The USA faces a new threat of their own chosing: Terrorism
Yeah, some might argue that the "War against Terrorism" is simply an excuse to invade any country harboring terrorists (and strategic resources) or a ploy of the military industrial complex to keep the USA in an eternal war, but that's not the point. Let's assume that the USA wants to WIN for the purpose of this threat.
How can the USA win this war?
How can Terror bring the USA down to it's knees?
Winning conditions:
USA: All terrorist organizations either ceased to exist or ceased to attack US targets. Alternatively conquer the world.
Terrorists: The USA either breaks apart or loses the physical or financial capability of fighting conventional wars or loses all foreign military bases.
Everthing allowed, including nukes and genocide.
Have fun!
I've though about this alot, probably need to think about it more but here would be my strategy.
I'd say the best way to beat the 'terrorists' and I assume you mean of middle eastern originis is to fight like them. If I were the president I would gather up all the leaders of the countries we suspect of aiding terrorism and insurgency...Which would be quite a bit of middle eastern countries. Tell them that they need to actually work to catch these people and put a stop to it...After all who is more suited for the job? A soldier from half way across the world or some one who grew up around it and lived in it? They would have a much easier time of identifying these 'terrorists' and locating them and getting rid of them.
I would give them a date saying terrorism and insurgency better be reduced by this much by that date. If not, we will start nuking your holy sites and cities off the face of the earth, one by one. Of course we would tell all these leaders seperately and keep it a seceret that the nukes actually come from us. Yes I mean islam and muslim holy sites, Now I have nothing agaisnt these religions and I realise that its but a very small percentage of them that are considered 'terrorists' or radicals by the USA. Well you are thinking that would only piss of many more into fighting us. I don't think so, I think intially they would react they way until we actually follow through with the nuke. Then most would realise it's really those radicals and terrorist to blame. Then the countries would whip them selves into shape and start hunting the terrorists and yada yada down.
Now of course I haven't included in all the politics and all that bs. Plus the U.N. would be screeming and all that shit. But what can they really do?
Lets assume you didn't post this just for that bait comment. Never mind, too preposterous.
Cheap shot #1: Afghanistan has no strategic resources. Zip. It's like the shittiest patch of ground on earth. All we're doing there is destabilizing the drug industry, which means more violence at home due to price swings and availability problems for the users. The money spent, thanks to our military being the most advanced, and vastly more expensive force on the planet, will eclipse, with an embarrassing margin, any gains we could possibly have off Iraq's oil. Just the medical costs for the injured troops will probably have it beat. The idea that we could somehow get away with looting their oil is just preposterous. Even our own media would have a field day with it, and the population would be out for a blood bath, compliments of the soon to be dead politicians that tried to get away with it. They will never willingly repay us for the costs, and we'll never force it.
Cheap shot #2: The industrial complex has lost multiple big ticket items exactly because we invaded two useless shit countries with nothing resembling a military threat. The brand spanking new, comparably godlike F-22? Never been used because there wasn't a threatening airforce to spank with them... Afghanistan didn't even have one at all, a few helicopters that didn't even run. We lost at least two tanks off them too. Yet again because we were fighting forces where our tanks were overkill. Instead, they get new jeeps. The increased deficit from that war time spending has aided in the downfall, spending extravagant amounts of money on new weapon systems is even harder to get through when you're running a 500 billion dollar deficit than it is when you're about even. Only an idiot would push for a war with two useless shits that couldn't even compete with the last generations army.
If we go to war with Russian and take over the oil fields in the Arctic circle, then you've got a point. We'll be having casualties that could have been prevented by having bigger and better weapons, and we'll have something gained in the end.
This is like asking how to win a game of chess against yourself...
DrJBHL, am I to assume that by posting that vid, you believe the US should not fight at all? You do realize where that naive line of thinking eventually leads, right?
so the only way to "win" in a sense is to bring about a new way of thinking in all humans, which is not poisoned by propaganda, religion, politics, institutions, and opinion.
Except, that is not, nor most likely ever will be, reality. While some may try that, try telling that to a suicide bomber and see how naively idealistic such views are. Face it, some people can only be stopped by lethal force. They laugh at your attempts to diplomatically reform them. Welcome to Reality™.
