user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
And yes, I know he started with the standard "oh I really hope this doesn't happen ", but he kind of lost credibility by spending the next page and a half doing exactly that.
Usually the effect of terror attack is to decrease support for those who advocate "softer hand" when dealing with terror (Spain being the exception) causing the country to be safer after the government changes. So I'm not sure that this man's logic is correct, because even when, for example, Ariel Sharon replaced Ehud Barak as the PM of Israel in early 2001 (Carried by promises to end the attacks on Israel, and later bring peace), when the Intifada broke out but the violence was not in its peak. It peaked over a years after Sharon took office, causing him to finally adopt the plans to enter to West bank cities and root out terrorism - but the support for him only grew as the violence intensified, and his actions finally brought the decline of violence in 2003-2005 to less than 100 deaths per year, in comparison to 120 in March 2002. Of course the effect of war on terrotrism is decrease of terrorism, and lowering the chances that terrorist attacks will occur and influence the next elections. Yet, parallel to the briliant victory ove the terrorism from West Bank, Sharon lead similiar move to what Barak did in Lebanon in May 2000 - that's to evacuate territories where terrorism prospers, giving it an achevement to proclaim, and win the popular support - both in Lebanon and now in Gaza. The recent rounds of violence will probably lead to the replacement of Olmert's government - the heir of Sharon, and the original supporter of the retreat from Gaza, by government of the people who predicted exactly what will happen as a result from these retreats. Buttom line is, that if anything terrorism boasts support for those who seek to fight it, and although the ideal situation will be not to suffer from terrorist and not fight it to, but it isn't fantasy world, and nations are facing the grim reality, that those who make pessimistic prophecies about terrorism are usually correct.
by Yosi on Sat Aug 26, 06 2:47am
[+]
I wonder how many democrats feel this way, and how this has influenced their voting and policy making. Kind of scary to think that they'd be willing to see americans dead to get a donkey in the whitehouse.
But hey, ignore this and continue to claim that repuoblicans want dead americans to boost ratings.
Voted : No, nothing is worth that, this guy is nuts
That's just sick. Anyone who read that abroad now has one more reason to dislike Americans.
FYI. herzie cut and pasted this blog from the Huffington Post. I can't imagine why he didn't want you to know that. Also, my first reaction to this ballot was: "Who is Russell Shaw? His bio states that he is: a technology and politics author, journalist, blogger and consultant in Portland, Oregon. Author of seven books, he writes the daily IP Telephony Blog for ZDNet." He has his own website, too.
Voted : Illogic, similar to neocon thinking
1. An attack is bad. Hoping for one for political gain is worse. 2. GOP spin cannot lose: A. No attack: See how effective GOP governance is? B: An attack occurs: Oh no! We are in danger! Unite behind our existing government and cede more of your freedoms for security!!! What a funny ballot ... throwing out a framed rhetorical question ballot, the real purpose of which is merely to discredit a war dissenter.
|
|