You're in charge

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Abndoc

New member
Over the past months, I have been reading in this forum how our government is mishandling the war on terrorism. Some of it is good, critical, thinking and some of it is ranting by p.o.'d people. Illegal wiretaps, too much government power, Bush this, Cheney that. The TSA sucks etc.

So, if you were in charge, what would you do different? I'm not looking for a thesis or a manifesto, just a few lines on how it should be done. Remember, you are dealing with people who want to kill you and your family. Deal with the problem at hand, not how you wish it could be.
 
The first thing I would do is to actually DECLARE WAR. Our congress seems to have forgotten how to do this. Instead, they approved a poorly worded bill that gave nearly unlimited new powers to the Executive branch. This has been a big part of the problem that has gone all but ignored from the beginning. Think of how many times you've heard or read the words, "War on Terror." The fact is - there is no war in the true sense of the word.

Secondly, I would invade the country that gives aid and succor to the mastermind of September 11, 2001. (Like we did in Afghanistan) The difference is that this would be the one and only focus of the war until OBL was dead and his rotting carcass was on the front page of the Drudge Report. If I couldn't get him in six months, I'd double the number of soldiers and intel men every six months until he was found. Collateral damage would be immense and terrible - thousands of innocents would be killed, but I WOULD GET MY MAN! More than likely, he'd be turned in within a few months after our troop strength reached 250,000 (all volunteers due to growing nationalism in the wake of 9/11).

Once OBL was dead I would pull out and leave the country in shambles. No reparations, no rebuilding, no nothing. Let it be a lesson to other countries that would harbor the next terrorist mastermind.

Please note that I didn't say anything about increasing domestic surveilance on U.S. citizens. That has little to no impact on terrorism.

-Dave
 
You don't win wars by being nice to people. Target civilians, bomb schools, mosques, churches, hospitals, along with the gov't. buildings. Slaughter everything that moves, no mercy. The "Ghengis Kahn" effect. You've got to break their will to fight. When they surrender, cuz nobody's left, then you go in with foreign aid and help them rebuild their country...in our image. Wait, that sounds a lot like WWII. Wonder if that technique would work today.
I don't mean to sound cold-hearted, and I wasn't around for WWII, but I've studied how we fought that war a lot, read a lot of books. We wasted Dresden with incendiary bombs, killed just about everyone. And we know how Hiroshima ended up, but the war ended and WE won it. So, if you don't like my method for winning wars, well I could care less. That's what works.
 
Use all means available to destory the badguys, don't worry about the badguys feeling or what others think. In a fight last man standing wins!!!
 
I think that maintaining focus would be a good start.
On Nov 6, 2001, the President said that OBL would be brought to justice "no matter how long it takes":
It may take a long time, but no matter how long it takes, those who killed thousands of Americans and citizens from over 80 other nations will be brought to justice, and the misuse of Afghanistan as a training ground for terror will end.
Click to expand...
No group or nation should mistake America's intentions: We will not rest until terrorist groups of global reach have been found, have been stopped, and have been defeated. And this goal will not be achieved until all the world's nations stop harboring and supporting such terrorists within their borders.
Click to expand...
source

Four months later, he changed his mind:
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
Click to expand...
source

For a man who hates 'flip-floppers' and whose war strategy is "stay the course"; this 180-degree turn in four months is a little disconcerting. It would help to finish one job before tackling another and to either do what was promised, or provide a real explanation of why the goal needs to be adjusted.
 
Abndoc,
I don't have the answers. Hell, I'm still looking for the truth! You say that we are "dealing with people who want to kill you and your family". I wish things were that black and white for me. I just want to be left alone to live my life and be responsible for myself and my family and I think most people, wherever in the world they may be, feel the same. Don't confuse the actions of governments with the actions of the people. Ask yourself who benefits from this madness. Who benefits from destroying our Constitution and turning our country into a police state? Who profits from the sale of munitions, aircraft, vehicles and other equipment to wage war? Why are the oil companies showing record profits? Why is our biggest trading partner the biggest, most despotic, communist nation on earth? If we're under attack, why are our borders wide open? I wrestle with these questions,and many more,daily. Things are not as simple as they seem. The problem must be identified before a solution can be found. Follow the money. The true enemy, and the enemy we're being sold, may be two very different things. The soapbox is yours.:)

badbob
 
- Close the borders to illegals.

