How should the United States prosecute its war against global terrorism over the next several years?
Mar.15, 2010 in
Uncategorized
Should the United States become more aggressive in taking preemptive action in accordance with the Bush Doctrine? Or should the United States be more diplomatic in its engagement with foreign nations and take a soft power approach?
March 15th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Every time there is a TERROR attack you should switch off the T.V. news and do your own research on who was responsible and always ask yourself “WHO BENEFITS MOST FROM THIS TERROR”
Watch this to see what I mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89ZQge2Ib8M
March 15th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
I once spoke to an American quite a few years older than me who explained that if someone attacked his country he wanted reprisals. It didnt seem to matter if the right person was killed or not. Osama bin laden has never been caught and people are discussing which country should be next. Iraq had nothing to do with 9 11 and they were completely destroyed. Ive got an idea. Find osama bin laden. That was the whole point i thought. why is it always whos next all of a sudden. IF you went back in time to september 12th 2001 you would wonder how the hell we got from finding a mass murderer to gutting entire nations in such a short space of time.
terrorists intergrate themselves into societies. They are hard to find because they live in cities amongst regular people. Bush never understood that if you drop a bomb into a building killing 1 terrorist and 4 inoccents you create 4 inoccent families who hate America. Perhaps 2 members of the family hate enough to kill. And there you have the al quida recruitment programme
March 15th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
By ending its policies of bombing countries like Iraq and killing hundreds and thousands of innocent people in the process; by keeping Israel under firm control and ensuring Palestinians get and keep their own state; by working hard to seriously deal with the blight of starvation, civil wars and over population that affect so much of the World. By exercising stricter controls over the Arms trade worldwide.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Give the 10pts to “hmmmmmmm”.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
The Bush doctrine basically says we can attack anyone we THINK has or might attack us. This goes against the general concept of burden of proof, where we KNOW someone has or is about to attack us. Diplomacy works well, but there will always be those who crawl out from under a rock to attack someone. Unless you know they are coming, you can only react afterwards. Pre-emptive strikes without proof of a threat make the US look like the bad guys.
March 16th, 2010 at 12:09 am
i think that with the bush doctrine ever on should be able to except it.