Bush's America.....Is it safer then the UK?

[wolfix]

The latest incident in London has shown us that the West is under attack from terrorists. The world's eyes were opened on 9-11 to the destruction that the terrorists are capable of. America is the popular choice if those that say America is the main target, but since then it seems as if the UK has had an increase in terror attacks. Here in America we have not had any since 9-11.
Many make the claim that Bush's policies have taken away the rights of the citizens. But are we entering a era where the threat is greater then it has been in the past?
Could it be that that Bush with his aggresive anti-terror policies has made it much harder for the terorists to operate? Has Bush made the US safer from the threats?
We know that GB has a intelligence agency that may be superior to any other countries. And the British use camera's and other survillance equipment on a daily basis in London, something that America has not implemented yet. And yet they could not stop what has happened. But we see that the UK has responded quickly to the attacks, usually capturing the terrorists with-in days.
We are entering a period in America where politicians are saying things that they think will get them elected..... Such as
"the war on terror, a bumper sticker."
John Edwards

Of course Edwards would have a hard time explaining the situation in London...... Will Americans become too relaxed in the effort to protect themselves? .......

Is a Bush America safer then the UK?

 

[ndbiker]

The latest incident in London has shown us that the West is under attack from terrorists. The world's eyes were opened on 9-11 to the destruction that the terrorists are capable of. America is the popular choice if those that say America is the main target, but since then it seems as if the UK has had an increase in terror attacks. Here in America we have not had any since 9-11.
Many make the claim that Bush's policies have taken away the rights of the citizens. But are we entering a era where the threat is greater then it has been in the past?
Could it be that that Bush with his aggresive anti-terror policies has made it much harder for the terorists to operate? Has Bush made the US safer from the threats?
We know that GB has a intelligence agency that may be superior to any other countries. And the British use camera's and other survillance equipment on a daily basis in London, something that America has not implemented yet. And yet they could not stop what has happened. But we see that the UK has responded quickly to the attacks, usually capturing the terrorists with-in days.
We are entering a period in America where politicians are saying things that they think will get them elected..... Such as
"the war on terror, a bumper sticker."
John Edwards

Of course Edwards would have a hard time explaining the situation in London...... Will Americans become too relaxed in the effort to protect themselves? .......

Is a Bush America safer then the UK?

I am not sure we in America are safer than those in Britain. We have had two instances in the last year in which we have thwarted terrorist attacks. I have always felt the western world is like a battered woman. We keep on asking ourselves what we did to instigate these attacks. Perhaps, like the case of the beaten woman, it is not a result of what we do or did but rather we just are in a relationship with (share the world with) an abuser (Muslim extremists). I came across an article which has confirmed what I believed about this (at least to me). It's an interesting article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770

 

[islandboy]

If your name is "scooter"

 

[limerickman]

I am not sure we in America are safer than those in Britain. We have had two instances in the last year in which we have thwarted terrorist attacks. I have always felt the western world is like a battered woman. We keep on asking ourselves what we did to instigate these attacks. Perhaps, like the case of the beaten woman, it is not a result of what we do or did but rather we just are in a relationship with (share the world with) an abuser (Muslim extremists). I came across an article which has confirmed what I believed about this (at least to me). It's an interesting article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770

The Daily Mail's view has never reflected the view of the British public.

 

[ndbiker]

The Daily Mail's view has never reflected the view of the British public.

I'll respect that. However one may view the article I think it has a poignant message. Our actions are not what instigate Islamic terrorism. The interpreting of the Koran is what instigates Islamic terrorism. So far as I can see a democratic government which allows freedom of thought is ripe for terrorists. The only type of government in which terrorism will not flourish is a dictatorship be it fascist or communist. Dictators have no qualm about killing innocents therefore innocents will stop as best they can the violence. I think moderate Muslims feel they have much more to fear from their radical brethern than they do the west and that and is what motivates their silence on the issue of terrorism.

This is not a new problem. If you check your history books over a million Europeans were taken as slaves between 1500 and 1806 by Muslim rulers in north Africa. Governments, including the US and Britain, chose to pay tribute rather than fight. In 1805 or 6 Thomas Jefferson sent the then fledging US marines and some mercenary forces (not much of an army twenty years into our founding) and destroyed a north African city (can't think of the name, it was in Tripoli) . The Barbary Pirates as they were called stopped their commandering of ships. Jefferson while in Paris asked one of the rulers under what justification there governments took these men and his reply was that it was justified by the Koran.