- Get out of the UN and the UN out of the US....it would crumble in a year.

- Revamp or duplicate NATO with true allies like the Eastern European block of hungry democracies.

- Drill the Anwar and Gulf. Leave no stone unturned in terms of research on alternative energy and fuel efficiency.

- Perhaps most important, engage the American People as they were engaged in WWI and WWII. Americans have saved this Nation repeatedly from annihilation (and a couple dozen others along the way). Americans ALWAYS step up.

- Vote from office EVERY politician that does not trust the American citizen....meaning the vast majority of BOTH parties.

Like it or not (there need be no global conspiracy), oil is the source of the problem. The potential for attack on American soil is the symptom. Loss of American freedoms is the outcome. Treat the symptom aggressively and the source relentlessly. The outcome will change accordingly.
Rich
 
The hypocritical position of those who advocate "target civilians" and "thousands of innocents would be killed" while reprehending the enemy for the same is IMHO quite disingenuous.

My answer, while seemingly disagreeable in these "modern times", is to return the power and the responsibility to the people. Forget about the government.
 
I basically agree with the Blues Man :)

Something else I notice: Cruisers and Destroyers carry dozens of VLS cruise missile apiece...USE THE DAMN THINGS.
 
I'd have to say that if you put TheBluesman and Rich's ideas together you have a solution. Problem is I for one feel almost helpless to get those ideas to become reality. All I can do is vote accordingly and talk to as many people as I can to try and steer them toward the same outcome.
 
Any answer I give right now, I reserve the right to later add to it, because I'm sure as I read through the responses more things will come to me, and I will find myself in agreement with various others.

For now, I agree with BluesMan... "Once OBL was dead I would pull out and leave the country in shambles. No reparations, no rebuilding, no nothing. Let it be a lesson to other countries that would harbor the next terrorist mastermind."

When we go sending air-dropped goodies on people we're supposed to be at war with, we look, for all the world, like a bunch of idiots. We sure as hell don't look tough and fearsome when we do that bleeding-heart crap. So I am in full agreement with BluesMan on this one.


I also would start allowing airline passengers to be allowed to carry any personal weapons on board, and CHL holders would be allowed to carry guns as well provided they are legal to possess a firearm at their destination. KNIVES? OF COURSE I would re-allow KNIVES, since they are useful everyday tools and the idea of banning them ANYWHERE strikes at the heart of what it means to be a human being. And besides that, no flight will ever cede control of an airliner to people with bladed weapons again without piling on and beating them to death -- or so I hope. We know what the price of believing a lying terrorist hijacker is, now. No more "going along with it."

All pilots armed -- mandatory.


More later.


-azurefly
 
mishandling the war on terrorism.
Click to expand...

First of all, you have the whole question wrong from the get go. There IS NO war on terror or war on terrorism, because there cannot be, because a war, by definition, can be won or lost, and has a beginning and end. The entire phrase "War On Terror" is a massive farce from the get go, and the media has swallowed it and spoon fed it back to the sheeple hook line and sinker. It's absurd on its face, since one cannot make war on a concept, yet everyone goes along as if it actually makes some kind of sense.

So, if you're really asking "How would I handle the attacks by terrorists on the US on 9/11/01?", then the answer is quite simple: I would GET (or actually would already have GOTTEN) Osama Bin freakin Laden, ya know, the guy who did it? Shrub is an utter failure for not getting that sumbich. And I would name it what it really is, of course - the "War on Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda", and ask CONGRESS for a declaration of war as the Constitution requires. Then I wouldn't waste billions upon billions of dollars, not to mention lots of lives on a war that had ZERO to do with the 9/11 attacks, and I'd instead use those resources to ya know, GET freaking OSAMA! Then, I'd try to figure out why every towelhead over there hates our guts, then after that analysis, figure out that it's because we prop up Israel for rich American jewish campaign contributions, and STOP DOING THAT. So it's a 2-pronged approach, both a carrot and a stick. The hawks don't want to use the carrot, and the doves don't want to use the stick. I say, why not use BOTH! Put the fear of God into them for what they did, getting Osama's head on a stick, and in the meantime, try to figure out how to REDUCE further terrorists attacks, not create more! Why can't Israel stand on its own two feet at this point? They've won every war they've conducted. I think they're just fine on their own.

