OT Hi Soozieque, the issue isn't that the risk isn't there, and in fact, John would probably concur the risk here in homeland is higher for terrorism, but the issue is how it is handled, and to also not overlook that this Bush approach creates - more terrorism.
Many international people are quite incensed that Bush demands Iraq to put their weapons down at the same time Bush shows intent to blow Iraq up. This is like walking up to your neighbor with a fleet of cannons while showing every intention of blowing up his/her house, while asking them to disarm their gun, while you fire & aim. In international circles, this is called "bullying" and bullying spawns more terrorism. Basic international cultural psychology is important on handling politics and maintaining our safety.
For an idea on what some other countries might think:
english.peopledaily.com.cn
Some USA Presidents had the international finesse to wipe out an Arabian pharmaceutical company & some weapons without creating hostilities with Arabians, of course, his error was not doing an acceleration of locating more terrorists.
With respect to Bush, the world is against the USA on this matter. Not because Bush is necessarily wrong, but because his methodology lacks finesse.
Why send 180,000 troops at a huge cost, when you can send and spend a fraction of that number of people & amount of dollars to do the same thing at a lower cost and with significantly less destruction? Intelligence/FBI not military. The USA has less than a dozen FBI types in Karachi/Pakistan to find bin Laden and other terrorists, meanwhile it's loading up 180,000 troops outside of Iraq.
The approach or methodology is wrong and costly.
Regards,
Amy J |
