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:
From a British perspective, I suspect British foreign policy will gradually become more timid, as contrary to whatever those polls may say public opnion is VERY MUCH against any further military conquests in ther Middle East. However, I believe DOMESTIC policy will continue to grant further powers to Police and intrude further into peoples privacy in the name of combatting Terrorism. At the moment though, I think most British people are just quite confused. They see the terrorist threat, and had great sympathy for the American nation after 9/11. But they also felt anger (and perhaps fear?) at the way the US has conducted itself in such matters in such matters as Guatenemo Bay (a clear slap in the face for human rights, and a step towards a police state) and Iraq. Obviously the British have infinitely more in common with America than any Muslim country, but a philospohy of £the ends justifying the means" is a dangerous one.
I have to say, your article seems strangely disjointed, with several gaps containing random words etc. Have you pieced together sections of multiple articles?
2and advocate a live and let live policy with terrorists" I certainly dont recall anyone advocating THAT!
"Have you pieced together sections of multiple articles?" Gosh golly, I can't imagine herzie cutting-and-pasting things out of context. (herzie ballot category: "Bash Europe")
Those nations that... advocate a live and let live policy with terrorists..." Nonsense. There aren't any nations that advocate a "live and let live" policy with terrorists. What drivel.
news. bbc.co .uk/ 2/hi/ americas/ 5336596. stm Lil ape, I copied it directly and in full but with the various headings and pictures in the way it sometimes screws up the text. That's the address for the article.
Take out the spaces, and add h t t p to the beginng by not w3.
lilape: britain isn't like this but mainland europe has certainly taken this approach to terrorism. Maybe they're still burnt out from the last war, maybe they feel guilty about all the wrongs their ancestors committed, maybe they're terrified of the islamic hordes in their own countries and don't want to upset them but whatever the reason most of mainland europe has taken a very laid back approach to the whole thing, not wanting to get involved, not wanting to hurt anyone. And it hasn't protected them at all. Odd that the US, since it went on this offensive, has not been hit by terrorists, but the parts of europe that have remained out of the conflict were hit.
If there's one thing we've provided a stellar example of in the last 5 years, it's how not to counteract terrorism. Our "more aggressive" policy in Iraq has been a disaster and we've narrowed our options in that country to the point where the only question we can ask is: "How do we extricate ourselves while not making a horrible situation even worse for everyone?" None of the major terrorist plots that I know of have been broken up through a policy of large-scale military preemption. They have been broken up through covert operations, and as such have not received much press while they were happening. But they have been effective and clearly represent a sound way of dealing with the problem, (disregarding other dimensions of the problem.) All this being said, Bin Laden announced a few months ago that the next attack(s) are in the planning stage. I believe him, and the fact that we haven't been able to catch him speaks volumes about our counterterrorism strategy during the last five years.
|
|