Quote:
Originally posted by jawanda
Our decision to go into Iraq (basically) unilaterally was the real problem. If we had a president that was more active in working with other countries to fight terrorism (and actually listened to what they had to say) don't you think that the focus would be taken off of the US?
|
To a point yes.
Bush had to know the UN would not have done anything - if he thought it would then I am sure he would have done just what you said. I think that was the major difference between him and if Al Gore was elected.. if Gore was in I think 9/11 would still have happened - we had not really done anything to that point. But Gore would have not gone in on his own - and that would be taken as a sign of weakness and opend us up to more and more attacks. I really think thats how and why 9/11 happened. We were tested with numerous smaller attacks - each getting slightly bigger and bigger and closer to home as a test to see what could be got away with, and Clinton really did nothing major.
Think of it as a kid testing his parents to see what he can get away with. Same concept IMHO.
But I do not think the focus would be off of the US that much more - we are often picked out as the leader of the western world and even with the UN backing us the finger would still be pointed at the USA by most of the people that are pointing it now. Thats just what happens when you are as large and as strong as the USA is.
Basically -- we are fucked despite what we do, or do not do.
And keep in mind I hope Bush goes down in flames come November
