The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm starting to think that fear is perhaps the greatest danger this coming year - not on a personal level of course, but on a wider, global scale.
America and North Korea are exchanging veiled threats, and demonising each others population, because of fear. America fears North Korea will finally develop nuclear weapons, and threaten South Korea, embroiling America and it's allies in a war nobody wants - but which could happen. North Korea fears US aggression, it's people are being told to fear a US invasion of the country, and US action against it - they too could go to, and support, war through fear.
In Iraq, fear is driving Iraq, the UN, America, and large swathes of the Middle East towards conflict unless the situation can be defused. War is bad for everyone involved, but Western fears of Saddam's weapons, and Saddams fears of losing power, and other parties fear of losing certain benefits, are driving decision making.
No doubt, at some point this year, the whole pedophile thing will blow up again in this country, and we'll see people protesting on estates and the papers screaming for blood, summary executions and all the rest - driven by fear.
More than anything, fear is dominating the 21st century. What we fear is approached by us, metaphorically, with drawn weapons and a desire to destroy it. We aren't facing our fears very often, but shooting them without looking. Maybe that sounds too abstract ? I don't know, but look at what is happening in the world today an you have to wonder. Even I, one of the staunchest supporters of the war on terror, am beginning to question just how many more muslims, and people from other religious groups, can be arrested and then released without charge, or be removed from planes for just acting suspiciously, and so on. I no longer accept that this new enemy can be blown away with just bombs and bullets.
Some people may wonder why it has taken me so long to see what they themselves have believed in for ages; I'd rather come to believe it later, having decided myself and done so from my own knowledge than following what others have said or told me.
2003 isn't necessarily going to be a bad year, or a good one, but I'll wager the fear won't go away, not yet.
America and North Korea are exchanging veiled threats, and demonising each others population, because of fear. America fears North Korea will finally develop nuclear weapons, and threaten South Korea, embroiling America and it's allies in a war nobody wants - but which could happen. North Korea fears US aggression, it's people are being told to fear a US invasion of the country, and US action against it - they too could go to, and support, war through fear.
In Iraq, fear is driving Iraq, the UN, America, and large swathes of the Middle East towards conflict unless the situation can be defused. War is bad for everyone involved, but Western fears of Saddam's weapons, and Saddams fears of losing power, and other parties fear of losing certain benefits, are driving decision making.
No doubt, at some point this year, the whole pedophile thing will blow up again in this country, and we'll see people protesting on estates and the papers screaming for blood, summary executions and all the rest - driven by fear.
More than anything, fear is dominating the 21st century. What we fear is approached by us, metaphorically, with drawn weapons and a desire to destroy it. We aren't facing our fears very often, but shooting them without looking. Maybe that sounds too abstract ? I don't know, but look at what is happening in the world today an you have to wonder. Even I, one of the staunchest supporters of the war on terror, am beginning to question just how many more muslims, and people from other religious groups, can be arrested and then released without charge, or be removed from planes for just acting suspiciously, and so on. I no longer accept that this new enemy can be blown away with just bombs and bullets.
Some people may wonder why it has taken me so long to see what they themselves have believed in for ages; I'd rather come to believe it later, having decided myself and done so from my own knowledge than following what others have said or told me.
2003 isn't necessarily going to be a bad year, or a good one, but I'll wager the fear won't go away, not yet.
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> Christ, you read that fast....or did you not read it ? I suspect the
> latter.
Actually I have read the dossier. It came out several months ago, with much accompanying fanfare.
> Come to think of it, why is it in our governments interests to produce
> false information on this wider scale ?
Why? Who knows? I have no idea why our government has appointed itself chief propaganda officer for the Bush administration. I have no idea why our leaders follow America's example, no matter how foolish and dangerous it might be. It is a mystery to me. If, as you say, 'Our economy will suffer during any war, the government will be more heavily criticised, the budget will be blown to hell, there's a danger of heavy casualties e.t.c' then perhaps you ought to be asking the government what it's up to, rather than me.
Unless, of course, it's to do with that top secret information no one has access to.
> Christ, you read that fast....or did you not read it ? I suspect the
> latter.
Actually I have read the dossier. It came out several months ago, with much accompanying fanfare.
> Come to think of it, why is it in our governments interests to produce
> false information on this wider scale ?
Why? Who knows? I have no idea why our government has appointed itself chief propaganda officer for the Bush administration. I have no idea why our leaders follow America's example, no matter how foolish and dangerous it might be. It is a mystery to me. If, as you say, 'Our economy will suffer during any war, the government will be more heavily criticised, the budget will be blown to hell, there's a danger of heavy casualties e.t.c' then perhaps you ought to be asking the government what it's up to, rather than me.
Unless, of course, it's to do with that top secret information no one has access to.
unknown kernel wrote:
> Given that our government wants a war with Iraq, I think it's only
> fair to treat this document with some suspicion. It is not the gospel
> truth you make it out to be. This is not the just the view of
> communist subversives: even papers like the Daily Telegraph, The Times
> and the FT remained unimpressed:
Christ, you read that fast....or did you not read it ? I suspect the latter.
Come to think of it, why is it in our governments interests to produce false information on this wider scale ? Sure, if America had done so then you may have a case, but we're not exactly going to be at the tip of the spear in any Iraq conflict are we ? Our economy will suffer during any war, the government will be more heavily criticised, the budget will be blown to hell, there's a danger of heavy casualties e.t.c So why ?
~~Belldandy~~
> Given that our government wants a war with Iraq, I think it's only
> fair to treat this document with some suspicion. It is not the gospel
> truth you make it out to be. This is not the just the view of
> communist subversives: even papers like the Daily Telegraph, The Times
> and the FT remained unimpressed:
Christ, you read that fast....or did you not read it ? I suspect the latter.
Come to think of it, why is it in our governments interests to produce false information on this wider scale ? Sure, if America had done so then you may have a case, but we're not exactly going to be at the tip of the spear in any Iraq conflict are we ? Our economy will suffer during any war, the government will be more heavily criticised, the budget will be blown to hell, there's a danger of heavy casualties e.t.c So why ?
~~Belldandy~~
Cyclone wrote:
> US blames Iraq for ignoring UN Resolutions = Potential attack. North
> Korea do the same. Ah, we'll leave you for a while (only a while I
> suspect).
And, for those watching this afternoon, Donald Rumsfeld addressed this exact question at the Pentagon daily briefing. Basically it came down to N.korea not attempting to hide what it is doing now and that, behind the communist propoganda that N.Korea must speak for its domestic audience, N.Korea has not dismissed diplomatic resolutions. You have to bear in mind that every time you see N.Korea leaders speaking of repelling the capitalists e.t.c that they have to satisfy anti americanism within N.Korea itself.
> Worst of all. Israel. Total disregard for resolutions and
> internaitonal consensus (well, the 'normal' persons anyway)
Fair point, but whilst the Palestinians have terrorist groups who think peace comes from suicide bombers then this will not change. No country with half a brain is going to side with the Palestinians whilst the images of suicide bombings continue to be created. When people see an Israeli tank then, by and large, it's not offensive. The Palestinians are great at claiming mass civilian casualties e.t.c but they rarely back it up with images, proof. Where as the damage of suicide bombers needs no exagerating. If the Palestinians want wider support they have to rein in the more fanatical elements - until they do Israel will get all the support it wants.
~~Belldandy~~
> US blames Iraq for ignoring UN Resolutions = Potential attack. North
> Korea do the same. Ah, we'll leave you for a while (only a while I
> suspect).
And, for those watching this afternoon, Donald Rumsfeld addressed this exact question at the Pentagon daily briefing. Basically it came down to N.korea not attempting to hide what it is doing now and that, behind the communist propoganda that N.Korea must speak for its domestic audience, N.Korea has not dismissed diplomatic resolutions. You have to bear in mind that every time you see N.Korea leaders speaking of repelling the capitalists e.t.c that they have to satisfy anti americanism within N.Korea itself.
> Worst of all. Israel. Total disregard for resolutions and
> internaitonal consensus (well, the 'normal' persons anyway)
Fair point, but whilst the Palestinians have terrorist groups who think peace comes from suicide bombers then this will not change. No country with half a brain is going to side with the Palestinians whilst the images of suicide bombings continue to be created. When people see an Israeli tank then, by and large, it's not offensive. The Palestinians are great at claiming mass civilian casualties e.t.c but they rarely back it up with images, proof. Where as the damage of suicide bombers needs no exagerating. If the Palestinians want wider support they have to rein in the more fanatical elements - until they do Israel will get all the support it wants.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> unknown kernel wrote:
> Again, I'm confused. Where are you getting this information from?
> I
> don't know if Iraq has chemical or biological weapons. But neither
> do
> you because, deep breath, you are not a weapons inspector.
>
> Wrong actually - document released on September 23rd on the Home
> Office website detailed evidence of chem/bio weapons in Iraq's
> possession.
Given that our government wants a war with Iraq, I think it's only fair to treat this document with some suspicion. It is not the gospel truth you make it out to be. This is not the just the view of communist subversives: even papers like the Daily Telegraph, The Times and the FT remained unimpressed:
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/756.cfm
International reaction was pretty underwhelming too. Had this dossier provided convincing evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction then we could have dispensed with the weapons inspectors entirely. As it is, most countries (with two obvious exceptions) were unconvinced: hence all this bothersome diplomacy, and the amusing sight of warmongers desperately citing top secret, invisible evidence that no one has access to.
> unknown kernel wrote:
> Again, I'm confused. Where are you getting this information from?
> I
> don't know if Iraq has chemical or biological weapons. But neither
> do
> you because, deep breath, you are not a weapons inspector.
>
> Wrong actually - document released on September 23rd on the Home
> Office website detailed evidence of chem/bio weapons in Iraq's
> possession.
Given that our government wants a war with Iraq, I think it's only fair to treat this document with some suspicion. It is not the gospel truth you make it out to be. This is not the just the view of communist subversives: even papers like the Daily Telegraph, The Times and the FT remained unimpressed:
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/756.cfm
International reaction was pretty underwhelming too. Had this dossier provided convincing evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction then we could have dispensed with the weapons inspectors entirely. As it is, most countries (with two obvious exceptions) were unconvinced: hence all this bothersome diplomacy, and the amusing sight of warmongers desperately citing top secret, invisible evidence that no one has access to.
Indeed. I agree there.
Another thing, not sure if its off topic or not, but here goes.
US blames Iraq for ignoring UN Resolutions = Potential attack. North Korea do the same. Ah, we'll leave you for a while (only a while I suspect).
Worst of all. Israel. Total disregard for resolutions and internaitonal consensus (well, the 'normal' persons anyway)
Ah well. Thats okay.
Another thing, not sure if its off topic or not, but here goes.
US blames Iraq for ignoring UN Resolutions = Potential attack. North Korea do the same. Ah, we'll leave you for a while (only a while I suspect).
Worst of all. Israel. Total disregard for resolutions and internaitonal consensus (well, the 'normal' persons anyway)
Ah well. Thats okay.
Blank wrote:
> Maybe they weren't around because there was no imminent war, not
> becasue of little press. Maybe they were around, and because there was
> no press we didn't hear of them.
As we've seen, the press relishes any kind of protest so it wasn't a case of not getting coverage - and the groups have their own press/media as well. Imminent war ? Ever since the "peace" in 1991, and specifically since the no-fly zones were established, coalition forces have been in operations - which no one managed to cover in this country unless they missed a target, strangely.
~~Belldandy~~
> Maybe they weren't around because there was no imminent war, not
> becasue of little press. Maybe they were around, and because there was
> no press we didn't hear of them.
As we've seen, the press relishes any kind of protest so it wasn't a case of not getting coverage - and the groups have their own press/media as well. Imminent war ? Ever since the "peace" in 1991, and specifically since the no-fly zones were established, coalition forces have been in operations - which no one managed to cover in this country unless they missed a target, strangely.
~~Belldandy~~
unknown kernel wrote:
> Again, I'm confused. Where are you getting this information from? I
> don't know if Iraq has chemical or biological weapons. But neither do
> you because, deep breath, you are not a weapons inspector.
Wrong actually - document released on September 23rd on the Home Office website detailed evidence of chem/bio weapons in Iraq's possession.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared /spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/ html/full_dossier.stm
See ? Just remove the spaces, download the PDF and have a read. Or argue that the whole thing is made up.
