hind sight is always 20 20 before the war on terror everyone agreed with what bush planned to do. so i ask with what we know now what would you have done differently?
2006-09-14 10:47:00 · 15 answers · asked by twinspick22 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I agree, at the time it seemed like sort of a good idea. We were all hyped up about how they attacked New York City and Washington DC. All the politicians who are talking against it were behind it originally.
The one thing that bothers me about the whole thing now is that it's dragging on & on.
What they probably should have done is just have assassins go in there and take out the key people.
It's terrible that they have had ground troops in there for so long. In 1991, President Bush the Elder handled the mideast crisis mostly by air strike, and then they got the heck out of there in about one month.
Now, I feel like they need to spend more time keeping our borders and shores safe from infiltration. Bring those young men home and let them defend their country right here.
2006-09-14 11:00:16 · answer #1 · answered by mia2kl2002 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think I would have done anything differently. The events leading up to 9/11 and the war on terror began while Clinton was still in office. I think he is going a pretty good job cleaning up messes from other presidential terms.
2006-09-14 17:51:52 · answer #2 · answered by Terra T 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The biggest difference is that I wouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place. I was one of the people around who knew, in advance of the invasion, that all the WMD talk was unfounded nonsense. One of the things I really liked about Bush (before he was first elected) is that he promised a "humble foreign policy". Well, we all know how that has worked out...
Aside from that, I'd have done the opposite thing on virtually every issue on the religious right's agenda, e.g. stem cells.
2006-09-14 17:52:16 · answer #3 · answered by Bramblyspam 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would have sealed the borders to prevent the probability that a terrorist will cross over. Otherwise he is doing a great job on terrorism. Would you rather have had Al Gore after 911. I am sure he would have issued a warrant for the terrorists.
2006-09-14 17:51:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
whoa, not everyone agreed with going to war with Iraq, barely 50% of our country did.
aside from bombing afghanistan right after 9/11, i would have done everything the opposite of mr. bush, for starters i would have made more of an effort to actually go to work every day and do the job i was elected to do instead of being on vacation over half the time
2006-09-14 17:49:51 · answer #5 · answered by e fitz 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I would have done more listening than talking. Would have done what his Father did; gather Allies and achieved agreements, especially before going to war. I would work constantly work to improve relations with Allies. Would have leaned on Israel to release Lebanese prisoners and work to improve relations and offer support to the new and struggling democracy, Lebanon,. In short I would have a policy of listening more, encourage TALKS, and stay the course of supporting TALKS and respecting our ALLIES.
2006-09-14 18:20:53 · answer #6 · answered by longroad 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am glad I am not President. I would have taken out Iran. It is the main one in charge of the terrorists and there agenda to destroy all freedom loving people and turn the world into an Islamic kingdom.
2006-09-14 17:57:41 · answer #7 · answered by child_of_the_lion 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I wouldn't have crashed planes into the World Trade Center, for one thing.
2006-09-14 17:56:01 · answer #8 · answered by shmux 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i would have allowed the U.N to finish there job in Iraq before i started any wars.
2006-09-14 18:06:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, to start with, I probably would have learned to read at a high school level.
2006-09-14 18:00:48 · answer #10 · answered by kittiesandsparklelythings 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