7/7 attacks

Unfortunately, in this country, it's usually safe to assume someone's education was in fact lacking. Not that they didn't do well in school, just that the standards have been so dumbed down by the liberal machinery. They call it protecting the child's self-esteem; I call it ensuring there's a poor underclass that will vote liberal. There's a whole thing here in the states where educators are being prohibited from using red pens to correct tests, schools have abandoned issuing failing grades for sub-par work; there's even debate on whether or not students should get grades at all. Grades are too competitive, or so the argument goes.

Not that it's relevant to this thread, but in my opinion, there's certain general things people should know to graduate public school: things like basic civics (where we can learn about comparative govt's), economics, physical science, World and American History, English, Mathmatics, Mythology, Classic literature, Philosophy, etc... the basics of what used to be called Liberal Arts education. In Amercia, the classics are no longer taught, very few high school students get economics, and even fewer get what used to be called civics. I work for a guy with a Master's degree in Public Administration to who just last week, I had to explain the difference between a Coofftopicnd and Market economy! You would think economics would be central to someone in Public Administration program, but he was never required to take even a basic class to fill his degree requirements!

So really, I wasn't trying to insult you; I'm just disgusted with the educational system in America.
 
Oh my god!!!

Remove the references to the States and you could almost be talking about the education system here...... It's a hot topic over here, as with every summer really, that education standards are falling and exams are getting to easy.... But your right, there is almost a certain set of things that needs to be included in an education, however different people will want different things in there.
 
this has all been great discussion guys, now, how do we tie it in with 7/7?



aww, go on then, i'll pick up the baton...

regardless of what flavour of 'democracy' we choose to talk about, the question is, does living in a democracy make you more vulnerable to terrorism?

i think it does and i also think that, in the UK at least, we have lost a major battle with the terrorists.

the people who want to blow up busses etc want to change, fundamentally our way of life.

we get the usual speeches about how 'we will not bend to terror' blah blah blair.

but thats exactly what we have done by even considering bringing in 'anti-terror legislation' which imposes restrictions on the innocent populations freedoms...

we lived for decades with the very real threat that the 'ra were going to hit the mainland... and they did, many, many times... warrington and manchester being the ones that stuck most in my mind (cos i grew up in that part of the country)...

i don't recall us introducing ID cards in response the threat of attack from the IRA..

what makes this situation any different?

any ideas?
 
Could it be that the Americans (no offence intended to all your reasonable americans) are on a paranoia trip about this and so lapdob blair is following suit to fit in?
 
What, to me, makes sense that being a Democracy would make us a target for terrorism is that all the citizens have an impact at some level on how the goverment works. If there is an incident that changes the way the people think or puts a certain uneasyness or atmosphere in the country, it can actually make a difference. It would not be out of th question to imagine a leader being voted out because the country felt his policies or runnig of the country allowed them to become victims of an attack. Basically, it would make sense to me because the people have to be important to the government, which might not neccesarily be the case in other forms.
 
It's the price we pay for living in an open and free society. Often, this kind of gov't over-reaction is exactly what the terrorists want, because the corresponding backlash from the public will alter the gov'ts policies the other way.

Personally, I'm with Ben Franklin, "those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security."
 
different thread, different discusion



I understand perfectly, however

Take the united kingdom for example we have a labour government who won the last election with 22% of the vote.

Now this means that 22% of people are over represented while the majority the 78% you did not vote for labour are under represented. Now this strikes me as fundamentaly undemocratic.

Now what is needed in this country is some electoral reform, in the past labour have promised to introduce proportional representation which would be a step forward, however since getting a taste for power they seem to have abandoned these ideas.




According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Democracy is, literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule").



not embarrassed in the slightest
 
Everyone in that 78% had the right to vote, some of them chose not to. Is making voting obligatory part of your scheme to reform the democratic process?

You still can't answer the question "How are you intending to improve on democracy?" because you clearly have no idea.

I call BS on your half-hearted intention to run for government "maybe next year" too. You'd find it pretty tough to get elected with no policies anyway.

Kiss your deposit goodbye.
 
Bu essentially the same BS, the same dodging of direct questions, the same waffling all over the God forsaken place.





Again - it strikes me that you really haven't got the foggiest on just what an democracy entails... the right not to vote is democratic.
What about that don't you understand? What the hell kind of democracy would it be if everyone was forced to vote? That would have some seriously strange parrallels with dictatorships and the like.






Obviously not... lol... I think that DC Combatives said it best.
 
In Italy it is an offence not to vote. I believe it might be the same in Australia.

It has been suggested that we follow suit, to try to increase participation.
 
Yes because that would save the lazy self serving rubbish we have for politicos from actualy inspiring people to use their votes. I think if the turnout is less than 50% the politicians should have their allowances cut proportionaly, think of it as an efficiency and output target.
 
good points.

my take on why we are more at risk comes from the fact that in a democracy, all people are equal (in theory at least)

so if some civillians get killed through attrocity, it is an important event which touches us all.

in a dictatorship, individual human life isn't valued the same way.

taking saddhams iraq as an example, why would he care if some of his people were threatened with terrorism? he had no regard for them in the first place.

so when we get hit by a terrorist attack, we have to take every step to make our populace feel like they are being protected... and that plays back into the hands of the terrorists because they want to threaten our way of life and our way of life becomes subject to greater restrictions in an effort to make us safe.

even if the US and UK never got hit again, we'd still be jumpy as a box of frogs because it is the threat which does the work, which impinges on peoples sense of well-being and security.

brutal dictators aren't subject to the same moral code as a leaders of a democracy, by their very nature, dictators already make the populace suffer.

the other problem was manifest in the few hours after 9/11...

GWB immediately claimed the moral high ground (which given the nature of the attrocity, was the only ground the leader of a nation subject to such an attack would be permitted to take)...

but more than that, he condemned openly the use of terrorism...

and that hands the cards to the terrorists... by condeming their methods, he effectively says that US will defeat them without resorting to the same;

a fine and noble aim.

but you could hunt them for eternity and the problem won't be solved.

terrorism, abhorent as it is, is borne of feeling.

unless you remove the feeling which gives rise to the terrorism, then there will always be someone ready to keep the atrocities alive.

it was a no-win situation for the US administration... and thats the power of terrorism, it puts the victim in a no-win position.

they couldn't admit that their foreign policy was a contributory factor in the anti-US feeling in the middle east, that would be bowing down to the terrorists

but unless the US and her allies do, at some point, concede some responsibility for the feelings which abound against us, those feelings will never diminish.
 
I guess that problem I'd have with that becomes that it takes away the right to protest by the means of not voting. If all the canidates are soooo crap that there are none worth voting for yet you're forced to vote... something seems highly undemocratic about that.

Though I can see how they're trying to use it as a means to end the apapthetic attitudes of those who have lived in a relative comfort zone for so long that they can afford to be apathetic.
 
My boyfriend doesn't vote, and thats out of choice. He doesn't like any of the options available at the moment so he doesn't see the point. As slips says it's his right not to vote if he chooses, i think it's a bit silly not to vote and always try to. although i have missed out on some of the smaller polling days because i've not been in the area at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
NBA Playoff Picture: Bulls, Rockets nearly out of disappointments
Replies
0
Views
135
admin
A
DrDeanCrosby
ASTONISHING LAST DAYS HORROR:The Global War on Christians
Replies
1
Views
489
Unregistered
U
Back
Top