What modern Islam needs is debate amongst itself. Only when the Imams are willing to interpret the Koran in ways that allow for secular societies will the moderate Muslims voice be heard. Until then our governments have difficult choices, to continue the futile attempt to determine what we can do to placate the terrorists or to figure out a way in which a democracy can effectively discourage terrorism.

 

[limerickman]

I think the problem is far more complex and far more nuanced than you outline.

The fact of the matter is that certain countries in the West have over decades
have meddled in the internal affairs of countries in the Middle East.
Entire regions of the Middle East have been reconfigured/changed/amended by certain western countries - while the natural resources of the Middle East have been plundered.
Maps and regions have been redrawn at the beshest of the West.
And, the West has maintained and supported corrupt regimes throughout the region.

It is interesting that you invoke the theme of democracy.
It's difficult to see how centuries of interference in the Middle East - could ever be deemed to be a byproduct of countries who proclaim that they adhere to democratic values.

The causes of paramilitary attacks are complex and multifaceted.
In my opinion, both sides in this "conflict" carry some measure of blame in what has happened.

 

[islandboy]

There are no "innocents". We (the masses - babes through to the elderly) all consume. We seldom consider the source of our plunder. This applies to the West as it did to Europe, as it did to the Middle East, as it did ad nauseum......

Perhaps the real question could be "Will sharing more equitably bring safety?" It is a shrinking world.

I think the problem is far more complex and far more nuanced than you outline.

The fact of the matter is that certain countries in the West have over decades
have meddled in the internal affairs of countries in the Middle East.
Entire regions of the Middle East have been reconfigured/changed/amended by certain western countries - while the natural resources of the Middle East have been plundered.
Maps and regions have been redrawn at the beshest of the West.
And, the West has maintained and supported corrupt regimes throughout the region.

It is interesting that you invoke the theme of democracy.
It's difficult to see how centuries of interference in the Middle East - could ever be deemed to be a byproduct of countries who proclaim that they adhere to democratic values.

The causes of paramilitary attacks are complex and multifaceted.
In my opinion, both sides in this "conflict" carry some measure of blame in what has happened.

 

[sogood]

The latest incident in London has shown us that the West is under attack from terrorists...

Actually, many in the Middle-East and Muslim countries have felt suppressed and attacked, by the West and puppets governments supported by the West for many decades in their home land. So one can say that the those victims have turned to terrorize the original terrorists. The situation is clearly complex and your original portrayal is clearly one sided.

 

[wolfix]

The Daily Mail's view has never reflected the view of the British public.

Who's view does it reflect? Someone is buying it, as it is the 2nd largest selling newspaper there. And newspapers like everything else is market driven.

 

[Carrera]

The U.K. seems to me to be in a worse fix than America although, of course, that doesn't excuse Bush's tactics. However, yes, we have a very very serious problem - one I've seen coming for many years.
Alone in Europe, the U.K. is producing suicide bombers. In Spain, it was close but Madrid only had bombers and not suicide bombers.
I understand the U.S. is sending air-marshalls to U.K. airports and also visa arrangements are to be revamped for all U.K. citizens. The fear is the situation of jihadists travelling to Pakistan or Yemen and then back to the U.K. where they remain as sleeper cells. Also the Government over here is appeasing the current situation (so it seems to me).
However, 2 wrongs don't make a right. I think Bush could have made America safe without dumping the Geneva Convention and muddying already murky waters with the Iraq fiasco.

The latest incident in London has shown us that the West is under attack from terrorists. The world's eyes were opened on 9-11 to the destruction that the terrorists are capable of. America is the popular choice if those that say America is the main target, but since then it seems as if the UK has had an increase in terror attacks. Here in America we have not had any since 9-11.
Many make the claim that Bush's policies have taken away the rights of the citizens. But are we entering a era where the threat is greater then it has been in the past?
Could it be that that Bush with his aggresive anti-terror policies has made it much harder for the terorists to operate? Has Bush made the US safer from the threats?
We know that GB has a intelligence agency that may be superior to any other countries. And the British use camera's and other survillance equipment on a daily basis in London, something that America has not implemented yet. And yet they could not stop what has happened. But we see that the UK has responded quickly to the attacks, usually capturing the terrorists with-in days.
We are entering a period in America where politicians are saying things that they think will get them elected..... Such as
"the war on terror, a bumper sticker."
John Edwards

Of course Edwards would have a hard time explaining the situation in London...... Will Americans become too relaxed in the effort to protect themselves? .......

Is a Bush America safer then the UK?

 

[Carrera]

Macca probably reads it. He used it in his Paperback Writer song.

Who's view does it reflect? Someone is buying it, as it is the 2nd largest selling newspaper there. And newspapers like everything else is market driven.

 

[Carrera]

This is why I like Star Trek. The Enterprise had a policy of non-interference in other civilizations and for good reasons.
If it were up to me, I'd have the troops out of Iraq ASAP and let those countries run their own affairs. So long as they don't actively attack us, we have no business there.
However, I'd also totally reform immigration on the basis we've been importing religion into what was once a secular country and all this violence is being fueled by religion.

Actually, many in the Middle-East and Muslim countries have felt suppressed and attacked, by the West and puppets governments supported by the West for many decades in their home land. So one can say that the those victims have turned to terrorize the original terrorists. The situation is clearly complex and your original portrayal is clearly one sided.

 

[limerickman]

Who's view does it reflect? Someone is buying it, as it is the 2nd largest selling newspaper there. And newspapers like everything else is market driven.

The Daily Mail specialises in reporting affairs etc.
People buy it because of the scandals it reports.
The DM's political reporting isn't the reason why it's the second most popular paper in Britain.
It's readers buy it to read "expose's"

 

[wolfix]

The Daily Mail specialises in reporting affairs etc.
People buy it because of the scandals it reports.
The DM's political reporting isn't the reason why it's the second most popular paper in Britain.
It's readers buy it to read "expose's"

Is it like our "National Enquirer?" A tabloid sold at grocery store checkouts?

 

[limerickman]

Is it like our "National Enquirer?" A tabloid sold at grocery store checkouts?

The DM is more plausible than the NE.
(not that I've ever read the NE. mind).

It likes to report salacious stuff about famous people and their affairs etc, while maintaining that it's a paper which upholds traditional values on issues like law and order, family etc.

 

[Carrera]

The Sun is a pro-Bush, sabre-rattling tabloid with a huge anti-European bias. It caters for the average builder - building sites always have a copy.
The Daily Mirror seems to have improved but it's still basically a New Labour rag. The Express is the most right-wing, middle class tabloid. They seem to yearn for public hangings or sweeping the homeless off the streets e.t.c.
The Mail is a fairly centre right and liberal rag. They oppose stuff such as I.D. cards, the war in Iraq as well as cronyism in politics. Lately they seem to take the odd poke at Cameron.
It's true the Mail can indeed be very nasty on a personal level and I note they gave Heather Mills a very rough time.
Even so, no newspaper got stuck into Blair quite like the Mail. They seemed to totally loathe Blair and Brown is getting a far better report.

 

[wolfix]

I think it is time for all countries to look at immigration policies much closer. While I believe that not all Muslims are a violent people, there is some extreme radicalism against the west that runs through a few of them.

And just today we are warned of the future "jihad" by Ayman Al-Zawahiri. To sit and discuss the fairness of looking hard at every Muslim that enters the country of choice is not a plan that protects it's citizens. A country's officials are elected to protect the citizens of that country, not enable immigrants to better themselves through immigration. While everyone wants to point out the whys and whatfors the radical Muslim hatred of the west, the radicals are planning destruction. That is the problem the west faces, not discussing history.

The political correctness movement is a dangerous way to deal with problems. It seems it has infected the prime minister .......

The Daily Express reports the new British leader has also told his ministers not to use the phrase "War on Terror."
A spokesman said officials have been given specific instructions to avoid inflammatory language. He said the moves are needed in order to strike what was called "a consensual tone."

I believe the new prime minister has been watching "Mr Rogers Neighborhood."

 

[Carrera]

I've always believed in this very simple basis for common sense. History exists so we can learn from past experiences. History is full of tried and tested political systems that either succeeded or failed.
Therefore, I ask myself a number of questions such as:
(1) Why are politicians in the U.S. using the same tactics as in Vietnam (prolonged guerilla combat) when the same tactics already failed?
(2) Why are we electing unskilled politicians to lead us? What does Blair (a lawyer) possibly know about politics and history)? Didn't Plato emphasise the need for political leaders to be skilled and pragamatic? Blair is really a spin-merchant not a genuine leader.
Heck, even the fictional Captain Kirk had to study for years before he could lead a starship!
(3) Why don't we learn from ancient societies such as the Etruscans, I ask? The Etruscan civilization collapsed because it became too soft and too hedonistic. Those people gorged and drank themselves into a passive state.
If you think about it, H.G. Wells seemed to be onto the same theme. His imaginary future civilization became too passive, non-aggressive and nonchalant. The time traveller had to jump in the river and save a drowning person while the others sat on the grass plucking flowers. Sounds crazy but that's how Wells saw it.
My girlfriend has an uncomfortable theory but it's a good one: She points to decreasing levels of testosterone (and fertility) in the western civilization and believes this is due to lifestyle, chemicals, alcohol and even diet. She rightly points out we have more allerguies in the past and a tendency to defeat ourselves with negative thinking (i.e. we cannot succeed without immigrants e.t.c.)
People often say over here how we'd collapse as a society without immigrants but could you imagine the people of the forties saying we can't win WW2 unless we bring immigrants in to fight. Nope, they did it by themselves and women manned the factories. So, I figure war makes more demands on a country than simply manning businesses.
That's how I see it and I have to agree with you this time, Wolf.

I think it is time for all countries to look at immigration policies much closer. While I believe that not all Muslims are a violent people, there is some extreme radicalism against the west that runs through a few of them.

And just today we are warned of the future "jihad" by Ayman Al-Zawahiri. To sit and discuss the fairness of looking hard at every Muslim that enters the country of choice is not a plan that protects it's citizens. A country's officials are elected to protect the citizens of that country, not enable immigrants to better themselves through immigration. While everyone wants to point out the whys and whatfors the radical Muslim hatred of the west, the radicals are planning destruction. That is the problem the west faces, not discussing history.

The political correctness movement is a dangerous way to deal with problems. It seems it has infected the prime minister .......

I believe the new prime minister has been watching "Mr Rogers Neighborhood."

 

[wolfix]

My girlfriend has an uncomfortable theory but it's a good one: She points to decreasing levels of testosterone (and fertility) in the western civilization and believes this is due to lifestyle, chemicals, alcohol and even diet. She rightly points out we have more allerguies in the past and a tendency to defeat ourselves with negative thinking (i.e. we cannot succeed without immigrants e.t.c.)
People often say over here how we'd collapse as a society without immigrants but could you imagine the people of the forties saying we can't win WW2 unless we bring immigrants in to fight. Nope, they did it by themselves and women manned the factories. So, I figure war makes more demands on a country than simply manning businesses.
That's how I see it and I have to agree with you this time, Wolf.

There may be something to your girlfriends theory.... This has been a discussion among friends of mine. We called it "lack of balls" but testosterone loss may be the real reason. It is rampant among American society. Political correctness is a by product of this.
More on this tomorrow.

 

[Carrera]

A small number of people feel our society has become "feminised". That is, the female aspect of human nature has become dominant. What are the female characteristics? Well, I figure women are more willing to understand, empathise, deliberate e.t.c.
We men, on the other hand, are fueled more by aggression - it comes from the former role of hunter gatherer. Sometimes we're dumber than women and we're very imperfect and flawed due to this aggression.
The snag is this: Where would women be without us dumb "cavemen"? Geez, society would be so "willing to understand", not ready to challenge e.t.c. It's like electricity with the positive current missing.
Speaking personally, I equate the whole political correctness scenario with defeatism and excessive feminisation of society. There is too much use of the word "cannot do!". For example, a typical statement from our Government I heard a few months ago, "Polish workers are better! Polish workers work harder!"
I've got nothing against Poles but what about all those inventors from Scotland and the engineers? What about the car industries, defeat of Nazi Germany (we saved Poland from occupation) e.t.c, e.t.c.? Why do these politicians keep drumming into people what they apparently cannot do when they could be investing in education, sports, industry?
This even stretches to Tennis with Tim Henman losing his rag. Tim sees no reason at all why the Brits can't do better in international tennis but we have few facilities, not many coaches and not enough self belief or drive.
Schwarzenegger stresses attitude is the most important factor and tried to avoid defeatism. He used to say if you ,listen to folks who have a limp, you'll wind up limping to.
At any rate, my example of a gutsy, positive, non-politically correct dude has to be Captain Kirk. He didn't "try to understand" but just did what he figured was right at the time. Pity he isn't in our Government with some of that self belief.
P.S. No offence at all to the ladies but I still figure we hunter gatherers have a place in society.

There may be something to your girlfriends theory.... This has been a discussion among friends of mine. We called it "lack of balls" but testosterone loss may be the real reason. It is rampant among American society. Political correctness is a by product of this.
More on this tomorrow.