George Bush seems to think we can win the war on terror basically by hunting down the top leaders, insurgents, etc. and killing them. What a stupid plan from a stupid man. We should spend our money on intelligence and go on the defensive end to prevent attacks. By waging war physically all we are doing is creating hatred toward the US and breeding new terrorists.
2007-08-08 11:51:43 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I cannot believe how pathetic you people are who agree that offense is better than defense. So, I suppose it was "offense" that prevented the terror attackin Britain or the one here at Fort Dix. Oh and Clinton. He told Bush that his biggest threat as far as terror goes was Osama Bin Laden. What did Bush do? Nothing. And look at the end result. So you people who agree that we need to kill every terrorist need to grow up and deal with reality. Reality is you are scared. Intelligence is defensive because we are preventing attacks. Offensive leads to more hatred. Great plan idiots.
2007-08-08 15:07:07 · update #1
You can't really win the 'war on terror' - terror isn't an enemy, it's a tactic used by an enemy.
Defensive tactics against terrorist, while prudent, can't be 100% successful, and that's what they'd need to be to work, alone. The more effort you put into defense against them, the more impressive the terrorist's victories (however small and infrequent they might be) become - and the more frightening, since you're trying /so hard/ to stop them, and can't.
Of course, an 'offensive vs terror' is a virtual absurdity.
What might work would be establishing deterents against terrorist attacks. Not defenses, but consequences to such acts sufficiently grave that no one would be willing to launch them in the first place.
2007-08-08 11:59:34 · answer #1 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
defenses can fail, the best defense is a good offense, if al qaeda is attacking the troops in afghanistan and iraq then they are not pilotting jets into buildings in the US and allies.
if we just sat back and let al qaeda plan then eventually they would get through the defenses and the attack could make 911 look minor in comparison. both defense and offense are needed. don't forget there is a lot of intelligence gathering going on now and no major plot has succeeded recently. whether that was due to al qaeda being distracted by the war on terror or just because they ran out of good ideas (a burning jeep into an airport is kinda ridiculous after taking control of four jets).
2007-08-08 19:05:08 · answer #2 · answered by Tim C 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As long as television stations have sesame street type charectors of suicide bombers, and radical mosques get to indoctrinate children in the middle east exist, then terrorism will be a threat. By sitting back and waiting you are doing nothing to actually solve the issue. There has to be some kind of direct influence to change these things from outside the middle east, because dissenters there are simply killed.
He may have picked the Iraq war stupidly, but at least he has kept terrorism at the front of the worlds issues, so something might get done to eventually end the problem.
2007-08-08 19:02:11 · answer #3 · answered by Ron B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because history shows that being on the defensive is the best way to lose a war. The Defensive Maginot line didn't work for the French and English in WW2. The defensive fortifications at the Alamo didn't hold.
I could go on for hours with examples of those on the defensive losing a battle or a war.
Just remember the best defense is a good offense.
2007-08-08 18:57:26 · answer #4 · answered by sctwarior2002 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Defensive tactics dont really work against terrorist when if you miss just one of them a few hundred people die. This isnt a military that we can see coming a mile off terrorism is much better fought on thier ground than ours. It sounds rough but i would rather not see some idiot in a car full of c-4 driving in to a baseball stadium for his jihad. i would much rather hear aobut how some very upset marine iced the little would be terrorist before he came to our country slipped through a net about the size of the canadian border and went to town in our country.
2007-08-08 18:58:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
actually I think we are mostly on the defensive in Iraq
we need to get the Iraqis to be responsible for their own security so that can leave, regroup, go on the offensive and dictate the when and where of future encounters with terrorists (counter-terrorism)
a defensive strategy is bound to fail as you can't keep up 100% vigilance forever (and you're letting the enemy take the initiative)
2007-08-08 18:59:55 · answer #6 · answered by Nick F 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We tried the defensive stance and too many innocent Americans were killed in terrorist attacks over the past 40 years. We thought its time they know how it felt. I like this way much better.
2007-08-08 19:03:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hmmmm? Let's see.... Clinton withdraws from Somalia, then comes 9-11....Yeah, that's a great strategy! Just wait for them to hit us and then we can write a really strong letter expressing our outrage. Can all you morons just go die and stop breathing out air?
2007-08-08 19:22:29 · answer #8 · answered by gunrrobot 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Judging by the way you lash out at people who answer the question YOU posted, I'm guessing you're one of the people that always asks "is my penis big enough" in the men's health section.
2007-08-10 03:45:08 · answer #9 · answered by B123 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, In other words:
"We Should Surrender". Just like the Democrats.
Clinton Surrendered, and we got 9/11.
2007-08-08 18:57:25 · answer #10 · answered by wolf 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