How should the U.S. or any country, for that matter, defend itself against terrorists? At the White House July 28, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said, “This is our own war; this is a war which is against Pakistan.” Speaking about fighting terrorists, Gilani said, “We can do it ourselves.”
Both U.S. presidential candidates talk tough about terrorism on the campaign trail and promise they will pursue terrorist threats wherever they exist. Presumed Republican nominee John McCain told the World Affairs Council in March, “We must also have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate, and deny them bases in failed or failing states.” In July, presumed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said, “It’s time for sustained and aggressive action - to take the offense against new dangers abroad, while shoring up our defenses at home.”
At the same time, both candidates say they would work with allies and seek diplomatic solutions before considering other actions. Should the next leader of the United States be willing to act unilaterally to halt a terrorist threat?
Comments (4)
Rita
2 August 2008 at 02:19 EDT
Permalink
I watched Obama , on cnn,being heckled while campaigning , by blacks who thought he hadn’t done enough for their community. For once I saw Obama completely tongue tied.Personally I think he lacks experience to head a government which might literally effect the whole world and every race.Times are hard enough.The world urgently needs a US President with guts more than grace,strength instead of style and above all wisdom rather than way.
naveen
4 August 2008 at 07:30 EDT
Permalink
why is US in panic now its all their [expletive deleted] which is bad smelling them who armed pak. even knowing that ISI exist? ISI is not emerged post 9/sep ask Bush wether CIA realy never knew that?
siddharth
17 August 2008 at 11:10 EDT
Permalink
In the emerging democratic world order unilateral action against terrorism can never be fruitful and would further widen the gap between nations. America’s past action over Irac is a proof of it . Moreover, the presidential candidates are required to clarify their individual position on the war of civilization. Because a silent majority of the world populace has begun to think action on terorrism as ” a war of civilization”.
Renato
27 November 2008 at 04:47 EST
Permalink
One way to fight terrorism is to have their whole clan abolish after the act, this will make the terrorist think twice before they act on it. If a terrorist attacks innocent civilians, the perpetrator’s whole clan will be abolished. Basically you pay with innocent lives of your own clan, by commiting to the act of terrorism.