About: Brief foreign policy issue   Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

by Mcs81986 So what's the issue with homeland security. If we're constantly going to hear from the White House and other Republicans close to the Bush administration that we will be attacked by Al Qaeda, why not fight them head on? We hear claims Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda operatives are located in Pakistan, so why can't we flush them out? Getting rid of the top of the organization, slows down and perhaps prevents the execution of terrorist attacks. Move our troops to Afghanistan to help quell this Taliban resurgence. We are not succeeding there anymore. __NOEDITSECTION__

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • Brief foreign policy issue
rdfs:comment
  • by Mcs81986 So what's the issue with homeland security. If we're constantly going to hear from the White House and other Republicans close to the Bush administration that we will be attacked by Al Qaeda, why not fight them head on? We hear claims Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda operatives are located in Pakistan, so why can't we flush them out? Getting rid of the top of the organization, slows down and perhaps prevents the execution of terrorist attacks. Move our troops to Afghanistan to help quell this Taliban resurgence. We are not succeeding there anymore. __NOEDITSECTION__
dcterms:subject
dbkwik:opinion/pro...iPageUsesTemplate
abstract
  • by Mcs81986 So what's the issue with homeland security. If we're constantly going to hear from the White House and other Republicans close to the Bush administration that we will be attacked by Al Qaeda, why not fight them head on? We hear claims Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda operatives are located in Pakistan, so why can't we flush them out? Getting rid of the top of the organization, slows down and perhaps prevents the execution of terrorist attacks. Instead of saying we're going to get attack, why not do something about it? President Bush, are you waiting for us to get attacked, just to say "I told you so"? I sure hope not. You claim to want to be on the offense, but we're not in Pakistan. We're losing in Iraq. We're losing in Afghanistan. How is our nation protected? Is there no feasible way to discuss a military operation with the permission of President Musharraf in order to prevent more massive destruction? Isn't it worth trying? We have a mismanaged military that's thin in all operations. If that's all that's holding you back, get us out of Iraq. Their government obviously will not take the responsibility of running a nation. We cannot be babysitters for a country that's not willing to grow up. If we want to protect our own country, we must use our troops to flush out the terrorist networks. Move our troops to Afghanistan to help quell this Taliban resurgence. We are not succeeding there anymore. This "War on Terror" is beginning to look like a failure, because this "War on Terror" is not entirely a war on terror. So let's get back on focus, follow the intelligence, work things out with President Musharraf and find Osama bin Laden. __NOEDITSECTION__ From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki. From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki.
Alternative Linked Data Views: ODE     Raw Data in: CXML | CSV | RDF ( N-Triples N3/Turtle JSON XML ) | OData ( Atom JSON ) | Microdata ( JSON HTML) | JSON-LD    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software