Theres a hell of a lot of information backing hte case for action but you have to read it first !
~~Belldandy~~
> Again, I'm confused. Where are you getting this information from? I
> don't know if Iraq has chemical or biological weapons. But neither do
> you because, deep breath, you are not a weapons inspector.
Wrong actually - document released on September 23rd on the Home Office website detailed evidence of chem/bio weapons in Iraq's possession.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared /spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/ html/full_dossier.stm
See ? Just remove the spaces, download the PDF and have a read. Or argue that the whole thing is made up.
Theres a hell of a lot of information backing hte case for action but you have to read it first !
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> Where were
> the anti war campaign the past 11 years ? Strangely absent until
> there's good PR and press coverage to be had.
Maybe they weren't around because there was no imminent war, not becasue of little press. Maybe they were around, and because there was no press we didn't hear of them.
By the way, I know what is meant by a pre-emptive strike - all I was talking about is that you said it is an attack without warning, I was wondering what you meant by warning.
> Where were
> the anti war campaign the past 11 years ? Strangely absent until
> there's good PR and press coverage to be had.
Maybe they weren't around because there was no imminent war, not becasue of little press. Maybe they were around, and because there was no press we didn't hear of them.
By the way, I know what is meant by a pre-emptive strike - all I was talking about is that you said it is an attack without warning, I was wondering what you meant by warning.
Dr Duck wrote:
> On that note, do you think war would be justified in the name of
> prevention of Saddam generally causing unpleasentness to Iraqi
> citizens?
> (Assuming that were the only motivation).
It's a tough question, but in my personal opinion: no. I certainly think that Iraq would be a nicer place without Saddam Hussein, but I don't think it justifies war.
We know that getting rid of such a brutal dictator is going to require sacrifice. The problem is: who makes that sacrifice? If we go to war then 'our' casualties are going to be miniscule in comparison to those on the Iraqi side. Thousands of civilians are going to die; however well intentioned the attacks, we know this will happen. On top of that, thousands of conscripts are going to be killed. If this humanitarian war succeeded then Iraqis would live free of fear and torture, and democratically elect their leaders - at a cost of X amount of innocent lives. My problem with this is that not one of those dead people decided to sacrifice themselves - *we* made the choice that their lives were a price worth paying.
Personally I think that change should come from within. I don't think that an internal revolution would be bloodless - but Iraqis at least get to make a choice, instead of having one imposed upon them.
> On that note, do you think war would be justified in the name of
> prevention of Saddam generally causing unpleasentness to Iraqi
> citizens?
> (Assuming that were the only motivation).
It's a tough question, but in my personal opinion: no. I certainly think that Iraq would be a nicer place without Saddam Hussein, but I don't think it justifies war.
We know that getting rid of such a brutal dictator is going to require sacrifice. The problem is: who makes that sacrifice? If we go to war then 'our' casualties are going to be miniscule in comparison to those on the Iraqi side. Thousands of civilians are going to die; however well intentioned the attacks, we know this will happen. On top of that, thousands of conscripts are going to be killed. If this humanitarian war succeeded then Iraqis would live free of fear and torture, and democratically elect their leaders - at a cost of X amount of innocent lives. My problem with this is that not one of those dead people decided to sacrifice themselves - *we* made the choice that their lives were a price worth paying.
Personally I think that change should come from within. I don't think that an internal revolution would be bloodless - but Iraqis at least get to make a choice, instead of having one imposed upon them.
unknown kernel wrote:
> A more interesting question is, where were
> the anti-war movement 15-20 years ago? The answer is protesting about
> Saddam gassing his own people in Halabja.
On that note, do you think war would be justified in the name of prevention of Saddam generally causing unpleasentness to Iraqi citizens?
(Assuming that were the only motivation).
> A more interesting question is, where were
> the anti-war movement 15-20 years ago? The answer is protesting about
> Saddam gassing his own people in Halabja.
On that note, do you think war would be justified in the name of prevention of Saddam generally causing unpleasentness to Iraqi citizens?
(Assuming that were the only motivation).
Page: