| marciosmg said: Mafoo, can I ask you a question? I see you talk alot about losing freedoms, and I would like to know how much is too much for you? What do you think is the government role in this? What should the government (or dont do) to stop terrorism without taking away people's liberties? Im not attacking, Im brazilian so terrorism isnt really a big problem here. Im just curious. I would like to hear alternatives. I know that I would never run for office, cause the responsibility of deciding something this important is something I wouldnt choose. |
Depends on what we think the role of the US government should be in the world. I say we should be a player in world politics, but not the ones who shape world politics. Every US president in my lifetime disagrees with me however.
So, with that in mind, if you want to stop terrorism, it's relatively easy. Secure your borders better, and leave the rest of the world alone. Get rid of the 100+ military bases we have around the world, stay out of other peoples countries militarily. If this is a "war on terror", we need to treat the people in Gitmo as war criminals, just like any other war criminal. Try them, and punish them or send them home.
The constitution states we need a military to protect us, and nothing more. The US government has twisted that to include "forward defense". Forward defense means we can attack a country that we think will attack us. I say bullshit.
Make it known that attacking the US will unleash hell upon you, but until that happens, leave the rest of the world to be the rest of the world.
This used to be out policy, and it worked well.
