You believe that a military action - fighting a war - is vital to US national security. But the public is strongly against the action, by at least two to one.
Do you fight the war, or withdraw?
This is a hypothetical, sort of.
2007-03-08 22:11:39 · 12 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
First, I assume a condition of apparent peacetime, unlike the current condition. If this is a bad assumption for your question, forget about it.
1. Order the defense establishment to update data on the target set, and to brush up on offensive warfighting skills, and to plus-up any known deficiencies in equipment sets.
2. Begin to make the case for a national security threat. Make use of declassifiable US and allied intel. Remember that you cannot tell all you know lest you compromise sources and methods.
If anyone's interested...I experienced this while in the Army in 1996, when President Clinton was dealing with North Korea; our battle exercises assumed DPRK opposition. Then in 1998 or so Pres. Clinton signed off on the policy of regime change in Iraq (funny how you never hear about that any more, it's like they want us to forget) and we started dusting off our desert fighting skills.
2007-03-08 22:27:06 · answer #1 · answered by dBalcer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would fight the war
Ihave two reasons for this
1.If we have never fought in the war the terrorists(if you mean the war right now) will think we fear them and they won for Allah and will still do more attacks against us
2. If we withdraw terrorists will probaly try to take over the new governments of Iraq and Afganinstan
Or Iran will take over Iraq,and mabey Afganinstan
and they will still commence with the attacks on us
Never listen to the public most of us (Americans) are just..well you have to admit we are kinda stupid are type of government is well starting to fail while we (the public) start only carring about all the poor people in Africa (really I dont care about Africa And personly I think we should go to all of the countrys' that are just shooting there own people and declare war on them.) America is not going to last forever people
2007-03-09 08:34:02 · answer #2 · answered by Zack_1234 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Though I understand what you're asking, the question is still too vague. There are so many other factors that go into making this kind of decision.
- What country?
- What is the history of a relationship between my country and their country?
- Is war needed; if so, why?
- Will a war benefit their people?
- What are the costs involved?
That's just naming a very minute amount of questions...
2007-03-09 06:23:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, I'd engage my brain and understand that just because the communist news network (CNN) states the 'public' is against military action, does not make it so.
Second, I'd understand that the United States is at war, and we basically have two choices:
1. Take the war to the enemy and remove their capability of attacking US soil, or
2. Sit idly by (such as after the first WTC bombing) and wait to be attacked again.
History and common sense prove that sitting by waiting for the enemy to attack will produce one thing: more attacks (also see WWI, WWII). 'Talking' to and 'negotiating with' psychos bent on killing Americans will only allow the enemy to build their war machine.
Prior to WWII, US diplomats received 'peace medals' just days before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt and Chamberlain (UK prime minister before Churchill) gave Hitler Czechoslovakia to appease him during "negotiations". Stalin reached a non-agression treaty with Hitler months before Hitler attacked the USSR and killed millions of Soviets.
The current Hitlers in head scarves are no different. They are just itching for the US to pull out so they can build their war machines and resume attacks on US soil.
So, the simple choice comes down to 2 options:
1. Fight now and prevent WMD attacks on US soil, or
2. Wait to be nuked, and lose hundreds of thousands of civilians and then fight an enemy who has used the "negotiating" period to become 10 times stronger.
Simple choice. Thank God for President Bush.
2007-03-09 06:41:20 · answer #4 · answered by Bryan _ 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That s not reality just a hypthesis and also I hate being a president especially like George Bush . Sorry I do not want to say something because it would be definitly no war and you probably would not agree
:D
Take care .
2007-03-09 06:25:04 · answer #5 · answered by xeibeg 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see how fighting a war will help. Violence won't solve anything, killing willing not make u safer. 'An eye for an eye' people will want to retaliate, would want revenge for killing their own people. If i was the president, i would not send out my own people to die out there for a senseless war. I would never even start such a war. It's just stupid. Fighting a war would put us under more danger, not secure us.
2007-03-09 06:50:38 · answer #6 · answered by nashpaty 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A President cannot allow the media to run the country
2007-03-09 06:26:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Withdraw.
2007-03-09 06:14:53 · answer #8 · answered by Lynnemarie 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You fight, you have intelligence and information that the public doesn't have access to. This is not about doing what is popular and winning popularity contests, at least it shouldn't be.
2007-03-09 06:24:50 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Withdraw!
And that's NOT a hypothetical answer.
2007-03-09 06:22:34 · answer #10 · answered by Eat At The Y 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