Why are we as American’s having such problems stamping out the international threat of terror?
<<>>
Could it be true that the reason why we as the offense in this battle are having such problems stamping out the international threat of terror is because offensive tactics on an unsuspecting populace result in defensive actions to protect the perception of innocence?
When a big brother takes an unsolicited swipe at his younger sister, in reflex she hits back. Regardless of how swift or how reciprocal her action is, there will be retaliation. So goeth the nature of man.
Likewise when the sister seeks her revenge on her brother, if it is sweet and effective he will have no choice, but to either accept his defeat and re-evaluate how he treats his sister or find another method of attach for which she will have no ability to defend.
The problem is – in relation to the Middle East – the true offensive and defensive forces aren't clearly defined to all involved and those same positions change depending on your perception. Many think that we reacted to the 9-11 attacks when we chose the current course of action in that region. Others think that the 9-11 attacks themselves were retaliation to a past assertion of our power in a region that didn’t solicit it.
Regardless of which came first the chicken or the war I think the root of the issue behind why we as the “American Forces” cannot find unilateral support internationally on our efforts to liberate the oppressed in the Arab Middle East isn’t because of exit strategies, or civil war determinates, or anything politically relevant in the media. I think the root is in the perception of who is in the right. . . the person that is hitting now or the person who got hit first.
***Food for Though: If the general conception of the American public is that “we are not being made aware of everything” how do you think absolute awareness would benefit the situation?
Posted in unison at both http://lightfoot-input.blogspot.com and http://www.myspace.com/tylightfoot
Could it be true that the reason why we as the offense in this battle are having such problems stamping out the international threat of terror is because offensive tactics on an unsuspecting populace result in defensive actions to protect the perception of innocence?
When a big brother takes an unsolicited swipe at his younger sister, in reflex she hits back. Regardless of how swift or how reciprocal her action is, there will be retaliation. So goeth the nature of man.
Likewise when the sister seeks her revenge on her brother, if it is sweet and effective he will have no choice, but to either accept his defeat and re-evaluate how he treats his sister or find another method of attach for which she will have no ability to defend.
The problem is – in relation to the Middle East – the true offensive and defensive forces aren't clearly defined to all involved and those same positions change depending on your perception. Many think that we reacted to the 9-11 attacks when we chose the current course of action in that region. Others think that the 9-11 attacks themselves were retaliation to a past assertion of our power in a region that didn’t solicit it.
Regardless of which came first the chicken or the war I think the root of the issue behind why we as the “American Forces” cannot find unilateral support internationally on our efforts to liberate the oppressed in the Arab Middle East isn’t because of exit strategies, or civil war determinates, or anything politically relevant in the media. I think the root is in the perception of who is in the right. . . the person that is hitting now or the person who got hit first.
***Food for Though: If the general conception of the American public is that “we are not being made aware of everything” how do you think absolute awareness would benefit the situation?
Posted in unison at both http://lightfoot-input.blogspot.com and http://www.myspace.com/tylightfoot
posted by Tonya-Yvonne Lightfoot | 11:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home