That'd deal with the problem QUITE well.
 
redhawk41 said:
My answer, while seemingly disagreeable in these "modern times", is to return the power and the responsibility to the people. Forget about the government.
Click to expand...


Trouble is, your answer is so vague and nonspecific as to not really be much of an answer at all.

Let's say there were a group of soldiers in front of you and you said what you just did. What, exactly, would they start doing?

Or are you saying that individual citizens should start going overseas to fight this fight, leaving out the government and its military? :confused:


-azurefly
 
FirstFreedom,
I agree with a big part of your post. The question I have is,how did BinLaden
get NORAD to stand down for, I think, 1 hour and 45 min? How did 19 men with boxcutters hijack 4 aircraft? You, I'm sure, and I, and most everyone I've
ever known, would have torn them to pieces. Why, with the cost of fuel and the fact that most flights are overbooked to make up for the no-shows, were ALL 4 planes at 1/4 capacity? Why, if Flight 93 over Shankesville crashed the way we were told, did the debris field cover 8 sq. miles? These and many more questions need to be answered before I can say who is really to blame. It seems that we are not being told the whole story. Not many opinions at this point, just questions.:)

badbob
 
everything Rich and Blues said, plus sept. 12 i'd have put the whole muslim world on notice, so much as a firecracker goes off here and Mecca and Medina disappear. I dont give a damn why they hate us. We always hear that there are only a few bad people involved, well that should help the rest make up their minds.
 
Scheduled airline flights are required to fly on schedule regardless of underbooking, if I'm not mistaken.

And on September 11, 2001, was the price of fuel anywhere near what it is today? Was it really that high so as to lend credence to your (??) theory -- it is a conspiracy theory you're getting at, right? :rolleyes:


-azurefly
 
A national energy program that frees us from foriegn oil.

Mirror trade law - which means that if we buy goods from your nation you have to open your nation's markets to the similar goods made in our country, if you dont then we dont allow your goods to sell here either. That if you slap a tariff on our goods we slap a tariff on similar goods you sell in our country.

If you are a leadership position of a nation or group that is engaged in armed conflict with us or has attacked us we are taking you out before anybody can collect the reward. Work our way from the head of the group down.

re-establish humint programs in the trouble areas instead of violating the fourth amendment rights of citizens.

Whip the BATF and other government organizations into shape to remind them who the boss really is.
 
Last edited:
azurefly,
An overbooked flight that left on time would be FULL. I'm not sure about the cost of jet fuel, were we paying a fuel surcharge before 9/11/01? Conspiracy theory? BinLaden conspired with 19 hijackers and Sadam Hussain if the gov. story is correct.:)

badbob
 
badbob, you said, "most flights are overbooked to make up for the no-shows."

Even if I accept that as a given, the fact that "most" are overbooked means "some" are not overbooked.

Is it not possible that the selection of these flights on this day (a Tuesday) was deliberate and done for specific reasons -- possibly because they would not be heavily booked, and the hijackers could position themselves more easily within the planes since there would be open space, and face less opposition?

I can't imagine that Tuesdays are heavy domestic air travel days.

It's possible that one objective truth about that day may never be known. In the meantime, I think it looks silly to come up with non-disprovable crackpot conspiracy theories, the kinds of factoids that make people go "ooooWEEEEE-eeeeOooooooo!" :rolleyes:

By the way, nice dodge about your theory being a typical "conspiracy theory." It is, plain and simple, just another conspiracy theory. So the flights were not fully booked. So what? That proves what, that the U.S. government was behind the attacks?? :rolleyes: What's your premise, here; that the government stocked those flights with people but was willing only to put 1/4 the total possible number of lambs to the slaughter on board? I mean, what are you saying that it demonstrates, that the planes were 1/4 full instead of full full?

Is this like the claim that the BATF offices in the Murrah building were empty because the government was behind the OKC bombing? (I dunno, is that even a substantiated claim?)


-azurefly
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top