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:
Yes worthy of impeachment as Roosevelt should have been (if that's what you're getting at).
Voted : Terrible, unamerican act, he should be impeached and jailed
What CI said.
I'm going to stay out of this (for now) except to say that I was trying to get at this on ballot #103428
This is a tough one. Not so much in the answer I will give, but more so because it raises lots of other questions too. I have to say that if he had a clean slate as you put, it and had been the picture of effective and good leadership, I would say that I would be most alarmed at his sudden change.
I know that during WWII they interned many Japanese, but at that time, the United States was not as ethnically diverse. Most immigrants were White Europeans. There was also a language barrier to some degree and Japanese Americans were still very much aligned to Japan. So I think back then, there was much more fear of people unlike the majority and it was an official "World War."
Now though, we are much more ethnically diverse, so there should not be the same fear and therefore, if he did what you describe today, as much as it may not seem like it, there is a difference; it doesn't make it right, but there is in fact a difference.
I think it was wrong to intern Japanese Americans during WWII and I think it would be wrong to put Muslims in camps as you describe above. If there had been solid evidence in WWII that some Japanese Americans were spying on us or were traitors, then that is different. Same with Muslims today. If there was real and prove evidence they were committing acts of violence or terrorism, then they should be jailed as well.
There really is no clear cut answer to the question though, since the way things were over 60 years ago are very much different than they are today.
Voted : Its Not So Clear Cut. Other Factors are Relevant
Anything is possible in war, however everything should be done to prevent a full scale (hightened) global conflict between Islam (Jihadists) and the Western/democratic civilization.
It is very probable that within the next two decades Western society and their governments will eventually implement new tough laws against ideologies and religious beliefs that teach and promote hate to their followers.
This includes the ideologies of such groups and organizations as the Ku Klux Klan, the NeoNazis, the Aryan Nations (white supremists), Black Panthers and all menacing religious cults such as the Branch Davidians, and of course Islam.
Humanity can certainly not expect to advance into a very peaceful future so long as hate is preached through religious doctrines such as the Quran and used as a tool to cause death, destruction and terrorism. The Quran needs to be seen for what it is, hate literature.
The civilized and democratic world must recognize that there can no longer rights and freedoms granted to organized hate groups and their followers, whose very sole purpose is to end everyone elses rights and freedoms in order to advance their oppressive and twisted doctrines. It is a well known proven fact that all these groups advocate violence to advance their beliefs. So why should humanity permit them to exist if they intentionally spread hate, and cause terrorism and violence against innocents or those that don't follow (believe)?
These doctrines of hate and intolerance must be confronted, their doctrines and other hate literature need to be banned and thus their entire ideology eradicated. Education must replace ignorance.
No politcal correctness is necessary for intolerant and hateful beliefs that work against peace, security and humanity itself, the very thing that modern civilization strives for.
If this is done, then perhaps a great war can be averted. If conflict should arise due to the militant and extremist followers of these doctrines of hate, because they refuse to change there ways and become peaceful members of a modern secular humanistic and moral society, then similar measures as that which is mentioned in this ballot will be justified.
Oh, here we go with another "Then FDR should have been impeached" trap.
For God's sake, herz ... how many times will you post this same ballot, with different wording/ perspective?!?
For me, I will reiterate my answer ... yet again ... I stand by the principle. Any US president who creates inerment camps for perceived enemies among US citizens deserves to be taken to task. Impeachment is one possibility that could be considered.
Cath: This is my first on this subject. So spare me the indignation. And yes, it does seem to matter whether it was bush or a far leftwing socialist, as there was a great deal more apathy concerning FDRs actual crimes than there was for Bushs hypothetical crimes.
Cathexis: plain English, please. (And, truth, too.)
Jinn_the_Kafir - I disagree with you. As far as I can see it, my asnwer is that it is clear cut. The answer is for me: no, a terrible idea.
As for Clash of Civilisations? Yes, unfortunately that exists. However, I do believe that the West setting up such camps would be for the West to a great extent to give up its values and social philosophies of 'justice'. The West wouldn't be defending its values by doing so, it would be sacrificing its values. The West would not be defending itself, it would be committing civilisational suicide as far as I see it.
Its just simply wrong.
|
|
