Terrorism

[tommyedison]

If you were the president of the United States or in fact of any country facing terrorist threat (practically all), how would you combat it?

[Colonel Rebel]

end the war on drugs. i shouldn't have to explain further why...

[tommyedison]

end the war on drugs. i shouldn't have to explain further why...

Yes but how? It is easier to say what should be done that to figure how to do it. That is what I want to know. What can the current or future President of United States do to end global terrorism?

[MisterSwig]

If you were the president of the United States or in fact of any country facing terrorist threat (practically all), how would you combat it?

I would formally declare war on Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria (maybe a few others, depending on whatever high-level intelligence I had). If Congress refused to declare war, I would use every man in the military to protect our borders and our homeland, while taking my case for war to the public. I would emphasize the real nature of the threat, and I would emphasize the value of our citizens and soldiers versus the value of the enemy's. Once war powers were granted by Congress and we formally declared war, I would begin nuking Iran until their leader formally begged for mercy and accepted unconditional surrender terms. I would then threaten the rest of the enemy nations with a similar fate, if they don't immediately end their support of the Islamic totalitarian movement and become a non-threat to the safety of Americans.

[tommyedison]

I would formally declare war on Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria (maybe a few others, depending on whatever high-level intelligence I had). If Congress refused to declare war, I would use every man in the military to protect our borders and our homeland, while taking my case for war to the public. I would emphasize the real nature of the threat, and I would emphasize the value of our citizens and soldiers versus the value of the enemy's. Once war powers were granted by Congress and we formally declared war, I would begin nuking Iran until their leader formally begged for mercy and accepted unconditional surrender terms. I would then threaten the rest of the enemy nations with a similar fate, if they don't immediately end their support of the Islamic totalitarian movement and become a non-threat to the safety of Americans.

Yes but don't you think declaring a war would be disastrous for US. US as it is has a small army. Imagine how severely strained the US army would be if war is declared. If the US can't manage the situation in Iraq..Iran is much more powerful. Nuclear bomb is not the solution. First of all, it effects generations not one particular generation. Secondly, the world would become severely hostile to the US. Each and every person who even minutely supports Iran would become a terrorist.

[Colonel Rebel]

again, end the war on drugs. it's so simple. terrorist organizations are greatly funded by the sale of drugs. Because drugs are outlawed in most countries, black markets exist which raises the price of the drug to extraordinary levels. Thus, because of this black market caused by the 'war on drugs', drug dealers reap massive amounts of cash, mostly which go to terrorist organizations, or the terrorist groups themselves have a hand in the drug trade. Let's take Afghanistan for example. 2000 reports indicate that nearly 70 percent of all opium was produced in this country. Who also happened to be opperating in this country? I rest my case. But, you can make direct parallels with the Columbian FARC, Abu Nidal, Hezbollah, i mean...the list goes on. Once you make the connection between the drug trade on terrorism, the case completely unfolds into your hands. Granted, Bush did get it right: buying and trafficing drugs does support terrorism. They're nearly synonymous (war on drugs and terror). However, i think he went about addressing the issue in an irrational manner. But that's my opinion, I could be wrong....

[Febod]

again, end the war on drugs. it's so simple. terrorist organizations are greatly funded by the sale of drugs. Because drugs are outlawed in most countries, black markets exist which raises the price of the drug to extraordinary levels. Thus, because of this black market caused by the 'war on drugs', drug dealers reap massive amounts of cash, mostly which go to terrorist organizations, or the terrorist groups themselves have a hand in the drug trade. Let's take Afghanistan for example. 2000 reports indicate that nearly 70 percent of all opium was produced in this country. Who also happened to be opperating in this country? I rest my case. But, you can make direct parallels with the Columbian FARC, Abu Nidal, Hezbollah, i mean...the list goes on. Once you make the connection between the drug trade on terrorism, the case completely unfolds into your hands. Granted, Bush did get it right: buying and trafficing drugs does support terrorism. They're nearly synonymous (war on drugs and terror). However, i think he went about addressing the issue in an irrational manner. But that's my opinion, I could be wrong....

Colonel Rebel is right, I did much research on this topic for a paper, and it turns out that bin Laden is directly associated with over a dozen opium fields, each raking in about 25 million per year. Although the commission report refuses to acknowledge it, long dead are the myths that bin Laden funds al Qaeda with his family fortune, or Islamic contributions.

Also, the drug trade is what allowed the Taliban to rise to power in the first place. The were able to seize nearly all the opium fields in afghanistan and choke the natives with their massive wealth.

