The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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'd like your opinion to say if America should take millitary action or not.
Personally i'm against it because if they strike bin saledem they could strike back and after a while britain would get involved and then shorthly afterwards other countrys will get involved and if that happens it could start world war three and then if that happens were all as good as dead.
Please let me know your vote.
Personally i'm against it because if they strike bin saledem they could strike back and after a while britain would get involved and then shorthly afterwards other countrys will get involved and if that happens it could start world war three and then if that happens were all as good as dead.
Please let me know your vote.
Page:
There have been talks in America over the last 24 hours of waging ‘war’ on the terrorists that carried out the horrifying attacks. What was meant by ‘war’ was not clear, but even George Bush is now saying things like ‘we will win this war’ so they have some idea that this is bigger than a simple act of terrorism.
There are connotations with the word ‘war’ that should not be ignored, and I will attempt to describe what I believe the word could mean in this situation:
War could mean a lot of things, including a full scale strike on a country. The US would never use a large nuclear arsenal unless the situation really got out of hand for them, so there is no question of any nuclear war, but they have enough missiles and artillery to seriously destroy a small country or do a lot of damage to a larger one. Now the problem with this is that a lot of innocent people would be injured or killed in the process. Sounds familiar? Well, it would be the US repeating what has just been afflicted upon them, and if they stopped to consider how the past few days have affected all of the innocent people in their country, then they would not take this form of action. Surely there have been enough innocent lives lost and enough heartbreak and bloodshed? This, in my opinion, would be the worst option for the US to take and one that would make little sense other than for America to feel like they are dealing with the situation, which, of course, they wouldn’t be. In the past, America as a country has had a reputation for being a warloving race. Although many Americans are peaceful, there are also many that love war and would sign up to the army the instant that war was announced. This is a path that should be avoided, and the American people need only to look at their own past to see what war brings, death on both sides, destruction of property and of lives and many other undesirable effects.
War, of course, can be waged on a more personal scale, and a ‘war’ against terrorists is perhaps nearer to what these people in power over America are talking about. This would mean that the US would have to find the people responsible (which they are currently doing) and then punishing them through a court system, resulting in a sentence of life or, more likely, a death sentence. Again, this raises many ethical issues. Yes, people are angry, but does killing someone really make amends for them killing lots of other people? Especially as you are not the one pulling the trigger. Think about it this way, if you sentence a person to death for killing someone, then surely you should sentence the person who killed them to death under the same law? Eventually there would be no-one left to pull the switch or make that injection. Besides, killing the leader of any radical group only results in making them a martyr and making their followers try even harder to justify their death. It would be far better to make them an example and humiliate them in front of both America and their own followers. Even better would be to get them to issue an apology. It may never happen, but what an amazing affect it would have!
So, the people in charge of these decisions need to think and act carefully. If they act irrationally, or based only on their current feelings towards the terrorists responsible for such an evil act, then they may plunge their country, and the world in to further darkness, forcing more innocent lives to be lost and causing more heartbreak. They must act, yes, but not with haste, nor without thought, only with calm and careful judgement while the rest of the world watches and learns from America’s actions.
There are connotations with the word ‘war’ that should not be ignored, and I will attempt to describe what I believe the word could mean in this situation:
War could mean a lot of things, including a full scale strike on a country. The US would never use a large nuclear arsenal unless the situation really got out of hand for them, so there is no question of any nuclear war, but they have enough missiles and artillery to seriously destroy a small country or do a lot of damage to a larger one. Now the problem with this is that a lot of innocent people would be injured or killed in the process. Sounds familiar? Well, it would be the US repeating what has just been afflicted upon them, and if they stopped to consider how the past few days have affected all of the innocent people in their country, then they would not take this form of action. Surely there have been enough innocent lives lost and enough heartbreak and bloodshed? This, in my opinion, would be the worst option for the US to take and one that would make little sense other than for America to feel like they are dealing with the situation, which, of course, they wouldn’t be. In the past, America as a country has had a reputation for being a warloving race. Although many Americans are peaceful, there are also many that love war and would sign up to the army the instant that war was announced. This is a path that should be avoided, and the American people need only to look at their own past to see what war brings, death on both sides, destruction of property and of lives and many other undesirable effects.
War, of course, can be waged on a more personal scale, and a ‘war’ against terrorists is perhaps nearer to what these people in power over America are talking about. This would mean that the US would have to find the people responsible (which they are currently doing) and then punishing them through a court system, resulting in a sentence of life or, more likely, a death sentence. Again, this raises many ethical issues. Yes, people are angry, but does killing someone really make amends for them killing lots of other people? Especially as you are not the one pulling the trigger. Think about it this way, if you sentence a person to death for killing someone, then surely you should sentence the person who killed them to death under the same law? Eventually there would be no-one left to pull the switch or make that injection. Besides, killing the leader of any radical group only results in making them a martyr and making their followers try even harder to justify their death. It would be far better to make them an example and humiliate them in front of both America and their own followers. Even better would be to get them to issue an apology. It may never happen, but what an amazing affect it would have!
So, the people in charge of these decisions need to think and act carefully. If they act irrationally, or based only on their current feelings towards the terrorists responsible for such an evil act, then they may plunge their country, and the world in to further darkness, forcing more innocent lives to be lost and causing more heartbreak. They must act, yes, but not with haste, nor without thought, only with calm and careful judgement while the rest of the world watches and learns from America’s actions.
pb wrote:
> No. I've made my point elsewhere, unless anyone's too lazy to find
> it and wants to hear it again...
Please, anyway, i think they should use some force to retaliate, as if they dont they will be thought of as a soft touch and probally be faced with more attacks.
> No. I've made my point elsewhere, unless anyone's too lazy to find
> it and wants to hear it again...
Please, anyway, i think they should use some force to retaliate, as if they dont they will be thought of as a soft touch and probally be faced with more attacks.
what post did you post your opinion in?
No. I've made my point elsewhere, unless anyone's too lazy to find it and wants to hear it again...
We should take military action against international terrorism. If we do not take action they will strike again anyway, and they will feel like they can get away with it. Whether or not they retaliate is irrelevent, we must do whatever we can disable their support networks and diminish the threat of terrorist attacks against humanity.
It is a difficult situation - I cant see America not retalliaing!! - If they dont then the same thing could so easily happen again. If they do however it could start something like a World War!!
they just have to retaliate , if they dont they will look like wimps , i know it's sad , but thats the yanks for ya ! when your the most powerfull nation in the world then things like this will not be left alone , the people who did this are mos likely as good as dead , as that is the only way that the americans will get satisfaction !!! then they will have to target all terrorists out there , they will have to scare the life out of them by doing something really bad to the extremeists behind this !
Its a very tricky one to call. My opinion is that America will take action against those responsible. If they don't we may see more terrorist action taken against the world. Many may be worse than what happened on Tuesday, may even happen to other countries including Britain. Thats why I think action has to be taken against the terrorist groups.
I'd like your opinion to say if America should take millitary action or not.
Personally i'm against it because if they strike bin saledem they could strike back and after a while britain would get involved and then shorthly afterwards other countrys will get involved and if that happens it could start world war three and then if that happens were all as good as dead.
Please let me know your vote.
Personally i'm against it because if they strike bin saledem they could strike back and after a while britain would get involved and then shorthly afterwards other countrys will get involved and if that happens it could start world war three and then if that happens were all as good as dead.
Please let me know your vote.
Page: