All change on Capitol Hill - Time for a New Foreign Policy?

With the American mid-term elections now done and dusted and the democrats handed power of Capitol Hill there could be a change of US foreign policy from the Bush neoconservative approach that relies on the US military strength to one that is about building ties with other nations.

Is it time for a change in US foreign policy and do you think that the US security depends less on military might and more about finding agreement with other nations?

Participate in this weeks open survey All change on Capitol Hill - Time for a New Foreign Policy?

How will history view the Bush/Blair legacy?

The Bush/Blair era of interventionist policy is coming to a close as both play out their remaining days in office.

Together they have passionately argued that state sponsored terrorism posed a serious threat to the 'freedom' and 'way of life' that was enjoyed by the world's democracies.

However, many have argued that far from eliminating terrorism their foreign policies have failed at every level and are directly responsible for creating a new threat from home grown extremists, or at the very least, discourse between communities that previously lived in harmony.

As both governments continue with their fight against an unseen enemy, many have argued that the 'freedom' and 'way of life' that needs protecting is being destroyed by the very 'need' to fight terrorism.

Critics of Bush and Blair say that the previous administrations policy of containment proved far more effective and that home-grown threats are the direct results of their pre-emptive doctrine.

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently stated that "The diplomacy appropriate to denuclearisation is comparable to the containment policy that helped win the Cold War: no pre-emptive challenge to the external security of the adversary, but firm resistance to attempts to project its power abroad and reliance on domestic forces to bring about internal change."

Do you think that the 'interventionist' approach was and still remains correct, or do you think it was always seriously flawed?

Participate in this weeks free survey How will history view the Bush/Blair legacy?

How serious are the effects of Global Warming?

Global Warming has been talked about for many years but now it seems that many of the early predictions such as the melting of the Arctic ice shelf and extreme weather are now a reality.

Many political figures around the world have accepted that Global Warming represents an inconvenient truth that must be faced and many are campaigning serious to globally cut human generated greenhouse gas emissions.

Emerging countries such as China and India are reluctant to stifle their economic growth and President Bush has publically announced that he is only interested in focusing on technologies that deal with the issue.

Sceptics who argue that the global climate is merely in the midst of a natural cycle are now faced with strong evidence that indicates that global warming is accelerating proportionally to the human output in greenhouse gasses and that there will become a point when the damaged caused is irreversible.

How serious do you view the issues surrounding Global Warming and do you think your own government is doing enough to address the problems?

Participate in this weeks free survey How serious are the effects of Global Warming?

CIA Director Nomination

US President Bush has nominated Air Force General Michael Hayden to head the CIA.

Civil rights groups and lawmakers have expressed concern at putting a military man in charge of a civilian agency.

Some Democrat and Republicans Congress members have baulked at the prospect of a general leading the CIA, saying it could give the Pentagon too much influence in intelligence gathering.

President Bush said of General Hayden that he "knows our intelligence community from the ground up and has been both a provider and a consumer of intelligence. He has demonstrated an ability to adapt our intelligence services to the new challenges of the war on terror."

Peter Hoekstra the Republican and chair of House Intelligence Committee has said "I do believe he is the wrong person, in the wrong place at the wrong time"

Do you think that President Bush has picked the right man for the job or does putting a military man in charge of a civilian agency spell danger?

Participate in this weeks free survey CIA Director Nomination

Bush - Would He, Could He, Should He Invade Iran?

In April 2006 the respected investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker wrote that the Bush administration was stepping up covert activities in Iran and was planning for a possible air attack while publicly advocating diplomacy.

President Bush dismissed as "wild speculation" reports that his administration had considered nuclear strikes against sites in Iran to prevent the nation from building nuclear weapons.

Hersh however was adamant that "There's been a lot of planning going on. It's more than planning, it's operational planning. It's beyond contingency planning," and claimed that regular military forces had already infiltrated Iran.

Would President Bush seriously consider attacking Iran, could he, should he?

Participate in this weeks free survey Bush - Would He, Could He, Should He Invade Iran?

Is Iraq in Civil War?

Speaking at the White House in March, his second major news conference of 2006, US President George W Bush said that he did not believe Iraq has descended into civil war.

Mr Bush said Iraqis had "had a chance to fall apart and they didn't".

Iraq's former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi however a few days earlier told the BBC 50 to 60 people were dying every day and that the country was in civil war.

Do you think Iraq is currently in a civil war?

Participate in this weeks free survey Is Iraq in Civil War?

Iraq Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari & President Bush

Is the US at a critical moment in Iraq?

On the first anniversary of Iraq's sovereignty President Bush gave an address to the American people from Fort Bragg the home of the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division.

President Bush argued that there is no need to change course in Iraq despite the upsetting images produced by daily insurgent attacks.

What are your views on a conflict that has cost the lives of more than 1,740 U.S. troops and has no end in sight?

Participate in this weeks Survey Galaxy Public Survey:-

Is the US at a critical moment in Iraq Survey