Hey, I’m not going to argue with you that this is a political loser for Bush, and he’s getting his own medicine thrown back at him. It’s funny to hear the Dems talk about Bush having a “pre-9/11 mentality”. Wonder where they got that idea from? 
But that’s not what this thread is about. Yes, it’s an interesting side issue, but I don’t accept your previous stattment that the question has already been answered.
If Britain, Germany, France, and Australia have significantly better internal policing, I’d be very interested in hearing about it. Do they? Apparently the British, at least, have some significant holes, otherwise the subway/bus bombings would’ve been foiled.
Yes, it has.
The reason it’s a big deal here is because the political climate so carefully crafted over the least (nearly) five years has demanded it would be so.
The climate is different here. Intentionally. As such, the REACTIONS of people affecting such things as, say, “why only controvertial in the US” are nearly predetermined.
If the government and media of another country had spent their time slavishly following the “get them arab terrorists before they get you” method of governing to the exclusion of nearly everything else you can bet their reaction would be similar.
-Joe
I’ll tel you what. You get folks like **RTF **to admit they’re just partisan hacks, and I’ll agree with you.
Yeah, I was fully aware - much of the reporting here of it is about the political aspect, not the actual idea that it’s a huge security risk.
If RTFirefly was really saying that Europe generally has significantly stronger ‘internal policing’ than America, then it’s not a very accurate statement, and so doesn’t need to be rebutted. Yes, some countries have ID cards, but the Madrid bombers weren’t stopped by these pieces of paper. Europeans don’t think of terrorists as something coming from outside, from overseas, from ‘somewhere else’.
But even with the EU aren’t people at least required to show papers at the borders of different EU states? Because here in the US you can cover several thousand miles without presenting any paperwork at all.
-Joe
Nope. The Schengen Agreement has eliminated a lot of borders, though not all of them. Borders have been coming down in Europe for over a decade.
I had no idea Australia was in Europe. I guess my World Atlas was printed by the Liberal Media, who show it as being in the South Pacific.
I was relying on German poster tschild’s account of such things. If he was giving an accurate impression, then I was pointing out that this could explain the difference. If he wasn’t, then it wouldn’t. The tiny words, like ‘if’, are important ones.
Oh, for goodness sake, RTFirefly, the nitpick you’ve chosen isn’t valid, because John Mace was talking about a global context.
And Merijeek - as John Mace says, once I’ve left Britain (which I believe has operated with an opt-of Schengen) I can get to Finland or Portugal without having to show any papers, and in most cases without even having to stop the car. (Except for petrol!)
In all seriousness, and as an example of how the borders work…I went to Holland by accident. The coach driver missed an exit, and carried on until the next one, which was over the border. He turned around, headed back for Belgium, and we all had a laugh. That was it. No border police, nothing.
One can try to deal with a global question one piece at a time. I was simply trying to point out that if I was interpreting tschild’s post correctly, then there was an explanation for why Europe, at least, was different. Rightly or wrongly, that’s why I confined my post to Europe. I can’t see that that’s a nitpick; it was a deliberate choice on my part when I wrote the post.
But if you want me to say something about Australia, I’d say that they’re probably a low priority for the terrorists. A lot farther to travel, and a lot less to blow up once you’re there. Similarly for the Kiwis. Hell, similarly for North Dakotans.
Now it’s my turn to challenge your map skills. Australia is no further than the US from Saudi Arabia (use that as a proxy for “Middle East”) and a bit closer to places like Pakistan. You can look it up.
I guess I should have done so before my last post, huh? :smack:
I’ll throw you a bone, since it’s Friday.
I used Perth, not Sydney for the measurements. So my statement was technically true, but not what most people would think. Still, it’s not much of a dispartiy even if you do use Sydney, and let’s not forget that there are plenty of Islamic radicals in Indonesia, as many Australians found out while visiting Bali a few years ago.
The more I read about this, the more I become persuaded that Bush is actually right about this particular issue. The UAE is not a present supporter of terrorism and DPW does not pose a danger in running American ports.
But the larger picture remains unchanged. Bush’s past has caught up with him. He and his administration has done everything possible in the last five years to whip up anti-terrorist hysteria. So why is he suddenly surprised to find everyone is hysterical about terrorists? Bush has repeatedly shown that he either doesn’t know or doesn’t care what the true facts are before announcing his policies. So why should he expect anyone to believe him just because he declares something is true? And Bush has repeatedly shown that his first priority, above everything else, has been to take care of his croneys. So why shouldn’t accusations of croneyism sound credible?