How should the U.S. respond?

D

Diesel

Peak Forum Legend
PF Member
Question of the day: How should the U.S. respond if Afghanistan fails to turn over Osama bin Laden?

Personally, I think the military should respond as they said they would - by not only punishing those directly responsible, but also punishing those who harbour them.
 
This is a really difficult question. The answer most likely lies in a combination of the three. Diplomatic pressure has already begun. A tactical strike using Rangers, Green Berrets or Seals is going to be necessary to actually capture Bin Laden. If the U.S. sticks to its guns and wants to actually limit the threat or terrorism then it must go after other countries in some manner. Certainly Afghanistan would go first, but Irag, Iran, Syria and several others are chock full of terrorist oganizations. I feel that capturing Bin Laden and several of his man would be a victory on some level, but the only way to really take a bite out of terrorism is to round up as many terrorists as we can find throughout the Middle East or elsewhere. Since these countries will not take kindly to these actions it would likely require war with multiple countries. This may just be too messy for the U.S. or the rest of the world's tastes.
 
I think that the time for messing around is done. We have tried the tactical responce before and missed. Now I think its time to do the job right, and make an example that there is no safe place for terrorists to hide.
 
I feel very strongly that the U.S. should hit back hard. Simply sending in planes, aka Desert Fox, with a bit of extra assistance from the SAS and their American counterparts *might* capture Bin Laden, but it won't get rid of the larger problem. If Bush carries on with the full extent of his plans at the moment, I believe he'll go after Saddam Hussein as well as the Taliban, and try to topple both regimes, and I believe he's already trying to get Syria on side as to break up the Iraqi-Syria alliance.

It would be a terrible shame if terrorism such as this happens again, when it could have been averted. It may well be a long and messy road, but it's one that has got to be taken. It's a great chance to topple two of the nastiest regimes in the world while we're at it.
 
while i agree that we should get rid of terrorism and all the places that harbor it, i just don't think that it's feasible. and just because the higher-up officials in a government support the terrorists in some capacity doesn't mean that the people of the countries they're in charge of should suffer from a strike from us. all that will do is lead to more hatred against americans and possibly stir up some madman genius who could be the *next* osama bin laden.

what creeps me out about this whole thing is that it is *exactly* how nine out of ten apocalypse nuclear war novels start. a random terrorist pisses off a big country which, in turn, pisses off half the nuclear world which promptly bombs the snot out of the superpower, and the whole world goes up in flame like an overripe marshmallow.

the entire problem with terrorism of this kind is that the response is almost impossible to orchestrate. if we kill bin laden and destroy his terrorist camps, that might work. but i fear that the casualties entailed in accomplishing that mission will be more than any of us would like to think about. it may come to pass that prevention is the only way to end this cycle of madness and destruction.

while the instinct of everyone hurt and frightened by this tragedy, including me, is to strike out at the source of this pain, destroy it, and hopefully be done with it, i think that we must restrict that instinct and do our best to avoid a more regrettable tragedy than that which has already come to pass.
 
Although I believe we should go after Bin Laden, that is only taking out the queen bee of the nest. You still got the bees to contend with. Without the queen bee, the nest does not have it's leader which means they don't have direction and could do whatever they want. Hide, maybe...strike back, most likely. Eitherway, go after bin laden first and then go for the massive strike. Or whatever order they choose or have to go in. Both I goals need to be accomplished.

Late night statement: This is 5am in the morning, mind you, so if this didn't make sense, I am not to be held responcible for your confusion.
 
Lys, that's exactly what Bush's planning to do, and I support it 100%.

MJ: That doomsday scenario is unlikely. What nuclear power would try anything? China has Islamic rebels in Xinjiang to worry about, and the Beijing Olympics to risk. India are allied with the US, and Pakistan know that if they tried anything, the US would give India free reign to blow the living c*ap out of them. Bush's plans will make it a lot harder for terrorism to occur. He's going after the governments that openly support terrorism head-on, and putting pressure on other countries, such as Syria and Palestine, to shut down the offices and networks of such organisations as Islamic Jihad.

Sitting back and doing nothing won't stop anything. Bin Laden will still be out there. The Taliban will still be sponsoring terrorism. As will Saddam Hussein. Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and other such organisations will still be allowed to openly operate. And what will we have gained? Maybe we won't be risking the lives of a few American servicemen. Maybe we won't be risking the lives of a few innocent people. But we will have lost the best chance we've ever had to topple two of the world's nastiest regimes in one hit, do a whole lot of damage to the hardline Islamic terrorist organisations, allow the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to live in some sort of freedom, which in turn, will solve some of the world's refugee problems. We've got very little to lose by going into the Middle East here, and everything to gain.
 
Although I agree that they should get the Bin Lamen (Laden? Lausen? sorry it's late) dude first, is a massive attack against Afghanistan really necessary?
IF we do so and Afghanistan ends up killing a thousand US soldiers, then America would, and I'm 90% sure about it, send a bigger, massive, attack killing millions.
Not to mention that it is incredibly hard to get permission to fly over the lands of Iran, Iraq, etc. where Afghanistan lies right in the middle of...

We should first get Bin Ladem, find out much more about his involvment and others', then see if we should try the terrorrist attack as a war signal, or a criminal case.
If they don't hand him over, don't just blow up the whole country which is already pretty much destroyed. Attack wisely, not overly.
 
This has gone far, far beyond Bin Laden. As Bush said today, it's now focusing on all terrorist organisations with a capability to act globally. It's almost definite that we will end up going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, and more than likely, Iran too. It's gone far beyond one person. Now is the best chance we've ever had to stomp out terrorism, and take out a couple of the world's nastiest regimes while we're at it. Let it be said that we took this chance and fought for freedom, rather than throwing it away in the guise of "peace" (until the next madman flies a plane into something).
 
Massive Milatary Action!!!

Show the world that the US, nor any of the coalition will not stand for Terrorism in any way shape or form.
 
I think Bin Laden is the driving force behind lots of the terrorism that's been happening. In any full-out war, there's loss of innocent life, and I think we've had more than enough of that recently. However, if it comes down to it, bomb the **** out of Afghanistan.
 
Bin Laden has probably got his finger in 90% of the terrorist pies out there .. get rid of him!!
 
I have to go with massive military action for the following reasons:

1) We must stop terrorism, directly, with tactical strikes.
2) We must stop terrorism, indirectly, by striking at military and logistical targets of governments supporting terrorism.
3) We must initiate economic pressure by placing economic embargos against countries supporting terrorism.
4) We must freeze the assets of terrorists and their supporters.
 
Some excellent points JHowse, but the point about economic pressure .. they(the middle/far east) can pressure us just as much by raising oil prices, or even stop selling us oil altogether.
 
We can do the same. As far as I can see, the deal is that we're heading to war with Iraq. If ground troops go in, and STAY in, that makes things a little interesting for OPEC.
 
PIT: Aye, I suppose .. I never really understood the middle east myself .. apparently they are the worst people in the world to do business with ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top