How should the Democrats fight the "war on terror"

[kentuck]

Considering that the President determines what and who the threats are to our country, it may make little difference if the Democrats win the House or Senate. We may have to wait until a Democrat wins the White House in 2008? After all, the present occupant said yesterday that we would not leave Iraq as long as he is the "president".

But, if a Democrat does win in 2008, what should be our policy toward "terrorism"? Should we simply consider a police action that requires better cooperation and intelligence from our allies? Or should we continue the "Bush policy" of fear?

In my opinion, our first move should be to turn off the fear faucet. We should recognize that there are people that would do us harm if they get the opportunity or the means. However, we should it make it clear to the citizens that we are on guard but that they should return to a more normal life. We cannot continue to live in fear as we have for the last 7 years.

Then we should meet with all our allies, at least the ones that this Administration has not turned against us, and work out an agreement to control terrorism within our borders. We should share that intelligence at all times. We will need to restore trust and confidence with all our allies and we will seek diplomatic solutions before we resort to war at all times.

[endarkenment]

1. Issue a warrant for the arrest of Osama bin Laden et al

And then send the appropriate law enforcement agencies out with the appropriate support to arrest the al qaeda gang. I've heard that they are holed up in Pakistan.

[LynnTheDem]

2. With bloody COMMON SENSE to start with...

That would be a major step forward.

[Warpy]

3. First, tell the truth

and can these bogus terra alerts. This bunch is too like the little boy who cried "wolf." Nobody's going to believe them if the real thing comes along.

Second, focus on the type of police work they used in the UK until Stupid insisted on using the case for PR purposes rather than let them get to the suppliers.

Third, rebuild international trust. Charging Stupid with all the crimes against Iraq would be a good start there.

Fourth, focus on what the root causes of the desperation leading to self immolation in terror attacks and start to deal with them. Notice I said "START." The causes are many and complex and some of them will prove impossible to deal with, but if we don't want the people of the rest of the world against us, we'd better start to cope.

[rock]

4. Use a vorpal sword

They're great for hacking up chimeras.

[liberal N proud]

5. To start, we must impeach bu$h then prosecute him and his cabal

This will be a major step toward proving to the world that we will not tolerate criminals.
Then diplomacy will need to be stepped up and work with the world, what do they want from America. If it means leaving them alone and getting out of their nations, then we do that.
No bloodshed required.

[Totally Committed]

6. With truth, diplomacy, humility, strength, and integrity.

Our moral and ehtical standing in the world must be restored so as to further cooperation with other countries. And peace must be seen as the absolute end-game, not just our own safety and security.

TC

[electropop]

7. Attack Bush each time he terrorizes America.

That's the most efficient way to attack terrorism for now. Once the Congress flips, start the investigations and the proceedings, to achieve a longer-term result.

[dannofoot]

8. Surgically, and with great care.

The recent London plots were uncovered via intelligence, not bombs. Not "boots on the ground" but ears to the ground. Of course, that means developing trust and allies. And developing both means working within the laws of our nation and theirs.

Kerry was correct in stating that terrorsts should be dealt with from a law enforcement view rather than a military one. Many will disagree with me, but Israel had it right after the Munich Massacre - murderers were eliminated without the use of bunker busters and ground troops and the ensuing civilian deaths and collateral damage. Of course, their leadership was far different then.

[BootinUp]

9. Congress still has a lot to say about budgets

That is the tool they will use to start reversing the Neocon plan. Won't be overnight though, thats for sure.

[Bandit]

10. We Impeach the head Terrorists

Impeach Impeach Impeach. Remove the rot and then America can cure itself...

[Jeroen]

11. First things first: the Israel-Palestine conflict n/t

[flaminbats]

12. without fear..I believe we must return to normal life

http://www.historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/

without fear from the public, what is terrorism? terrorism is only the potential of crime, and war is the failure to govern. First it was a war on drugs, then on crime, and now on terrorism. But this can be war that never stops, a war that drags on endlessly with no victory in sight. A war on fear will never be won, and yet a war without fear or terror doesn't exist.

Fear works great if you want to stop accomplishment and destroy justice. It works horribly if you wish to increase accomplishment and provide justice. A war on terror is no different than an eye for an eye..in the end who is the real victor? The victims on 9/11 and those who fought for our country are not cowards, the officeholders and those who call the sad criminals on 9/11 "successful in producing terror" are the ones lacking courage and responsibility!

An endless war in Iraq will not stop violence any more than prohibition stopped drinking. But a responsible government official would never dare to link terrorism to the courage shown by the victims on 9/11. It is time to make these politicians pay for the games they have played with the public and Department of Homeland Security, with no purpose other than to stir up our fears.

[loyalsister]

13. Refocus...

Aknowledge that Iraq is not a part of it...
That deciding to fight a war against a word is too open ended.
For example, the war against terror is actually just a war against "horror" or insert your synonym.....
That is how Iraq was brought into it so easily.

Wars should be fought in response to specific actions.

As far as our responsibility with regard to the war we declared in response to that action, declaring "war on terror" is to declare war on people and culture. This needs to stop.

We need to get out of Iraq and focus on the military response to the action taken in response to 9\11, and it needs to be presented and understood as such.

I recognize how hugely idealistic that is. There is a difference between "should" and how they are willing to do it.

Acts of "terrorism" are not solely our responsibility to address. Discouraging and monitoring potential activities is a responsibility to be taken multilaterally.
We should return to using intelligence rather than force and strengthen our relationships with other countries in that effort.