|By Username (184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 7:03 pm: Edit Post|
I feel that Bush is a man who realizes that sometimes negotiations will not diffuse a problem. He has recognized this and is fighting the war on terror the only way possible, by force. I find it overly idealstic to think that Osama Bin Ladin, Saddam Hussein and Gearge Bush would be able to all sit down and have peacetalks. I think that Kerry's shunning of war is extremely risky to the nation and world. It would open the door wide open to terrorists to do as they please.
|By Terese Condon (220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 7:47 pm: Edit Post|
Bush is fighting the wrong war. The war is against terrorism. The enemy is alQaeda. Not a specific country. The current policies have only made alQaeda stronger and the rest of the world hating the US. Currently the terrorist do as they please. War with Iraq did not reduce that danger in fact it has increased it. We attacked a country that did not attack us. We showed to the world that we have a disregard for the law.
The focus needs to be on providing local government with the tools needed as well as coordination with the various agencies. Local government is given madates to levels of response with out the funding needed.
|By Username (69-20-153-155.ida.net - 18.104.22.168) on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 12:44 am: Edit Post|
What "tools" do you propose giving local governments? Which "agencies" do they need coordination with? Your solution was a bit too vague and abstract.
|By Terese Condon (22.214.171.124) on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 10:56 am: Edit Post|
There needs to be better contact between the Terrorism Task Force and the local Police Department. There needs to be funds to cover the required overtime that is imposed each time the country goes on orange alert. There needs to be training available on how to better deal with the different ethic groups. In my city alone which is only 21 sq. miles we have over 87 different languages spoken. We do not have the time nor the funds available to develop information sheets for all of these different languages nor learn on the customs of each which is essential to deal with planning and response.
|By Username (126.96.36.199) on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 2:07 pm: Edit Post|
I support your proposed solutions. The Terorism Task Force, I think you mean the troops we send into the country (I'm not well versed on the lingo), will clearly be more effective if it communicates with local authorities. That's if the local authorities can be trusted. The result ends up being that our troops, with or without the help of local police, end up going out and fighting against the terorists. To do this, there needs to be proper funding. I think it risky to cut funding to the armed forces. The funding needs to be given out by priority. One of the highest priorities is the physical safety of the troops and the American people. The best way to budget seems to be by priority.
As far as us being in Iraq, it is kind of like your walking down the street and see someone being jumped. You, yourself, are in minimal physical danger, but if you can help the victim, you should do so. The people in Iraq were horribly oppressed, and not very fond of their dictator. He had commited many war crimes earlier, and we weren't able to catch him, but the opportunity to help out Iraq and catch Saddam presented itself, and I support Bush for his action.