I would use every man in the military to protect our borders and our homeland

While I agree with most of what you said, I think that the above statement is bad policy. The only way that America can effectively spread its ideals is to observe an open boarder policy, especially to those people who come from oppressed countries like Iran and Syria, and wish to enjoy the wealth and happiness that Americans enjoy. It would be monstrous to nuke these countries while not allowing the innocent to come to America.

[Oakes]

Almost everything Objectivism advocates for economic and foreign policy would help the war on terrorism. Economic liberty would boost the economy and end black markets. A foreign policy of self-interest would decimate the enemies abroad with whatever means necessary, and keep terrorists and criminals from entering the country with strict immigration laws.

Yes but don't you think declaring a war would be disastrous for US. US as it is has a small army. Imagine how severely strained the US army would be if war is declared. If the US can't manage the situation in Iraq..Iran is much more powerful.

The US military has a lot of problems, but none of them have to do with having "a small army". The main problem identified by ARI's Yaron Brook, whose speech "The Morality of War" is available online for free, is the crippling Just War Theory held by our politicians back home. On the battlefield, our military could learn from John Boyd's strategies and Thomas Barnett's Sys Admin idea.

Nuclear bomb is not the solution. First of all, it effects generations not one particular generation. Secondly, the world would become severely hostile to the US. Each and every person who even minutely supports Iran would become a terrorist.

(1) Why does it matter that we affect more than one generation? And (2) that's why we have more than one nuclear bomb.

again, end the war on drugs.

I agree, but that alone is not the solution. The war on terrorism requires the combination of several deterrents.

While I agree with most of what you said, I think that the above statement is bad policy. The only way that America can effectively spread its ideals is to observe an open boarder policy, especially to those people who come from oppressed countries like Iran and Syria, and wish to enjoy the wealth and happiness that Americans enjoy. It would be monstrous to nuke these countries while not allowing the innocent to come to America.

What's even more monstrous is allowing Iranians and Syrians to walk right in without question.

[Colonel Rebel]

"I agree, but that alone is not the solution. The war on terrorism requires the combination of several deterrents."

I figure that if you remove ALL major funding of terrorist operations, then you've ultimately, SOLVED the solution. Ever stop watering a plant? Sure, it gets some moisture from the surrounding environment, but that alone does not allow the plant to live.

What would be a more grand deterrent than killing the root of terrorist operations? Make them believe we are good people by hugging them? Wage a 'sensible' war? Maybe we can force terrorists to undergo treatment a la Clockwork Orange. Can you catch them all?

The pen, to me, has always been mightier than the sword, except in hand to hand combat.

[MisterSwig]

Nuclear bomb is not the solution ... the world would become severely hostile to the US. Each and every person who even minutely supports Iran would become a terrorist.

The world is full of a bunch of scared little appeasers. Who is going to challenge the United States? Do you really believe that a world in fear of terrorism is going to suddenly grow a pair of balls after we drop a nuke on Iran?

[Colonel Rebel]

did this ship take on idiots? what do you mean nobody would have the balls to attack america. It doesn't take balls to press a button. sometimes it takes a little malice, however.

if it's life or life governed by the united states, you'll find that most foreigners, having been oppressed all thier lives, would rather die fighting against america than live in an imposed democratic society.

[Prae]

Do you really believe that a world in fear of terrorism is going to suddenly grow a pair of balls after we drop a nuke on Iran?

I imagine it will be very easy for someone with radiation poisoning to grow a pair of balls, well rather I mean another pair of balls.

[tommyedison]

It's funny actually. People die fighting capitalism, the productive and republicanism which gives them life but when it comes to fighting the real enemy, they put their arms down and submit.

[iouswuoibev]

It's funny actually. People die fighting capitalism, the productive and republicanism which gives them life but when it comes to fighting the real enemy, they put their arms down and submit.

I think it's rather sad.

[Colonel Rebel]

can we leave it at a depressing comedy?

[Oakes]

I figure that if you remove ALL major funding of terrorist operations, then you've ultimately, SOLVED the solution. Ever stop watering a plant? Sure, it gets some moisture from the surrounding environment, but that alone does not allow the plant to live.

You haven't convinced me that drug money is their only major source of funds. Furthermore it would be inexcusable for our government to decide after cutting off all their major sources of funds to curl up and hope the enemy is too poor to attack us again. We must always be on the offensive.

[Colonel Rebel]

right, by why expend your resources so callously when greater damage can be done without expending those resources? Why pay twenty dollars for a candybar when you can get it for 50 cents....

[MisterSwig]

did this ship take on idiots? what do you mean nobody would have the balls to attack america. It doesn't take balls to press a button. sometimes it takes a little malice, however.

I didn't appreciate your name-calling. I think you owe me an apology.

Anyway, I'm curious to know: who do you think will "press a button," after we nuke Iran? Any idea at all?

Is some country going to risk all-out nuclear war with America over terrorist Iran? Does that make sense to you? Who would do that?

I'm waiting ...

[Colonel Rebel]

and you can continue waiting. you ask which country would risk all-out nuclear war with America over Iran. And what makes you think it must be a country that wages war with us? Have you open your eyes to the age of terrorism? Now, I cannot expect you to understand when it started (Carter pulling his support of the Shah), but when was the last time a group or faction promoted a war against the United States? And your answer should be "quite recently, sir".

Now, maybe the closest time in recent history where a country could have had the chance to indirectly attack us, especially with Nukes, concerns Pakistan. But then, I would have to go into the explanation of deobandism, the political struggles for control of Pakistan (and thus possession of nuclear weapons), and how it ties in with Islamic terrorism and....yah. You're really going to have to beg to get me to go through that speech again.

So why are you stuck on 'country'. Why can't you just ask "which individual would be willing to relocate a Pu-239 from foreign soil to owntown Manhattan?"

[ex_banana-eater]

A great way to take money out of the Venezualan, Saudi, and Iranian government hands would be to loosen the enormous restrictions on nuclear power plants, to allow offshore drilling everywhere in the US, in the Alaskan reserve, and other forbidden zones, and to reduce the restrictions on coal plants. They should staple something like that onto a "War on Terror" bill for vote.

[Socionomer]

I turned on the radio while driving this morning and caught the tail end of an interview with a guy whose last name was Taylor. He had been abducted in Iraq but was obviously now free. I didn't catch the details of how he regained his freedom. I also don't know his nationality but he spoke with an american accent.

The disturbing part I did listen to was the tale of his abduction by armed, masked men. He refered to them as mujahadeen. He and a partner were stopped by Iraqi police at a checkpoint. The masked gunmen were at the checkpoint waiting in another car and conducted the abduction at the checkpoint in full view of the police. As they were being transported to their ultimate dectination they stopped at numerous Iraqi police checkpoints along the way. Each time their captors were met with jubilation and hand-shakes by the Iraqi police personnel.

The Iraqi police laughed derisively at Taylor and his friend, displaying their brand new arms, uniforms, and equipment that came compliments of Uncle Sam. They also bragged about all of the money that they were getting from the USA for the purpose of training and equipping the new Iraqi security forces and which was being shared with groups fighting against U.S. forces; men like their captors. He emphasised that what he was seeing was not an isolated incident of local police corruption because they had travelled through more than one district and many towns.

Information like this does not bode well for a positive resolution to our involvement in that "country" or the war on terror.

[argive99]

I turned on the radio while driving this morning and caught the tail end of an interview with a guy whose last name was Taylor. He had been abducted in Iraq but was obviously now free. I  didn't catch the details of how he regained his freedom. I also don't know his nationality but he spoke with an american accent. 

The disturbing part I did listen to was the tale of his abduction by armed, masked men. He refered to them as mujahadeen.  He and a partner were stopped by Iraqi police at a checkpoint.  The masked gunmen were at the checkpoint waiting in another car and conducted the abduction at the checkpoint in full view of the police. As they were being transported to their ultimate dectination they stopped at numerous Iraqi police checkpoints along the way.  Each time their captors were met with jubilation and hand-shakes by the Iraqi police personnel.

The Iraqi police laughed derisively at Taylor and his friend, displaying their brand new arms, uniforms, and equipment that came compliments of Uncle Sam.  They also bragged about all of the money that they were getting from the USA for the purpose of training and equipping the new Iraqi security forces and which was being shared with groups fighting against U.S. forces;  men like their captors.  He emphasised that what he was seeing was not an isolated incident of local police corruption because they had travelled through more than one district and many towns.

Information like this does not bode well for a positive resolution to our involvement in that "country" or the war on terror.

If this is true, and its emanantly plausable, its another argument against the whole "nation building" approach. Yaron Brook is right, the Arabs are laughing at us. We are papper tigers in their eyes.

[Colonel Rebel]

is that a suggestion that we shrug on the issue of peacekeeping in the middle east? that we say "y'all are still living in the dark ages, once you decide to join the rest of the world, maybe we'll start sending tourists your way. have a nice one"? Cause if so, then i'm definitely entertaining the idea...