Too often prejudice...ignorance and a lack of respect towards another individual (i.e. another soverign state) leads to violent demonstrations of one's opinion as opposed to another. If you recall back in the 50's the US installed a puppet leader in Iran. The Shah...cruel...indifferent to the plight of what he considered a lesser people (they did not believe as he did)...ruled as a Dictator and punished quite a few who disagreed with his (US) policies. So yeah...who can blame the Iranians for not liking us. It happened in Iraq...after all we...meaning the US...did install another puppet in the form of Saddam Hussien. The US did it in Panama with Manuel Noriega. The list goes on and on. Basically Uncle Sam screwed up a lot of other 'sovereign' states in the pursuit of the almighty dollar (oil...drugs...as in the case of Noriega and another in Indonesia. I hesitate to put a name to him because of all the ill feelings involved towards the veterans of that conflict). In short if this government would look at others for who and what they are with respect for their beliefs and way of life and not for purposes of exploitation perhaps such things like a war on terror could be relegated to a hard cover or paperback novel listed under fantasy. My two cents.
VarikRaith please read my other two responses in this thread:
Weeeell, it's easy to bash the evil US empire. Was practically a folk sport in old europe during the Bush era. But reality ain't as easy as "be nice to each other and then there'll peace".
For one, grudges run deep and keep long (i'm not talking about europeans now). For another, even if the USA suddenly became pacifistic there'll be enough other global players who don't exactly have the best for mankind in mind. Suffice to say that a USA not fighting back against "terrorists" will just leave said gentlemen in positions of global power. And once you start going "DEATH TO AMERICA" it's hard to stop and shake hands with americans when you have hordes of fanatics in your back.
@psychoak
I agree that afghanistan hasn't much to offer to an occupying empire. So we can safely assume that the USA didn't go there out of economic interest. I think the invasion was related to a forced urban development project in New York. It's been known that planning for the Iraq war began 3 months after 9/11 and according to Blair Bush wanted to skip Afghanistan entirely.
Economically speaking that would have been a smart move. Although that would have left Al Quaida in Talibanistan.
Anyway, who cares how much Afghanistan sucks militarily ... they certainly are top notch guerilliarily and terroristicaly. And I don't see a winning strategy for either side from you yet.
That is your opinion
your opinions(thoughts) create conflict, and war is caused by conflict.
The situation in Afghanistan is 100% orchestrated by the US. As was the situation in Iraq. There wouldn't have been any Bin Ladin or Hussein in power at all if it wasn't for the US pumping in truckloads of cash to make just that happen... It's been going on for decades before desert storm.
The US military has been wanting to blast Afghanistan for a very long time. They finally found a way to do it without someone (like the Russians did before) interfering...
Hmm....I'm conflicted about that.
your statement is there is HIGHLY fallacious as well as is your previous post. Its just a bunch of relativism. You expect everybody to agree with your own view point and anyone that doesn't is causing conflict.
By your very own flawed logic you are the cause of conflict because your expect everyone to confirm to what YOU feel is right which is just YOUR OPINION as well.
Do you know anything about Bin Laden? Do you know how the Bin Laden family got their wealth? Did you know that Usama Bin Laden has a degree?
How they made their money in Saudi Arabia? Yeah, I am banking that you probably don't and will wikipedia this immediately.
Opps, I'm causing conflict here. Oh snaps! That means since war is caused by conflict. I guess I'm at war.
Yes, what's your point? Do you know anything about the Bin Ladin/Bush relationship at all? They have quite a tight history you know....
Who wins? Those who manage to get out of the way and survive.
Who loses? Those who don't. Usually innocent people who want nothing to do with these greedy wars power wars in the first place.
And as far as education by any government is concerned...our history books are full of lies just as they are in other countries. And if you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth. And besides...they don't want anyone to know the truth. They want obedient sheep...and thats just what they got.
The only way wars will end is if the sheep wake up...and thats not likely to happen.
Ba..a..a..ah. Never happen.
Yeah, Bush and Usama Bin Ladin are humping it up in a cave. Holding hands. Having their tickle and pillows fights while whispering sweet nothings into one anther's rears. Everyone else is blind to it yadda yadda yadda. Because 'we all know that no plane could have taken down those towers.'
Is this the direction that you're about to take?
You folks sound really smart, but most of you have no clue as to what you are talking about. America has been attacked by terrorists since 1976, we only started to fight back in the 1980’s and stopped when Mr. Clinton took office. Then we started again after 9/11. the problem is political will. When the US is united by political will we win. We always win. When you have idiots that want to play politics we always lose. Case on point. 9/11 attacks: every country except North Korea and Iraq, offered help in getting rid of the people responsible for the attacks. As soon as the opposition party began to splinter the united front other countries backed away from us. Pakistan helped create the Taliban, they funded and supported them until Mr. Bush said you stand with us or the terrorists. We spent 5 years shutting the Taliban down. Then the opposition party attacked the leader of Pakistan eventually pushing him out of office. Now the Taliban is taking over Pakistan. Just like when Mr. Carter caused the fall of the Shah of Iran allowing Iranian terror groups to grow in the Middle East. We keep getting rid of the people that want to help us and then cry that we can’t win. It would be easier to win if we stop shooting ourselves in the foot.
By the way Paladin, it was the US that actually helped create the Taliban and put them into power, by providing support in the form of training, weapons and supplies in the Afghani-Soviet war during the eighties.
As for terrorists, I think that their best chance of winning is to produce really good horror flicks, thus causing massive and widespread terror throughout USA!
Well, its true. You may not like it, but it really is true that no jet fuel burns hot enough to weaken the support core of a skyscraper which was actually designed, being so tall and everything, to withstand a full-on impact from a Boeing 747. Hell, the cheif architect said so, I'm inclined to believe the man who actually drew the damn plans.
That, and of course the fact that the building collapsed from the ground up, NOT from the top down as some proponents of the "pancake theory" suggest. And even if a few impacted floors collapsed, causing a cascade effect which took the rest of the building down, the core should have been left standing to collapse rather messily onto the surrounding city blocks.
Of course, as I mention, you can see the buildings collapsing from the ground up. Just like they do when someone wraps a lot of demolition explosives around the central support of the building and then blow it up. Only they usually don't do that when there's people still inside, but hell, there was a war on. Too bad nobody knew that yet.
The world trade center was started to be constructed in 1969/70. No one ever thought a terrorist would use an airplane to crash into a building. During that time all that happened was planes being hijacked and demaned ransom and to free these people demands. The garage area on the other hand the engineers made sure to reinforce it with concrete. Which is a good thing because that car bomb that went off in 1993 did a lot of damage down there.
There's no way in hell that you could design a skyscraper that would with stand a missle which a 767 (not 747) would be without it being insanely expensive (especially considering NO ONE WAS THINKING THAT THERE WOULD BE A MISSLEL ATTACK ON THE MAINLAND U.S. some CRAZY DERANGED person would FLY A PLANE INTO IT) for an extended period of time. A 767 is has a wide body and much a wider than a 747. Also the 767 has more fuel than a 747. Before I get to the fuel thing lets stay on the steel part.
WTC had many steel beams supporting it. For an illustration of what happened (this is a fun activity for the kids so let's get the kiddies involved) get a bag of uncooked spaghetti noodles. If you put those noodles in a firm foundation (where they can stand upwards) they can hold a heavy book up (a dictionary works very well). Let's say that you get a couple of those noodles wet or some of them break. They can still hold that dictionary up pretty well. The problem is once you get a good amount of them to be compromised they will no longer be able to safely hold up the dictionary.
Inside the building nothing should even be catching on fire at 1000 F. There was nothing prepared to withstand that temperature let alone Airplane fuel which burns at 2000 F. There's nothing that can fire proof against that except ceramic tiles. Which if you look at any space shuttle you see that it has ceramic tiles on the bottom. The reason is because it reaches tempatures of an excess 4000 F.
The initial impact did not bring the buidling down alone. The initial impact compromised along with the floors collasping it and then the fires burning as well.
You named dropped so I'll name drop as well (well actually you just stated without backing which is expected) Hy Brown. Oh wait Popular Mechanics. Guess what! They put the debunking the 911 myths online. You know why because of leptons that believe myths and that wouldn't buy popular mechanics. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
Yeah I would believe them yet I also believe in logic.
On a final note, as you've 'claimed' to know most people from the states don't know this and that UBL was an Engineer. Most Engineers know that the integrity of steel once it gets heated to a certain point becomes compromised and basically useless.
Several of his top commanders were explosives experts. One of whom was trained in the U.K. as one.
