MonteZuma

I don't get your point? My statement was not about responsibility. It was about inductive reasoning. Just because you observe a number of situations in which a pattern exists doesn't mean that the pattern is true for all situations. That is, the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 doesn't prove that GWBs policies have prevented those attacks. This is more inductive thinking. It may or may not be true. I think you are wrong. I think the reasons are much more complex. I think you are oversimplifying the situation. The factors that lead a bunch of British citizens to blow themselves up and kill innocent people are very complex. Put stock in the ridiculously high security that is needed to get on a plane or into a large cultural event. Put stock into the police officers that carry machine guns or US subways. There is plenty of evidence that the world is not a safer place, yet.

SO19 (the division of the London Metroplitan Police that did the shooting in the Menezes case) use Glocks. It says so on their website. http://www.met.police.uk/so19/arv.htm In fact Glocks are used by many law enforcement agencies around the world (including the US). SO19 carry Glocks and MP5s.

Not necessarily. Spain hasn't been attacked since the Madrid bombings. France and Germany haven't been attacked either. If the absence of attacks means that there haven't been any major mistakes, then you'd have to say that their policies are working too. The UK have followed essentially the same policy track as the US and they have been attacked. Indonesia has followed a completely different path, and yet they were attacked. I don't think it is possible to make such !@#$%^&*essments about policy based on whether or not there have been any homeland attacks. The threat level in the west, especially in pro-Bush countries is still high. That speaks volumes

The way I understand it now, he was shot in the mouth 8 times using a Glock 17. But I don't think the exact details have been confirmed. I never said anything about how the US handle tehse matters. How do US authorities handle suspected suicide bombers in subways after a series of suicide bombings in subways? Hopefully we'll never find out. Menezes was shot by the Force Firearms Unit (SO19). They are considered to be an elite squad and are very highly trained. The problem in this case seems to be poor communications between the surveillance team and SO19.

I think you made some good points Dr....and I understand where you are coming from. But you were a little harsh.... :/

Try not to let it get to you Astro. In the end, its all just bits and bytes and phosphorescent flashes on your monitor. These forums will become much less enjoyable if you take stuff personally. The forums became much more interesting because of you and the other posters. Keep it up!

Not quite a news flash. It was reported a few days ago Yeah Apparently 2 eyewitnesses reported seeing the man run onto the train followed by armed police. The man ran onto teh train because it just pulled into the station and he didn't want to miss it. I believe that the eyewitnesses probably misinterpreted this as him running from the police. Whatever the case, it would have all happened too fast for the eyewitnesses. The cctv footage seems to tell the true, !@#$%^&*ing story. It does seem to be a huge blunder. Eyewitnesses incorrectly reported what happened. Senior police recounted their version of events to the media. Afterwards, they wanted to cover-up the story, either because they wanted to make sure that an investigation into the incident did not interfere with their ongoing investigations into the suspected terrorists in the apartments, or because of the embarr!@#$%^&*ment the bungle would cause, and the inep!@#$%^&*ude it would reveal.

The thing is, right now we are already experiencing the first of the post-war baby-boomer retirements and nobody is forecasting any serious, immediate consequences. Energy prices are a bigger economic threat. There will be more pressure on the system when the kids of the baby-boomers retire (about 30 years from now I guess), because then we'll have to pay the doctor's bills for the post-war baby-boomers and the social security of their kids, but I suspect at that time we'll be more worried about global warming or .... energy prices ... or whatever else......

Yeah. My vote is that 'But' is a conjunction. The way I understand it in formal English it is ok to start a sentence with a preposition. At one time, it was not ok to start a sentence with a conjunction. But I think English is becoming less formal and it is becoming ok. Woohoo....^ The paragraph contains a run-on sentence, a sentence that starts with a preposition....and a sentence that starts with a conjunction! Who knew that English could be so much fun?!

Maybe in the US. In some countries I think the standard response to a dangerous escapee or a runner is to shoot to kill or not shoot at all. But the situation in London was special because the police wanted to avoid the possibility of a suicide bomber or a bullet detonating a bomb.

...and grammar Reading and comprehending peoples ideas are much more important =) Agreed. I'm not sure which sentence you mean, but is it bad to start a sentence with a preposition? Grammar is confusing.

Interestingly, the news is reporting that he was actually wearing a light jacket and casually entered the subway using a valid ticket after picking up a newspaper . He was shot in the head after he had casually sat down on the train by one police officer after another had already pinned him down by both arms. The police did not identify themselves before the shooting. When he left the apartment block, police should have taken video footage to help identify the man, but the officer meant to take the footage was taking a leak and missed the opportunity. If half of this is true, this could become very embarr!@#$%^&*ing for the police involved.

I reckon it will. Standards of living and wealth will probably continue to climb. Starving senior citizens make politicians look bad at election time. And in 20+ years time, senior citizens will comprise a larger proportion of the voting population.

Yeee HAW! The difference between N Korea and Iraq is China. I'd argue that the N Korean people are worse off under their communist regime than the Iraqi people were under Saddam's regime, so the moral imperative for intervention is greater than for Iraq. But I think the political imperative for military intervention is absent, because any action could be very destabilising. If we want to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, I think the international community should avoid military conflict over N Korea indefinitely. The only issue that I have is that I think it would be very dangerous if N Korea built up a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. The best way to stop that is through dialogue and negotiation, but I don't think force should be ruled out altogether. I think the key to this is engaging with China. Whatever their human rights record, if we are going to resolve this 'peacefully', China needs to play a big role. Its OT, but I think they do teach comprehension. What they don't teach very well is spelling.

The thing about health care is that there should be equal access for all regardless of wealth. If people want to pay extra and get choice of doctor, choice of hospital, private room, entertainment systems and better meals...then that is fine. But when it comes to treatments that make the difference between life and death or the difference between pain and relief, we should all have equal access, at least within our national borders.

According to some stats I've looked up, spending on social security in the US, as a %age of GDP, has remained steady for the last 25 years and is expected to remain steady for at least the next 5. I think the most pressure on government budgets in the developed world is from the rising ciost of health care. The emerging treatments are fantastic but very expensive.

Not really. There are too many points in those websites for me to address one by one, but in each case, the writer has been very selective about what data they use to demonstrate their point. For example, the first website points to the low number of children that are accidentally killed by guns each year, but they don't inlude children between 14 and 18 in their statistics. Sites that are biased in the opposite direction routinely use figures that include yout up to age 21. This one is a mind-bender: Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker. If this is true (and I use a conservative 7% rather than 8%), 175,000 people are killed or wounded each year when citizens defend themselves with guns. But the consensus on pro and anti gun sites on the Internet is that 100,000 people are injured and 30,000 are killed by guns (IN TOTAL) each year in the US. Many of those are accidents, homicides and suicides. Their figures don't add up.

Oops. Missed it. Both of those websites (gunowners.org and Usenet can.talk.guns) present a very biased viewpoint. Actually no. You've misread the data. What it is saying is that, in the US, 7.59 people out of 100,000 died as a result of homicide. 4.46 out of every 100,000 people died in a gun related homicide. Therefore....59% of homicides in the US are gun related (ie 59,000 out of every 100,000 homicides are gun-related). That is higher than every other country in the table, except Northern Ireland. However, there are less homicides in Northern Ireland. The chance of dying in a gun-related homicide is higher in the US than in every other country listed, including Northern Ireland. Also. The data don't actually say 'gun-related'. They say 'homicide with a gun'. I wonder how many homicides were carried out with a knife or whatever in a situation where guns were also involved? It could be that many more than 59% of homicides are 'gun-related'.

I suspect that many homicides are heat of the moment incidents that could very well be avoided by keeping guns out of people's cars and homes. Bullets are much easier to smuggle than guns. You won't stop a determined crook getting hold of a gun ever. But you will stop petty criminals and some hot heads from having them and doing dumb things with them. The argument that you can't stop ALL gun related crime by regulating gun ownership more strictly is a spurious argument. You can't stop all car related deaths by installing seatbelts - but they will still save a lot of lives.

Are you sure that a Brit or Australian or Chinese or Greek or Turkish tourist would not be treated the same way? Agreed. Now the US is in a catch-22 situation. To pull out now could destroy any opportunity to build a democratic, pro-US government in Iraq. To stay may lead to never-ending attacks on western interests and more American deaths. The policy of pre-emption has caused the US to be backed into a corner.

