Both sides agree terrorism is a problem, now what do we do about it?

Here is what I think should be done;

1. Protect the US first. Cover the borders and ports to deny entry to those who intend to do us harm, and materials which can be used to harm us within the framework of the law.
2. Identify and rebuild co-operation and trust with countries and groups who abhor terrorism and the taking of innocent life.
3. Build information databases on known terrorists, and those who aid them.
4. Share that information with those who we reasonably feel abide by international law, and invite them to add information or dispute information they feel is wrong.
5. Make binding agreements with them to act jointly or independently as necessary on information we both agree is correct.

Thoughtfully detailed answers appreciated.

I will ask more questions on this subject as I have time available based on _reasonable_ answers given, with the intent of continuing the discussion.

First answer is unreasonable.

1. Protect the US first. Cover the borders and ports to deny entry to those who intend to do us harm, and materials which can be used to harm us within the framework of the law.

It's not that simple, you don't necessarily know who's going to 'do you harm' and don't want to unfairly discriminate against innocent people.

2. Identify and rebuild co-operation and trust with countries and groups who abhor terrorism and the taking of innocent life.

I agree.

3. Build information databases on known terrorists, and those who aid them.

I believe that's already being done.

4. Share that information with those who we reasonably feel abide by international law, and invite them to add information or dispute information they feel is wrong.

Yeah, could do. Do countries not do that already? Most countries would not be of any help in the matter.

5. Make binding agreements with them to act jointly or independently as necessary on information we both agree is correct.

Ok, but in what way would you 'act'? All known terrorists are monitored and there is a little a country where the terrorist is not residing can do.

we have the same problem we have had since the usa was formed....not one percent higher...we should simply go back to the way life was before 911 otherwise they have won

economic disparity, imperialism, and religious obscurantism are what drive people to terrorism--to eliminate it, we must eliminate these things, otherwise we will always have it.

A viable Palestine means a viable Israel and no viable Palestine means no viable Israel and wars go on between the two people.
No one could NOT change his mind unless he has no mind.
Occupying other people by force is losing policy in the past and now and has no future.

1) Posting guards at ports, borders etc is waiting too long. We need to be proactive against the terrorists.
2) There are very few countries who truly abhor ALL terrorism.
3) I think (hope) we are doing that.
4) A very short list. See (2) above.
5) "Binding" agreements aren't really binding as there is no enforcement.

I'm glad you didn't suggest going to the UN. It is controlled by terror apologists.

I agree with your assessment, however, which countries would partner in such a system. If Israel is involved most Muslim countries would not cooperate.

What happens if the info is not agreed upon? Even OJ Simpson was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why the hell is the UN around? Please remind me as I seem to have forgotten? (sarcasm)

maybe should also take a look at the root of Muslim anger at the US. stuff like trying to force western style Democracy on people who aren't ready for it and unquestioning support for Israel's aggressive land and resource grabs. and how about the US respecting and recognizing the Democratically elected leaderships Muslims choose instead of punishing them for choosing leadership of which the US disapproves?

funny how America wants to export Democracy but gets all nasty when Democracy doesn't work to our advantage.

America must protect itself from the inside, because the Zionists are the real threat to the security of America .

With your outline I would think this would be the correct procedure to begin with. Everything can be adjusted as necessary there after wards. I would hope the U.S. would not try this one man band technique again.

1. Sounds reasonable enough. Sounds like both sides want to do such, so seems like both sides could agree on this.

2. That would be nice. I don't believe that it could be done, but if so, it would be wonderful

3. I think the govt. has already done that.

4. Yes, maybe the US should open up to such cooperation

5. This would be a great idea, but I don't think it could always follow through. Sometimes disputing info, will take too long, and will close the window of opportunity

All of your suggestions sound good, just seems like both parties need to work together for once, instead of against each other

what you have listed is a great start. The US must be viewed as a law abiding country first of all and we must remake ourselves into a country (in the eyes of the world) that respects the sovereignty of all other republics and parliamentary nations--we must show a new respect for the views of all respectable nations. we can show our intent to undermine rogue and piratical nations in unison only with clear support of other civilized nations so that we do not appear colonial or imperial.

2) we must begin a real effort to rid our dependence on foreign fossil fuels through a new directive thru our government. something big that really inspires scientists, businessmen and the common man to get involved. The problems of this world revolve around energy consumption and access. If we can solve this problem, the other political and military problems will ease up.

3) If we can get an energy program that guarantees the US a steady supply of reasonably priced fuels...we need to address global business practices and protect the middle class of America from the exporting of jobs...this country must belong to the people.

This has been done before in history, not the wishy-washy foreign policy of the past 60 years, which people are brainwashed into believing is more mature:

1. With the help of China, Russia, etc., annex all Moslem oilfields, evict the occupants, and create a killing zone around them. No matter how much the Religion of Cain hates us, all it will be able to do is throw sand at us.

2. Deport all Moslems from non-Moslem countries.

3. If the Nazislamis cause any trouble with the weapons they have left, nuke Mecca.

4. Grow up and realize you can be brutal in one area and pacifist in another without being inconsistent

There is nothing unreasonable in your question. I thought we already had such binding agreements, with NATO.

The missing part of your question is what to do about the people of Iraq. Are we just to leave them?

... I don't disagree with what you said... but I would just add in a different No.1 and bump all the others down...

my "new no. 1" would be to evaluate, find and eliminate terrorist leaders... terror can never be completely destroyed, but taking out an experienced leadership most often leads to disarray of an organization and disarray means that they will be less organized, not properly funded and have 10 times more trouble successfully pulling off an attack...it's pretty basic strategy, especially for a group scattered as much as terrorists usually are that would be all the more dependent on a central base, since it probably has nothing else to fall back on...

starting with Osama... and to get him, basically focus the might of our military on the terrorist leadership...

take the fight to the leadership and keep them on their toes...

right now who knows what Osama is doing... I doubt that he's totally focused on Iraq though and I bet he's trying to plan something... and he's proven before that he knows how to get a large attack done... and that's something no international terrorists has proven on U.S. soil before...

there are no upper level terrorist leaders in Iraq that we know of... so we're waiting on them to come to us... and the leaders won't... this is basically a defensive strategy, not an offensive one... we're defending Iraq, not attacking terrorists...

right now we have 13,000 troops in Afghanistan... which is closer to the majority of the known al-queda leadership positions... only 13,000... that's nothing...