PD.
For you to claim that a policy is the worst you should offer a better one.
But for someone else to prove your claim is wrong, he/she just have to point out a worse one. Just one.
So lets take any.
Any policy until now that the US had only kept the Middle east in his favorable terrorist hive status.
Clinton's policy of embracing Arafat making him a "legitimate '''elected''' leader", staying out of things that are "not his business" like the dark regimes in the middleeast and other places around the world didn't help you avoid the 9/11. Afaik it only made it possible.
If you suggest keep staying away and wait for that "side of the world" to start loving you, force the creation of a palestinian state with no law or order in, ran by a terrorist leader (which will only turn into another black country who hates the US for being a western democracy) and support international terrorism, weakening the US industry and big companies (to create a more 'fair' environment [not that I don't think it is these days though]), allow everyone around the world to have his nuclear enabled dictatorship...
What other suggestions you might have? Who's policy did you like better?
|