People that believe in 911 myths should also be put next those few that hold onto that the earth is flat (aka flat earthers) and that category title would be leptons.
That was a different group one of the splinters of that group was the Taliban the other was Al Qaeda. Neither received direct funding or weapons from the USA. When the war was over we stopped funding all of the groups except one and that group was killed off by Al Qaeda on 9/10 2001. The Taliban was created and funded by the Pakistani ISI their version of the DIA. Al Qaeda was started by Bin Laden who declared war on the USA in 1991. Their first attack on US soil was in 1993. With the Taliban we refused to get involved over there and that left a vacuum for them to fill. At the time Al Qaeda was based in the Sudan and only pressure from the Sudanese government caused Al Qaeda to move to Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban in the late 90’s. Just for the record Sudan offered to turn over Bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda’s leaders to the US after the first attack on US soil but the President refused to take them. Sudan warned us three times that AQ was a danger to us and we ignored them and their three offers to take them into custody prior to their demand that AQ leave their country.
We supported the Mujahidin against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. When the Soviets pulled out in 1986 we pulled all funding and weapons. So we never supported or funded either group that we are at war with today. You need to stop getting your history from hate sites. We did support the Northern Alliance which fought the Taliban but as I stated before the leaders were killed off in 2001.
Of course, as I mention, you can see the buildings collapsing from the ground up. Just like they do when someone wraps a lot of demolition explosives around the central support of the building and then blow it up. Only they usually don't do that when there's people still inside, but hell, there was a war on. Too bad nobody knew that yet. The only problem with this theory is that I have done demolition work. To take down a ten story building takes about 18 months of planning and work. On the day the towers fell did anyone notice five tons of explosives being brought into the buildings. Load bearing walls cut open and holes drilled into the walls for the explosives? The miles of cables connecting the explosives so they can go off at the right time? Would not the fires have caused issues with the explosives prior to detonation? The building was designed to withstand the impact of a 747 traveling at 200 mph not a 767 traveling at 550 mph fully loaded with fuel. This impact damage would wipe out the structural integrity in the upper floors as well as sever load bearing walls and columns needed to keep the buildings standing. Don’t you think that people that worked in the buildings might have noticed the 3 inch cables attached to explosives running across the office floors and down the stairways months before the attack? Don’t you think people might notice the teams of people prepping the buildings for demolition? It takes months to do this not days or hours and too many people walked down the stairways and took pictures of firefighters, I saw no cables in the stairway did you? Has anyone reported seeing these cables in the stairway? They would be easy to spot they are between two and five inches thick with the words “Danger, EXPLOSIVES” every 18 inches. None of the survivors would have noticed any of this? The buildings fell from top to bottom that is easily seen.
The only problem with this theory is that I have done demolition work. To take down a ten story building takes about 18 months of planning and work. On the day the towers fell did anyone notice five tons of explosives being brought into the buildings. Load bearing walls cut open and holes drilled into the walls for the explosives? The miles of cables connecting the explosives so they can go off at the right time? Would not the fires have caused issues with the explosives prior to detonation? The building was designed to withstand the impact of a 747 traveling at 200 mph not a 767 traveling at 550 mph fully loaded with fuel. This impact damage would wipe out the structural integrity in the upper floors as well as sever load bearing walls and columns needed to keep the buildings standing. Don’t you think that people that worked in the buildings might have noticed the 3 inch cables attached to explosives running across the office floors and down the stairways months before the attack? Don’t you think people might notice the teams of people prepping the buildings for demolition? It takes months to do this not days or hours and too many people walked down the stairways and took pictures of firefighters, I saw no cables in the stairway did you? Has anyone reported seeing these cables in the stairway? They would be easy to spot they are between two and five inches thick with the words “Danger, EXPLOSIVES” every 18 inches. None of the survivors would have noticed any of this? The buildings fell from top to bottom that is easily seen.
On a further note, UBL did not need any more money. He already has amassed a decent sized fortune of about a billion. That's my point. Most people from the States think that the Bin Laden family got all their money because of oil which is not true.
Your point is that UBL would have some very close relationship with , Bush, a Jaheel (that's arabic. I'm guessing you probably also know very little about radical Islam and the culture that goes with it.) Only if you would take the time to learn the culture of radical Islam.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
