2006-09-26 13:56:27 · 4 answers · asked by tmthyh 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
We would be safer if we hadn't attacked Iraq, slaughtered its people, and engaged in torture and rape of thousands.
So, yes, we would have been better off than we are if those freaks hadn't made things worse by alienating everyone as they did.
What would have been even better, however, would have been to find Bin Laden, to pressure Israel to clean up its appalling human rights record, and to address the other legitimate complaints the Arab world has against us.
(Also, we could have won big-time PR points by responding better to the Tsunami.)
But then we're far too brutal and arrogant for any of that. Instead we had to attack people who had nothing to do with 9/11 and inspire more people to hate us.
That's what you consider far-sighted?
2006-09-26 15:11:00 · answer #1 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think that point is that the war does not have anything to do with Sept 11 and that is why people are so upset we are still there.
2006-09-26 14:06:45 · answer #2 · answered by Tcats 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course we wouldn't be. The word for that is "utopian pacifism," coined by Victor Davis Hanson, I think.
2006-09-26 13:58:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if done correctly, more troops, planes and force! If not get the h--- out of both countries!
2006-09-26 14:05:37 · answer #4 · answered by Jake R 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