2006-09-14 23:13:54 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Long story... I am going to summarize.
At the end of WW2, we had flexed our nuclear muscles. This resulted in a Cold War and a war against the spread of communism called containment.
We made deals and armed many terrorist group in our containment strategy.
In 1984, with the fall of the Soviet Union, we then dropped those terrorist groups like hot potatoes.
They became resentful and angry.. deciding to strike back. This leads us to where we are today.
Internally in the USA, we have a lot of hate and prejudice. This has been a direct result of the Rove strategy to win republican elections since the early 70s. He is on record as saying hate is the most motivating factor to get ppl to vote.
I am saying that with all this apathy and hate bred into our society, pre-emptive strikes are accepted.
2006-09-15 19:13:59 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because on 9/11 Bush correctly realized that you cannot just react to terrorism - you'd have to wait for them to strike, and then after the carnage and death, you'd see what you could do - after the fact - to bring the people to justice.
Of course, when those people are suicide bombers - it's kind of difficult to bring somebody to justice when they're already dead.
Also, the pre-emptive striking has only happened to one country, Iraq, so to say "countries" is either being uniformed, or intentionally misleading. When we attacked Afghanistan, it was because the Taliban were there, and they were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
Look at the difference between police country and preemptive striking when you compare Clinton's response to terrorism ('92 World Trade Center bombing, USS Cole bombing, 2 embassies in Africa attacked), to Bush's preemptive striking (9/11 - but since then - nothing on American soil).
2006-09-15 06:37:17 · answer #2 · answered by Flint 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We didn't, our president did, once he is out of office I hope we can get back to a non military state.
Why can't most Americans admit we went from a police country to a preemptive striking country given all the facts on Iraq?
2006-09-15 07:05:31 · answer #3 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same way the Japanese made a preemptive strike on Pearl Harbor back in WWII
2006-09-15 06:58:46 · answer #4 · answered by nbr660 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
After 9/11 people were scared and popular opinion changed. Many more americans were suddenly okay with America invading Iraq and having their own freedoms taken away on their home soil because now it's being done in the name of fighting the terrorist threat.
2006-09-20 08:25:43 · answer #5 · answered by Peri 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Preemptive reduces cost.
2006-09-15 06:26:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That was the platform Bush and Cheney originaly decided to run on.
It wasn't highly publized but it was there if you looked.
I knew anyone that voted for him was voting for war.
Remeber remarks about "finishing the job" in Iraq?
Thanks Florida..
2006-09-15 06:41:56 · answer #7 · answered by Red 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would you rather prevent an attack or respond to a attack? Well you might be to dead to respond.
2006-09-15 06:26:16 · answer #8 · answered by Jack S. Buy more ammo! 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush lied & people died.
2006-09-15 06:15:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