user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Normally, closed 'two-choice' ballots are against my nature, but ... does anyone really believe that Option 1 is not right?
Voted : Try to unite the country in a common cause, despite criticisms
I would go after the real culprits for a change, instead of using the opportunities to line my pocket with oil money.
by LCD on Wed Oct 04, 06 12:42pm
[+]
Frankly, Mr. Cathexis, Option 1 may be part of the answer, but it is certainly not sufficient to answer your question. I would lead a war on terror by first moving all American forces to Afghanistan. Then I would unleash our Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force on both sides of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. I would attack with the full fury of our military and continue to pound this region until I had either killed, captured or caused to flee every terrorist in the vicinity. Then, I would turn every intelligence asset in the U.S. arsenal loose to gather information on where other terrorists were located, and I would systematically attack every target until I had eradicated terrorism in each area. Then I would put the intelligence gathering assets afield to listen for any hint of terrorist activity. If/when if surfaced, I would wipe it out. I would make it known that any country that complained about our self-defense attacks would be treated as an enemy and terrorist sanctuary. I would root out the sources of terrorist funding. Any financial group, bank, or institution involved in funding terrorism would be attacked and ruined. I would continue this policy until I had eliminated terrorism. Then I would offer the hand of peace to all nations who agreed to unite and stay vigilant against terrorism. I would like to be known thenceforth as "Margaret the Terrible." lol lol lol
margaret: I quite agree. But I am focusing on only one facet of the overall effort -- the desirability of uniting the country one professes to be interested in protecting.
Can any of our efforts, no matter what they are, possibly be effective if we alienate half the country in our efforts? Would any sane person who actually believe din the goals professed go at this with the "House Divided" strategy?
Voted : Try to unite the country in a common cause, despite criticisms
^Watch out for Margaret.
Drugs are what's fuelling the warlords, and they support the terrorists. So we have to supplant the poppy crops with something legal.
Then security then infrastructure. Once you have infrasructure then the people
will be able to police themselves. And kittens, these people need furry snuggly kittens so they can give them names like Ignatious P. Snugglebottoms...
I wouldn't try to 'unite the country'. Whether or not a country is united comes from the bottom up, and not the top down. A leader should never force cohesion (but nor should he/she exasperate tensions and therefore make divisions worse).
I would merely state my beliefs, and take seriously the opinions of those who disagree. It should be an open forum in which all views are to be listened to.
But division is not necessarily a bad thing. It reveals a diversity of views, which seems an inevitable result of a free and pluralistic society.
|
|