This is an interesting take on why GWB's policy of 'pre-emption' sucks. Speakout: Pre-emptive politics ignore science Rocky Mountain News August 18, 2003 Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could accurately predict the future and then take effective actions? This approach to policy making has been called "pre-emption" by the Bush administration and underlies the national security strategy that led to the war in Iraq and the recently canceled government program on betting on acts of terrorism. But pre-emption is exclusively neither a Republican approach to policy, nor confined to national security. For example, it is also the stance of choice for environmentalists who seek to pre-empt emerging environmental threats like global warming. Pre-emption makes a lot of sense when knowledge is certain and there is little political controversy. Examples of pre-emptive successes - among many - are vaccinations, earthquake engineering, and even Social Security, which "pre-empts" poverty among our seniors. Each of these policies is based on certain knowledge and an overwhelming political consensus, two conditions that make up a short recipe for pre-emptive success. By contrast, pre-emption has little hope for success when knowledge is uncertain and there is intense political conflict. In cases like Iraq or global warming, decisions must be made when the most honest statement about intelligence, scientific or otherwise, is simply, "We don't know for sure." When political conflict over what to do occurs under conditions of uncertainty, a pre-emptive stance creates powerful incentives to politicize information in favor of a predetermined answer. Starting with answers and then looking for supporting information may be an acceptable approach for students in Policy Studies 101, but it has serious consequences when it is the preferred approach of policy makers making consequential decisions. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., recently released a report suggesting that the Bush Administration has systematically shaped scientific information and expert panels in support of its political agenda. Yet the Bush administration is not alone. A conservative advocacy group in Washington has sued the government to suppress what it views as politically motivated reports on climate change originating in the Clinton administration. Asking political officials from either party to oversee scientific activities makes about as much sense as asking Donald Rumsfeld to edit CIA reports on weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction. This all but guarantees the politicization of information. Politics is all about reducing choices to a single preferred course of action - war in Iraq, yes or no? Kyoto protocol, yes or no? But for choice to be reduced, there must first be alternatives. When politicized, a pre-emptive approach doesn't need alternatives; it merely needs political victory on a single, predetermined option. And one way that political victory can be achieved is by leaving no room for doubt. The quest for certainty required by a commitment to pre-emption elevates the role of politics in policy and diminishes the role of information. In situations of profound uncertainty or irreconcilable differences in values, flexible policies that evolve based on public participation and the lessons of experience may make more sense than large scale commitments from which there is little chance to correct mistakes. The motivations of political advocates may help to explain the turn to pre-emption in situations of uncertainty and political conflict. We risk bad policy when all choices before us are bad ones. For instance, the Kyoto protocol on climate change has its supporters and opponents, but very few are willing to admit that debate over its implementation has considerably more symbolic value than practical effect. The debate over the war on Iraq may have been similarly misguided as better policy options may have been ignored. In both cases, a commitment to pre-emption enables the politicization of intelligence, which then serves as a constraint on options that may be more effective but, for certain ideologues, politically less desirable. Pre-emption hurts the policy process when it results in a dearth of choice. Lack of choice also threatens democracy because it elevates politics above policy, and it subs!@#$%^&*utes consideration of creative policy alternatives with political battle over predetermined positions. Roger A. Pielke Jr. is director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado-Boulder. Copyright 2003, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

lol The fact that Cypriots like American consumer goods doesn't mean that they are jealous. I'd love to visit the US and see and do things that I can't do here too (and no, that doesn't included shopping ), but I'm not jealous of you or your way of life - in fact there are many aspects of American that I disagree with. You visited Cyprus. Did you do that because you were jealous of Cyprus? Did you go there because you liked Cypriots? I agree in principle, but in relation to Korea, the US has little choice. If you screw around with N. Korea you are screwing around with China, S. Korea, Japan and probably other places like Taiwan and Vietnam. It is something of a powder keg. Iraq is/was too, but in a different way. Agreed. Even though the majority of Iraqis might be happy that the US et al overthrew Saddam, there is still a very large group of disaffected people in Iraq and around the world. I really don't think the invasion was a good idea at all because it has encouraged terrorism.

I'm not so sure. I believe that less guns in average Joe's hands also means less gun's in criminal Joe's hands.

Maybe. But I doubt it. It makes a great propaganda story though.

I think Americans need to get away from this idea that those who don't like 'America' are jealous. This just isn't the case. For some I think it is a case of not approving of the 'decadant' way of life. For others (eg Europe) it is a case of annoyance re US foreign policy. There are other issues, such as treatment of the environment that also come to play from time to time.