If you are Bush after 911. What would your actions or steps be to fight terrorism. Some people hate Bush so much, but really how can you fight terrorism without pissing off your neighbors and accidentally harming innocent people. Typical red necks at work tell me the best solution is to pull troops and drop the A-Bomb. But really is that the solution? Really it is the same action, but with more severe consequences. At the end of the day, I think there is no real way to be politically correct when fighting the war on terror. Terror has no boundaries globally. After Iraq, who will USA attack next? Iran or North Korea?
I really want to know peoples serious insite on this matter. I am very curious how you would have handled such a sitution if put in Bush's shoes.
2006-12-30 02:16:02 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I would have worked covertly, since the people in the areas we were looking in would have been in great danger if they were seen to be giving intelligence to the US. I would have gone into Afghanistan, because Osama was there and the Taliban were too powerful to allow us to get to him, but I would have kept our focus and our men and our aid there until he was found and killed. There would have been no distractions and no draining of men and money until Bin Ladin was dead. That way although you may have had rhetoric from the usual elements, no country would have faulted us. Iraq was a serious miscalculation one that led to a loss of focus and prestige and world opinion of the reliability of our leaders. It led to the rapid growth of radical Islamicist terrorism, which was spurred on by our inability to control the streets of Iraq or win the hearts and loyalties of Iraqis. Without that, we do have to wonder why American men and women have to die to present democracy to a group of people who have no intention of honoring it. Sometimes it is better not to announce you are coming, but just to get in and do what you came for first, and then make the announcement.
I have no problem with annoying people in other countries if that's what it would take, but invading Iraq was gratuitous and has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with heedless management.
2006-12-30 02:34:24 · answer #1 · answered by justa 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think that the U.S. needs to build small but mobile striking forces, the day of occupying country's should be over with the lessons learned in Vietnam and now Iraq. We could have sent 1000 people into Iraq and taken out Saddam and got out of there without the expense of the 3000 lives that we have now lost. I think better intelligence is the answer to the terror problem and we need to stay one step ahead of them and not just react to their attacks. This should have been done many years ago and maybe 9/11 would have never happened.
2006-12-30 10:25:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't know what you mean by "politically correct" but recall that right after 9/11 when Bush invaded Afghanistan for harboring terrorists, the world was behind us and actually provided support for that war. It was not until we went after Iraq with bad intelligence that our political capital was wasted.
The countries that had the most to do with 9/11 were Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, but Bush was too tied to Saudi Arabia to go after them, and they are considered the only "democratic" middle eastern country.
Also, I don't know if it really matters if the rest of the world is behind us. If we had serious evidence of Saddam's link to 9/11 (which we still don't have) and the rest of the world did not want us to hit them, I would have been 100% behind the President. But, we did not have that evidence and we began to look like the "shoot first, ask questions later cowboys" that Bush is.
2006-12-30 10:25:48 · answer #3 · answered by harrisnish 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No nukes. Send in enough troops and hardware to crush any opposition, lock the borders and throw the fear of a lifetime into any neighboring nations in the region. Only after the government is up, running and stable would I reduce deployment numbers. The animals running Iran, Syria, Lebanon and all the other tinpot theocracies in the ME have to understand that if you mess with us, you pay dearly. In other words, if you are going to go to war, then GO TO WAR.
Iraq is all about the threat of radical Islam, not personal vendettas (silly concept), not primarily oil (but a side benefit). The root of terrorism is Iran and has been for decades. Iraq is nothing more than a forward base from which to conveniently deal with these scumbags.
And redneck is a hateful term in my opinion. As bad as cracker and the dreaded N word....
How would I have done it differently? I would have absolutely crushed the enemy and world opinion be damned. This is for the future of western society and it's survival, there are no second chances with radical Islamics.
2006-12-30 10:24:51 · answer #4 · answered by Rich B 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
One big reason people hate Bush is because all they ever hear is the bad news from the media. It's true.
I would do several things (some of which Bush is doing, but could do more):
- fund and develop our intelligence agencies, like the CIA, far more.
- more covert operations and assissinations of terrorist leaders.
- put more troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan
- ratchet up the level of violence against insurgents
- find the terrorists money and freeze thier assessts
- worry less about what the Russian or French think
2006-12-30 10:22:23 · answer #5 · answered by fredtubbs 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'm happy to answer this ! Now this is not what your going to want to hear but its my own opinion! If I were in his shoes I would immediately get troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan . I would then concentrate my efforts on protecting the nation by increasing security on our borders by beefing up border and police forces around the nation . I would rotate national guard forces on border patrol . I would then concentrate on pulling thousands of foreign based military back to the states. I would close most bases on foreign soil . With our technology we can move tons of supplies by ship and air to any place in the world in a matter of months !
2006-12-30 10:30:56 · answer #6 · answered by wishingstar5555 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
that why I'm not the president it's a big undertaking . but it's was his responsibility to protect this country and not put it on a path of divided polices with our allies or countries around this world . i would have use more dialog set down with some of these other countries to get them more involve in the fight against terrorism their only sitting back now laughing at bush saying we tool you no to invade Iraq Mr. bush .but bush have none of these skill if your not with us you against us . you can try to sugar coat bust performs as a president but history will remember him as the most incompetent president in the the history of his presidency
2006-12-30 10:33:56 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If I were Bush, I'd resign. Intel reports from this fall indicate his anti-terrorism policies have actually CAUSED more terrorist activities. What a maroon. Gore (even Kerry) would have taken better courses of action than this moronic "stay the course" mentality that Dubya is only just NOW rethinking, as he's lost Congress to the Dems and the backing of top GOP leaders including Gingrich.
2006-12-30 10:19:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
We are not even close to attacking anyone. There has been nothing brought to congress for vote. the President cannot unilateral make the decision to attack a country. He won the congress approval on Iraq in a landslide vote twice. No one can answer this question unless they are given the same information and have access to knowledgeable advisers. Unless they have that they are talking out of their hind end.
2006-12-30 10:21:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I wouldn't have a war on terror
2006-12-30 12:42:48 · answer #10 · answered by A nobody 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