better idea, then support the plan being employed.

And if you don't have a better idea and you can't support the current program, then STFU.

Apparently, because there are so many bashers here I figured they might have some valuable suggestions to make. And if they don't then maybe they should just pipe down if they haven't any better strategies than the ones being employed.

Are you saying that you believe a totally defensive strategy will keep us safe?

What evidence is there to support that belief?

[sek929]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Ahh. But you believe Frontline, huh? OK. Noted.

Get a primetime show on PBS and we'll talk, until then, you're an arrogant blow-hard.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by subego

Alright...

I'll ante up a "nab Osama Bin Laden" and raise with a "cut funding to terrorists" (though this has been brought up by davesimondotcom under it's alias of "reduce dependence on foreign oil").

Of course, as a Bush basher I must add that with regards to these two policies the current administration sucks the hairy banana.

Howmidoinsofar?

With Osama running and hiding for his life what do you think his contribution is to global terrorism? When FDR died in the last days of WWII the war continued.

What makes you think capturing or killing OBL would stop Islamic jihadism?

And I'll pose the question, this time to you, what amount of time and how much $$ will it cost to wean ourselves from M.E. oil?

And if the process takes, let's say, 20 years and we were to get started tomorrow, what alternative source are you going to tell our industries to prepare to shift to?

You're doin just fine.

[besson3c]

Mojo2: is there anything that anybody you have pigeon-holed as being Leftist could possibly say that would result in you reacting in any way other than the usual?

[ink]

Get.

Off.

Petroleum.

How many times does it need to be said, by how many people, before conservatives will shut up about "wellll, the OTHER side never has any suggestions"...?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by subego

I think, for better or worse, things would more likely go along the lines of the most memorable quote from "Syriana":

"We [the Americans] think a hundred years ago you were living out here in tents in the desert chopping each others head's off, and that's exactly where you're going to be in another hundred."

But what about tomorrow and in the next 20 years? How do we proceed?

Not trying to bust your balls, here, but if you keep hammering the Administration about it's failure to employ your suggestions I think it's instructive to try to consider why they don't.

We sometimes believe a remedy exists without taking into account the impracticalities of those remdies. What you sincerely believe are viable alternatives may not be. But maybe you know something I don't. So...

Please share.

[ink]

Originally Posted by mojo2

What is the latest estimate of how long it would take to switch all of our industry and residential and agricultural and consumer and transportation and automotive capabilities over to non-Oil soyrces?

Well, bombing Iraq certainly doesn't help along that path, would you agree?

A trillion wasted dollars that could have gone toward anything more progressive on the energy front would have been better spent. Build more nuclear reactors. Build more wind farms. Build more hydro-electric generation. Build more tidal generators.

This month's Scientific American has about 40 pages devoted to this very topic, if you're really interested.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by badidea

Well, ok then...

...I have to admit that I don't have a good solution since I don't believe that you can fight or kill all terrorists.

It's not like there are 103.786 terrorists out there right now and if you kill 103.786 terrorists then they will all be gone! No!
If you fight them, you breed them!

Defense yes!
Attack no!


If Israel would leave the middle east that would help but that's NOT an option!

BTW, did you know that 25.000 Jews live peacefully in Iran?

Yes, I know there is a Jewish community living in Iran. Just as there are Christians who live in the Palestinian Authority whose ancestors have lived there for hundreds or thousands of years.

I know that neither of these groups dares speak their minds or voice their thoughts aloud lest they be imprisoned, or worse.

And i'll ask you, do you think a purely defensive effort will protect Democracy, or democracies or the peoples of free nations from Islamic jihad?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Get your ass out of other peoples countries.

My personal ass has only left this country one time, unfortunately. But that was to visit your lovely country.

So if we didn't have as much of an interventionist foreign policy, became isolationists, you think that would help?

Or do you just want us to stop meddling in the Middle East or with Muslims? I'm thinking the Muslims in Kosovo might view us in a more positive light for intervening, rather than not. Then again, so do the Kurds.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Helmling

The groups you mention are not the ones I mean. I'm talking about US-side peace groups being infiltrated (though this term seems unnecessary, since the groups in question have open meetings) by law enforcement and put under surveillance. The most absurd example was a pair of pacifists--hippy leftovers--put on the terrorist no-fly list.

As to Hussein, I'd have to ask for some verification on your claim--which sounds an awful lot like the overblown misconceptions that led to polls early in the war indicating most Americans beleived Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Hussein's Iraq did give money to the family of "martyrs" like every other regime in the region.

Even if he had been supporting Palestinian terrorists, can you actually argue that would justify the ensuing invasion and its horrendous costs to our nation and humanity? Sorry, I've got to say to that: Give me a break.

The American Spectator

There were several good reasons for invading Iraq. The best was to secure world availability to the M.E. oil supplies, not just Iraqi oil but ALL the M.E. oil supplies. We had to maintain a strong presence to prevent or thwart even the largest assaults on any of the sources of oil in several countries as well as to prevent Saddam or any terrorist groups from using oil as a weapon.

Saddam would have tried to win the support of Muslim populations by using oil as a weapon against the West and cloak himself in Sunni Islamism.

Here are some more links which describe Saddam's terrorist efforts.

"Blessed July"
Gateway Pundit: Saddam's Blessed July Operation
Commonwealth Watch: Blessed July
Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock
Deroy Murdock on Iraq on National Review Online

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by sek929

Get a primetime show on PBS and we'll talk, until then, you're an arrogant blow-hard.

Sorry you feel that way.

Edit: I'm sorry I caused you to feel that way.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ink

Get.

Off.

Petroleum.

How many times does it need to be said, by how many people, before conservatives will shut up about "wellll, the OTHER side never has any suggestions"...?

Your suggestion is a good one.

All I ask is that you tell us how.

How long it will take?

How much it will cost?

What will replace oil?

How can we do it tomorrow?

Are you sure that will stop global jihad?

What makes you believe so?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ink

Well, bombing Iraq certainly doesn't help along that path, would you agree?

A trillion wasted dollars that could have gone toward anything more progressive on the energy front would have been better spent. Build more nuclear reactors. Build more wind farms. Build more hydro-electric generation. Build more tidal generators.

This month's Scientific American has about 40 pages devoted to this very topic, if you're really interested.

Thanks for the suggestion to Scientific American!

But terrorism exists today. The solutions in S.A. will not reduce our dependence on M.E. oil tomorrow. What can we do today?

What makes you think global Islamic jihad would stop if we pulled every American out of the M.E.?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Your suggestion is a good one.

All I ask is that you tell us how.

How long it will take?

How much it will cost?

What will replace oil?

How can we do it tomorrow?

Are you sure that will stop global jihad?

What makes you believe so?

Please ask yourself the same questions about winning the war in Iraq.